6.1 Reconciling Ocean Uses Through Marine
Spatial Planning
The last decades have witnessed an unprecedented race between different sectors
for access to the sea. With interests such as offshore renewable energy, sand and
gravel extraction, national security, fishing, and nature conservation all pushing for
more space, exclusive uses of marine areas are being replaced by a search for more
integrated solutions (Halpern et al. 2008b; Katsanevakis et al. 2011). Marine Spatial
Planning (MSP) has been widely advocated as one such place-based, integrated tool
for managing human activities in the marine environment (Douvere 2008; Douvere
and Ehler 2010; Collie et al. 2013).
A key challenge for MSP is to make spatial choices that strike a balance between
multiple ecological, economic and social objectives, typically identified through a
political process (Katsanevakis et al. 2011; Jay et al. 2012; Carneiro 2013; Foley
et al. 2013). Regardless of the governance framework present, or specific process
selected, sustainable spatial planning should account for the cumulative effects of
all human activities on the marine environment at meaningful ecological scales
(Halpern et al. 2008a; Stelzenmüller et al. 2010). Tradeoff analyses using, for
instance, explicit weighting criteria can improve transparency in decision-making
and should form a crucial part of any MSP process (White et al. 2012;
Stelzenmüller et al. 2014). These analyses should focus not only on economic and
ecological values, but also on social and cultural values associated with coastal
communities and the sea, many of which are extremely difficult to measure (Gee
and Burkhard 2010).
A recent EU Directive (EPC 2014a); (Article 3) describes MSP as a cross-cutting
policy tool, enabling public authorities and stakeholders to apply a coordinated,
integrated, and trans-boundary approach “to promote sustainable development and
to identify the utilization of maritime space for different sea uses as well as to
manage spatial uses and conflicts in marine areas.” The Directive specifically
encourages nations to explore multi-purpose uses in accordance with relevant
national policies and legislation, and encourages Member States to cooperate in the
sustainable development of offshore energy, maritime transport, fisheries, and
aquaculture. Nevertheless, existing MSP initiatives show that spatial planning
remains open to very diverse interpretations.
Although they do consider multiple maritime uses, early marine spatial plans
within the EU, such as the German plan for the EEZ, were often driven by specific
sectoral needs (Halpern et al. 2012; Collie et al. 2013; Olsen et al. 2014), often
reflecting changing political priorities, shifting prioritization among sectors, or
technological advances. This has been particularly apparent with regard to the
desired expansion of offshore renewable energy (Gimpel et al. 2013; Christie et al.
2014; Davies et al. 2014). Different ideas about how to implement MSP have also
emerged. Some marine spatial plans (e.g. in the UK) favor a broad, strategic
approach that sets out general guidelines for the use of sea areas, while others
(e.g. in Germany) are based on more detailed zoning, creating areas that favor a
132
V. Stelzenmüller et al.
Spatial Planning
The last decades have witnessed an unprecedented race between different sectors
for access to the sea. With interests such as offshore renewable energy, sand and
gravel extraction, national security, fishing, and nature conservation all pushing for
more space, exclusive uses of marine areas are being replaced by a search for more
integrated solutions (Halpern et al. 2008b; Katsanevakis et al. 2011). Marine Spatial
Planning (MSP) has been widely advocated as one such place-based, integrated tool
for managing human activities in the marine environment (Douvere 2008; Douvere
and Ehler 2010; Collie et al. 2013).
A key challenge for MSP is to make spatial choices that strike a balance between
multiple ecological, economic and social objectives, typically identified through a
political process (Katsanevakis et al. 2011; Jay et al. 2012; Carneiro 2013; Foley
et al. 2013). Regardless of the governance framework present, or specific process
selected, sustainable spatial planning should account for the cumulative effects of
all human activities on the marine environment at meaningful ecological scales
(Halpern et al. 2008a; Stelzenmüller et al. 2010). Tradeoff analyses using, for
instance, explicit weighting criteria can improve transparency in decision-making
and should form a crucial part of any MSP process (White et al. 2012;
Stelzenmüller et al. 2014). These analyses should focus not only on economic and
ecological values, but also on social and cultural values associated with coastal
communities and the sea, many of which are extremely difficult to measure (Gee
and Burkhard 2010).
A recent EU Directive (EPC 2014a); (Article 3) describes MSP as a cross-cutting
policy tool, enabling public authorities and stakeholders to apply a coordinated,
integrated, and trans-boundary approach “to promote sustainable development and
to identify the utilization of maritime space for different sea uses as well as to
manage spatial uses and conflicts in marine areas.” The Directive specifically
encourages nations to explore multi-purpose uses in accordance with relevant
national policies and legislation, and encourages Member States to cooperate in the
sustainable development of offshore energy, maritime transport, fisheries, and
aquaculture. Nevertheless, existing MSP initiatives show that spatial planning
remains open to very diverse interpretations.
Although they do consider multiple maritime uses, early marine spatial plans
within the EU, such as the German plan for the EEZ, were often driven by specific
sectoral needs (Halpern et al. 2012; Collie et al. 2013; Olsen et al. 2014), often
reflecting changing political priorities, shifting prioritization among sectors, or
technological advances. This has been particularly apparent with regard to the
desired expansion of offshore renewable energy (Gimpel et al. 2013; Christie et al.
2014; Davies et al. 2014). Different ideas about how to implement MSP have also
emerged. Some marine spatial plans (e.g. in the UK) favor a broad, strategic
approach that sets out general guidelines for the use of sea areas, while others
(e.g. in Germany) are based on more detailed zoning, creating areas that favor a
132
V. Stelzenmüller et al.