Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning · • Legal aspects of marine environmental data –...
24
S O C I O - E C O N O M I C S T U D I E S I N T H E F I E L D O F T H E I N T E G R A T E D M A R I T I M E P O L I C Y F O R T H E E U R O P E A N U N I O N Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning Summary report European Commission
Transcript of Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning · • Legal aspects of marine environmental data –...
SOCI
O-E
CO
NO
MIC
STU
DIE
S I
N T
HE
F IELD O
F THE INTEGRATED MARITIME POLICY FOR THE EUROPEA
N U
NIO
N
Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning Summary report
European Commission
“Socio-economic studies in the fi eld of the Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union”
• The role of Maritime Clusters to enhance the strength and development in European maritime sectors – Executive summary
• Legal aspects of maritime monitoring & surveillance data – Summary report• Legal aspects of marine environmental data – Summary report• Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning – Summary report• The economics of climate change adaptation in EU coastals areas – Summary report
To be published:
• Study on tourist facilities in port• Legal aspects of shipping in Arctic• EU role in international organisations
Manuscript completed in October 2008.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2009
ISBN 978-92-79-12064-0
© European Communities, 2009
The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the European Communities. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors.Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
© Cover pictures: iStock / Stephen Collins (DEFRA) / MAES F., SCHRIJVERS J. & VANHULLE A., (ed.)(2005), A Flood of Space. Towards a Spatial Structure Plan for the Sustainable Management of the North Sea, Brussels, Belgian Science Policy, p. 104.
Printed in Belgium
PRINTED ON WHITE CHLORINE-FREE PAPER
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers
or these calls may be billed.
Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning
Summary report
European Commission
Directorate-General for Maritime Aff airs and Fisheries
Study done on behalf of the European CommissionDirectorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
MARE.E.1 “Maritime Policy: Baltic Sea, North Sea
and Landlocked Member States”
European Commission
B-1049 Brussels
Tel: +32 2 299 11 11
e-mail: [email protected]
Executed by Marine Resources Assessment Group Ltd. 18, Queen Street
London W1J 5PN
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7255 7755
Fax: +44 (0)20 7499 5388
website: http://www.mrag.co.uk
1 Introduction......................................................................................................................1
2 Legal constraints on MSP imposed by international law and EC law........................2
2.1 International law: the Law of the Sea ........................................................................2
2.2 European Community Law........................................................................................3
2.3 Constraints on specific activities and uses.................................................................3
2.3.1 Navigation..........................................................................................................3
2.3.2 Fisheries .............................................................................................................4
2.3.3 Marine protected areas (MPAs) .........................................................................5
2.3.4 Laying of pipelines and cables...........................................................................6
2.3.5 Exploitation of non-living natural marine resources including oil and gas .......6
2.3.6 Extraction of sand and gravel ............................................................................6
2.3.7 Dumping ............................................................................................................6
2.3.8 Power generation ...............................................................................................7
2.3.9 Mariculture.........................................................................................................7
2.3.10 Military activities ...............................................................................................7
2.3.11 Carbon capture storage (CCS) ...........................................................................7
2.3.12 Marine scientific research ..................................................................................7
2.3.13 Wrecks and other historic features.....................................................................8
2.3.14 Recreation and tourism ......................................................................................8
2.3.15 Places of refuge..................................................................................................8
2.4 Horizontal, procedural and other constraints .............................................................8
2.4.1 International agreements....................................................................................8
2.4.2 EC legislation.....................................................................................................8
2.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................................9
3 Measuring progress towards MSP ...............................................................................10
4 MSP in specific Member States ....................................................................................11
4.1 France.......................................................................................................................11
4.2 Germany...................................................................................................................11
4.3 Greece ......................................................................................................................12
4.4 Poland ......................................................................................................................12
4.5 United Kingdom.......................................................................................................12
5 Relationship between MSP and governance................................................................13
6 Conclusions.....................................................................................................................14
1
1. Introduction Increased activity within Europe’s marine waters has led inevitably to growing competition for finite maritime space. Competing claims from a range of activities, including fisheries, navigation, oil and gas extraction, and wind and wave energy generation are accompanied by increased pressure on vital marine ecosystems and habitats. These various activities are regulated on a sectoral basis by different agencies on the basis of separate laws. Without the means to coordinate a common approach to the allocation of maritime space among different sectors the problems of overlap and conflict between sectors and individual stakeholders is evident. There are also cross-border issues as developments in the maritime area of one country may well have impacts for another. The relatively new notion of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) has emerged as a means of resolving inter-sectoral and cross-border conflicts over maritime space. The background to this Study is the ongoing development of the European Union (EU) Maritime Policy. The year-long public consultation exercise for the Maritime Policy revealed broad stakeholder support for the development of MSP in European Waters. At the outset it is important to note that views vary greatly as to the concept of MSP, its scope, links to existing approaches (e.g. integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive) and indeed even as to the term to be used for MSP. While there certainly are some similarities with land use planning (both make use of plans to reconcile competing claims for space), there are also significant differences including: (a) the dimensional aspect as MSP must address activities on the seabed, in the water column and on the surface; (b) the mobile nature of many maritime activities (such as fishing and navigation) which use space but not permanent structures; and (c) the fact that land use planning takes place against a common background of private land tenure rights which do not have a maritime equivalent. Instead maritime activities are regulated through a range of sectoral laws, plans and licences/permits. The objectives of this Study are:
- to examine the constraints imposed on MSP by international and European Community (EC) law relating to a range of specific activities;
- to propose a set of indicators to assist in measuring progress towards MSP;
- to describe practices for planning and licensing of marine activities in a sample of coastal Member States; and
- to assess the relationship between the type of constitutional governance structure of a country and its ability to develop effective MSP.
Finally, some preliminary conclusions are developed.
2
2. Legal constraints on MSP imposed by international law and EC law
2.1 International law: the Law of the Sea
International law is the body of law that regulates the rights and duties of States and other actors, such as international organisations, recognised by international law. The Law of the Sea is the branch of international law that is concerned with the sea and maritime affairs. The sources of the Law of the Sea include customary international law as well as a range of conventions, treaties and agreements, the most important of which is the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOSC). The elements of LOSC that are most relevant to this Study are generally held to be declaratory of customary international law. The scope of LOSC is extremely broad. It seeks to reconcile a range of competing interests including the rights of coastal States, land-locked States and flag States. Part of this balance is achieved through the division of the sea into maritime zones. Although LOSC does not contain any specific provisions on MSP, the ability of coastal States to engage in MSP takes place in the context of these different zones. Internal waters are waters landward of the baseline of the territorial sea (described in the next paragraph) and can include bays, estuaries and ports. A coastal State has full sovereignty over its internal waters and can, in most circumstances, restrict entry into them. Consequently a coastal State enjoys the widest possible freedom to undertake MSP within its internal waters.
Figure 1 Maritime zones1 Every coastal State has the right to a territorial sea up to a limit of 12 nautical miles (nm) from a ‘baseline’ (normally the low water line). A coastal State has sovereignty over its territorial sea, subject to the right of ‘innocent passage’ by foreign vessels and special rules for certain international straits. The effect is that navigation is the main constraint on MSP in the territorial sea. Beyond the territorial sea a coastal State may claim an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that can extend up to 200 nm from the baseline for the territorial sea. Within its EEZ a coastal State has sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing living and non-living natural resources (e.g. fish and hydrocarbons) and other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone (such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds) as
1 Based on the diagram contained in Churchill, R.R. & Lowe, A.V. The Law of the Sea, 3rd ed, Manchester,
1999 at page 25.
3
well as jurisdiction with regard to artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research and the protection of the environment. The competence of a coastal State to undertake MSP in its EEZ is therefore restricted to these issues and may not derogate from the rights enjoyed by other States in such waters including the freedom of navigation and the right to lay submarine cables. Within the Mediterranean Sea, the Member States have not claimed EEZs, although several Member States have established different types of zones for varying purposes. A Member State may undertake MSP within any such zone in connection with the purpose(s) for which the zone was created (which in any event may not go beyond the purposes for which an EEZ can be established). A coastal State has a continental shelf comprising the soil and sub-soil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea to the outer end of the continental shelf or up to 200 nm from the baseline if the continental shelf does not extend that far. In other words some States may be entitled to an outer continental shelf that extends beyond 200 nm. A coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring its continental shelf and exploiting its natural resources (such as the harvesting of sedentary fish species, drilling, tunnelling etc. As with the EEZ, something less than full sovereignty is conferred and it follows that the right of a coastal State to undertake MSP in respect of its continental shelf is restricted to activities that relate to the exercise of its sovereign rights. Finally, no state may claim sovereignty over the high seas, the international commons beyond the EEZ, and consequently no coastal State has the requisite legal capacity to give unilateral effect to MSP in the high seas: the most that any State acting alone can do is to regulate the activities on the high seas of its nationals and vessels that fly its flag. The legal regime created by LOSC is supplemented by a number of non-binding instruments such as codes of conduct as well as a range of international agreements of both global and regional application.
2.2 European Community Law
The EC is party to LOSC (as are all of the Member States) and must respect and give effect to its provisions. Furthermore case law of the European Court of Justice has confirmed that EC law applies throughout Member State EEZs in European waters. While EC law does not directly address MSP, as will be seen it is nevertheless relevant to this topic primarily as regards fisheries and environmental protection within the EEZs of the Member States and on the high seas as regards the conduct of Member State nationals and ships flying their flags.
2.3 Constraints on specific activities and uses
2.3.1 Navigation
As regards the safety of navigation, LOSC does not set out binding rules but rather identifies where authority to make such rules lies. Although not named as such, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), an agency of the United Nations, is recognised to be this body. The IMO Assembly in 1997 delegated the Maritime Safety Committee to act on the IMO’s behalf in these matters. The 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) forms the legal basis of ship routeing measures in the EEZ and on the high seas, including a minority that have mandatory, as opposed to the more common, recommendatory character. More than 120 traffic separation schemes have been adopted to date within European waters. Moreover, in the EEZ the freedom of navigation can only be derogated from by the coastal State as a result of the exercise of the sovereign rights to exploit the resources of the EEZ or of the exercise of its jurisdiction, such as the creation of artificial islands, installations and structures and of safety zones around offshore installations. Those installations and safety zones may not however be established where they could interfere with recognized sea lanes essential to international navigation.
4
It should be noted that in the context of rules on the control of pollution of the marine environment, coastal States are entitled to take measures restricting navigation but are not entitled to legislate unilaterally on navigation even if this is necessary for the protection of sensitive marine areas. By contrast, in its territorial sea (other than in straits used for international navigation) a coastal State itself can impose the use of specified sea lanes and traffic separation schemes. When establishing such measures the coastal State is obliged to take into account the recommendations of the IMO, customary practices and the nature and density of the traffic. The EC has adopted a number of directives in order to transpose international agreements on security of shipping traffic or taken steps of its own to enhance safety of ships. However these instruments have no direct bearing on MSP, with the exception of the Vessel Traffic Management Directive 2002/59/EC (the ‘VTM Directive’) which inter alia requires Member States to draw up plans whereby ships in distress may, if the situation so requires, be given refuge in their ports or any other sheltered area in the best conditions possible.
2.3.2 Fisheries
The basic regime for fisheries under international law is set out in LOSC which expressly recognises the sovereignty of the coastal State over living marine resources in its territorial waters and sovereign rights over such resources in the EEZ. Within such waters a coastal State can regulate access largely, though not entirely, as it sees fit. While LOSC recognises the freedom of fishing enjoyed by all States on the high seas it also requires them to cooperate to ensure the conservation and management of high seas living marine resources. To this end, a number of agreements have been concluded to establish regional fisheries management organisations to jointly manage such stocks, although management measures taken by such bodies are only directly binding on vessels that fly the flags of States that are party to those agreements. The EU and Member States are party to a number of such agreements. This basic regime has been supplemented by the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement that is concerned with the management of straddling stocks (those which occur in both the EEZ and the adjacent high seas) and highly migratory species. At EC level, the management of fisheries resources is governed by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which applies to community waters – essentially the EEZ and territorial seas in Europe - and community fishing vessels: vessels which fly the flag of a Member State. The legal regime for the CFP is contained in a large number of regulations. Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 establishes a legal basis for the adoption of measures concerning the conservation and management of fisheries resources and the limitation of environmental impacts. It also endorses the ecosystem approach. The net effect is that with the exception of the territorial sea – where Member States may take non-discriminatory measure for conservation and management including the zoning of no-take zones – there is little scope for MSP in terms of commercial fishing.
5
2.3.3 Marine protected areas (MPAs)
While LOSC does not require the establishment of MPAs it is the source of the authority of States to create and enforce them. LOSC imposes a number of general obligations on States to protect the marine environment in sea areas under their jurisdiction as well as, in principle, the high seas, including measures to protect ecosystems and habitats. The option of declaring specific areas in which certain activities may be prohibited or restricted is posited, subject to the restriction against unjustifiable interference with the activities of other States in the exercise of rights and duties conferred by LOSC. The fact that no State may claim sovereignty over high seas by definition precludes the unilateral declaration by a State (or group of States) of an enforceable MPA in the high seas. Nevertheless informed opinion now takes issue with the former assumption that high seas MPAs are impossible per se as it is open to States: (a) to agree among themselves to establish high seas MPAs (even though enforcement against (the vessels of) third States cannot be undertaken); (b) to adopt measures in the form of recommendations; or (c) to act through the IMO to declare an area of the high seas to be a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA). Furthermore, absent obligations to the contrary, States may enforce high seas MPAs by making access to their own ports conditional on compliance with applicable MPA rules, although this approach may provoke controversy among those with a freedom of navigation mindset. Two instruments adopted under the auspices of IMO are of particular relevance. The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) defines certain special areas in which mandatory methods for pollution control are required and MARPOL also provides the legal basis for the declaration of PSSAs. Under the Regional Seas Programme of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Regions of the Mediterranean (the ‘Barcelona Convention’) is of relevance to this Study. The 1995 Protocol to the Barcelona Convention Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean recommends the establishment of MPAs in the Mediterranean. Other relevant regional agreements include the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (the ‘Helsinki Convention’). Both conventions are strong drivers for the establishment of MPAs. A major constraint as regards the high seas persists due to the incomplete international legal framework. For a long time the consensus has been that there was neither a mandate at the appropriate level i.e. in the context of LOSC nor a process for the designation of integrated MPAs, for the purpose of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity. However, efforts in particular in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will have to be closely watched. Two EC directives contain legal tools that could be used for the establishment of MPAs. These are Council Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) (the ‘Birds Directive’) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (the ‘Habitats Directive’). These directives also apply in the EEZ and each Member State is required to establish a national list of sites in proportion to the representation within its territory of the natural habitat types and the habitats of species listed in the Directives. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (the ‘Marine Strategy Framework Directive’) reinforces this requirement as Member States will be required to draw up national action plans with marine protected areas being an essential part of it. However with respect to the EEZ there appears to be scope for minimizing competition or overlap between existing legal regimes on nature protection (competence of Member States) on the one hand and fisheries (competence of the EC) on the other in order to provide for the designation of integrated MPAs.
6
2.3.4 Laying of pipelines and cables
While Article 58 of LOSC expressly recognises the freedom of all States to lay submarine cables and pipelines within the EEZ, Article 79(3) provides that the delineation of the course of such pipelines on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State. In other words the coastal State has limited spatial planning powers over the laying of pipelines and cables – in contrast to the full range of planning powers over such activities within the territorial sea.
2.3.5 Exploitation of non-living natural marine resources including oil and gas
Deriving from their sovereignty over their territorial seas and the sovereign rights that they hold over their EEZ and continental shelf, coastal States face few if any constraints over the spatial planning of oil and gas extraction and the exploitation of other non-living natural resources. Such rights are recognised in the Hydrocarbons Directive 94/22/EC which seeks to ensure that access to such resources, through licensing, are non-discriminatory. The directive also specifies that if geographical areas for prospecting, exploration and production of hydrocarbons are not delimited on the basis of a prior geometric division of territory, they should be determined on the basis of technical and economic criteria. HELCOM Recommendation 18(2) on offshore activities dealing with installations relating to the exploration and exploitation of the seabed and its subsoil calls for the exclusion of such activities within the Baltic Sea Protected Areas and for them to be subject to prior environmental impact assessment (EIA). Similarly the Offshore Protocol of the Barcelona Convention requires the establishment of a licensing regime for such activities in the Mediterranean Sea.
2.3.6 Extraction of sand and gravel
The basic regime under LOSC regarding non-living natural resources also applies to sand and gravel extraction. The only relevant regional instrument is HELCOM Recommendation 19/1 on Marine Sediment Extraction in the Baltic Sea Area which sets out a number of guidelines.
2.3.7 Dumping
LOSC imposes general duties on States to adopt legislation and take such other measures as may be necessary to prevent, reduce and control pollution as a result of marine dumping and to ensure that any such dumping is authorised. It also foresees that dumping may not be carried out within the territorial sea and EEZ without the permission of the coastal State. It also grants coastal States the right to enforce generally accepted international rules and standards against foreign vessels. In terms of regional agreements, OSPAR imposes a general obligation on the Parties to take all possible steps to prevent and reduce pollution as a result of dumping at sea and prohibits the dumping of wastes other than those listed in an Annex. Furthermore, the dumping of certain wastes or matter is subject to authorisation or regulation. The Helsinki Convention permits the dumping of dredged material at sea on the basis of an appropriate authorisation although certain specific guidelines must be followed if the material contains specified harmful substances. At the international level, the original 1972 London Convention prohibited the dumping of certain types of waste (in category I), required a special permit for the dumping of wastes listed in category II, and a general permit for wastes listed in category III. The 1996 Protocol was agreed to further the London Convention and eventually replace it. A number of Member States are party to the protocol which prohibits all waste incineration at sea, waste storage on the seabed and the dumping of all other waste apart from waste types contained in a ‘reverse list’ of substances that may be dumped at sea. At the EC level, the principal instrument is the Waste Framework Directive 75/442/EEC (as amended) which also applies to the disposal of wastes to the ocean or seas including seabed insertion.
7
2.3.8 Power generation
The basic maritime zoning provisions of LOSC conferring sovereignty on a coastal State within its territorial sea and sovereign rights with regard to inter alia activities for economic exploitation and the production of energy from the water, currents and winds confer broad powers on coastal States to undertake MSP in respect of power generation. In addition, LOSC confers on the coastal State the exclusive right to construct artificial islands and other structures within such waters which might be necessary for power generation, although these may not interfere with recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation. At the regional level, OSPAR has issued guidance on the environmental impact and location of wind farms.
2.3.9 Mariculture
No specific reference is made to mariculture in LOSC. The general regime also applies to rights and obligations associated with this activity. For example, whenever establishing special areas for mariculture purposes in the EEZ, the coastal State is required to have due regard to the freedoms of navigation and communications. However, as mariculture is actually practised primarily in proximity to the coast, the regime applying to the territorial sea is of most interest. Subject to constraints spelled out above (see 2.3.1) the coastal State may regulate to keep passing traffic away from any fish farms.
2.3.10 Military activities
Within its territorial sea a coastal State may temporarily suspend the right of innocent passage in order to undertake military exercises provided prior notice is given. Thus LOSC does not permit the permanent zoning of special areas for military activities pursuant to MSP. Opinion is split as to the lawfulness of military exercises undertaken by a third country in the EEZ without the consent of the relevant coastal State. However, the ability of a coastal State to regulate foreign military exercises within such waters is negligible as provisions concerning the protection of the marine environment such as routeing measures may not be extended to foreign warships.
2.3.11 Carbon capture storage (CCS)
For a long time the legal regime for CCS in subseabed formations has been unclear. Neither LOSC nor the London Convention directly addressed the issue. However, a 1996 amendment to the latter included carbon dioxide for CCS into the ‘reverse list’ of wastes described above. This amendment enables CCS beneath the seabed provided certain standards are complied with. In June 2007 the relevant annexes to the OSPAR Convention were amended and when they enter into force this will allow for sub-seabed CCS subject to a number of specified conditions and procedures. Finally, in January 2008 the European Commission proposed a new directive to create a legal framework for CCS within the EC addressing inter alia site selection, exploration permits as well as providing for a non-binding review procedure for draft permit conditions and the designation of national competent authorities. The draft directive also proposes that CCS sites will be subject to EIA.
2.3.12 Marine scientific research
LOSC expressly recognises the exclusive rights of coastal States to regulate, authorize and conduct marine scientific research in their territorial sea. Within the EEZ and on the continental shelf the coastal State also has the right to regulate marine scientific research by other countries and international organisations but may only withhold its consent under specific conditions laid down in Article 246(5). A number of other agreements concerned with the protection of the marine environment, such as the Berne Convention, provide for derogations from protection measures in defined circumstances for the purpose of marine scientific research.
8
2.3.13 Wrecks and other historic features
LOSC imposes a general duty on States to protect archaeological and historical objects found at sea and to collaborate to this end, although this duty does not affect the rights of identifiable owners, the law of salvage or laws and practice with respect to cultural exchanges. Somewhat anomalously, the coastal State is given a jurisdiction of 24 nm from the baseline as far as controlling traffic in underwater cultural heritage objects, but LOSC is silent as to the EEZ and continental shelf. The 2001 UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, which is not yet in force, is intended to enable States to effectively protect such heritage. It proposes in situ conservation as the primary option and confers exclusive regulatory rights on coastal States in respect of activities within their territorial seas. A specific international cooperation regime is foreseen for heritage within the EEZ and on the continental shelf.
2.3.14 Recreation and tourism
There are no specific rules on tourism as such under international or EC law that have an impact on MSP.
2.3.15 Places of refuge
Customary international law recognises a general obligation to open otherwise closed ports to vessels in distress. A limited number of international agreements contain provisions on places of refuge and, while these do not necessarily amount to a general obligation on coastal States to accommodate ships in distress, their combined effect may be to limit their range of options for dealing with such scenarios. Furthermore, the VTM Directive requires Member States to establish plans for the identification of places of refuge for ships in distress.
2.4 Horizontal, procedural and other constraints
2.4.1 International agreements
The 1991 Espoo Convention, to which the EC and all Member States are party, requires the environmental impact of certain listed activities that are likely to cause a significant transboundary impact to be assessed at an early stage of planning and before a decision is taken to authorise them. Furthermore it imposes a general obligation on contracting parties to notify and consult each other with regard to major projects likely to have significant adverse transboundary impacts. A number of the listed activities (e.g. pipelines, ports) have implications for MSP. In 2003 a protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) was adopted which, once in force, will require the parties to evaluate the environmental consequences of their draft plans and programmes. The OSPAR convention does not specifically refer to EIA but does require consultation in cases where pollution from one party may prejudice the interests of other parties. The Barcelona Convention is also silent as regards EIA, however the Offshore Protocol encourages the use of this tool while the new ICZM Protocol requires it.
2.4.2 EC legislation
The SEA Directive 2001/42/EC requires an assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes which are likely to have significant effects on the environment. Authorities that prepare and/or adopt such plans or programmes must prepare a report on their likely significant environmental effects and alternatives, propose mitigation measures, consult environmental authorities and the public, and take the report and the results of the consultation into account during the preparation process and before the plan or programme is adopted. Information must also be made available on the plan or programme as adopted and how the environmental assessment was taken into account. The SEA Directive applies to plans and programmes which are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste management, water management, telecommunications, tourism, and which set the framework for future development consent of projects listed in Annexes I and II to the EIA Directive. It also contains specific provisions on transboundary consultation.
9
The EIA Directive 85/337/EC requires an assessment of the environmental impacts of certain types of project that are likely, due inter alia to their nature, size or location, to have significant effects on the environment before consent is given. EIA is mandatory for projects included in Annex I of the directive, while for those listed in Annex II determination of the need for EIA takes place on a case by case basis. Among the projects listed in these annexes are a number that may take place in the maritime area. The Habitats Directive provides for a special impact assessment procedure in connection with the compatibility of plans and projects with the conservation objectives of sites protected under its auspices. Finally, the broad scope of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC means that it has a number of implications for MSP in terms of the zoning and protection of coastal water bodies, the relationship between MSP and the river basin management plans that it calls for and the relationship between the administrative arrangements necessary for the implementation of the directive and those relating to MSP.
2.5 Conclusion
In conclusion, Member States encounter relatively few constraints under international or EC law with regard to MSP in their internal waters and territorial seas. Subject to the duty not to hamper the innocent passage of foreign vessels, MSP may involve the prohibition of fishing as well as the regulation of navigation subject to consultation with the IMO. Consultation with neighbouring States will also be necessary in cases where plans or projects may result in significant adverse environmental impacts across borders. Within the EEZ, MSP may be undertaken with regard to the most important marine-related activities including the exploration, exploitation, conservation and management of living and non-living natural resources. Constraints on MSP derive from the freedom of navigation of other States as well as the laying of pipelines. However, within the EC, commercial fishing in the EEZ is regulated pursuant to the CFP and the extent to which Member States can regulate fisheries conservation aspects in the context of the designation of MPAs for nature conservation is an issue in need of further clarification. With regard to their continental shelves, Member States may undertake spatial planning measures relating to the exercise of their sovereign rights over living and non-living natural resources on the seabed. Again there are a number of exceptions as regards, for example, navigation and the laying of cables. With regard to the high seas there is virtually no scope for MSP as such by individual States: the planning of maritime space on the high seas requires international cooperation. Finally, horizontal and procedural requirements under international and EC law have a direct impact on how MSP is undertaken.
10
3. Measuring progress towards MSP In the absence of universally agreed definitions for MSP, let alone a binding legal instrument at EC level, how can the relative progress of MSP be assessed? In order to assist in this respect a simple set of draft indicators are proposed together with instructions for their use. As progress can only be measured by reference to an objective, for the purpose of this exercise, the following general overall objective of MSP in the European context is proposed: MSP should ensure the sustainable use and development of maritime areas under Member State jurisdiction, with the notion of sustainability including ecological, social and economic aspects. In order to achieve this overall objective, the following sub-objectives are proposed:
- to prevent or reduce conflict between different sectoral interests in the maritime areas; - to simplify the process of permitting and licensing activities that take place within the
maritime area; - to take account of the fact that Europe’s maritime spaces are shared between different
jurisdictions (at both inter-State and intra-State levels); and - to establish transparent and accountable decision making mechanisms that enable the
effective coordination or integration of different sectoral interests, including the environment.
From the outset it must be acknowledged that the development of reliable indicators is not an easy task. Simple ‘yes/no’ indicators can by their nature give little idea of relative progress. Consequently a graded scoring guidepost is proposed with one or more scenarios posited for each numeric value. Clearly, though, the complexity of MSP is such that it is difficult to establish purely objective criteria just as it is unrealistic to assume that there is a single ‘correct’ approach to MSP. Equally it is important to stress that the proposed indicators are not benchmarks towards a clearly defined outcome. The proposed indicators, with a brief explanation as to why they were selected, are:
- Policy and legal framework: this issue is considered essential for the promotion of MSP and also in enabling cross-sectoral integration;
- Information management: data and information are fundamental to the management of any natural resource;
- Permitting and Licensing: these already play a key role in the maritime area and the key issue is not whether permitting is provided for but the extent to which it is coordinated across sectors and permitting procedures are simple and transparent;
- Consultation: this is necessary to ensure that different sectoral objectives and priorities for maritime space are taken into account as well as to reduce the risk of conflict between different sectors/interest groups;
- Sector conflict management: this indicator is proposed due to the real risk of conflict in the absence of MSP;
- Cross-border cooperation: this indicator is proposed due to the high degree to which MSP in the waters of one European country is likely to be affected by activities in a neighbouring state. Other boundaries include land-sea boundaries and borders between different administrations;
- Implementation of MSP: finally this indicator is proposed to assess the degree to which MSP actually takes place: how it is translated from policy and law into practice.
11
A table containing the draft indicators is attached as Annex A. In addition, in the main report instructions are provided for using the draft indicators. Finally, the indicators were tested, as required by the Terms of Reference for the Study, and the outcome of this is described in more detail in Part Six below.
4. MSP in specific Member States
Practices for planning and licensing marine activities in a sample of coastal Member States were next considered in the context of MSP. The Member States selected for this exercise were France, Germany, Greece, Poland and the United Kingdom (UK). The selection of these particular Member States, which was agreed with the European Commission, was made for a number of specific reasons, namely that these States: (a) have made variable progress as far as MSP is concerned; (b) are adjacent to different European seas; (c) contain a mix of ‘old’ and ‘new’ Member States; and (d) relevant to Part Five, have a range of different constitutional governance structures. A detailed report was prepared for each country. In summary, key findings of these reports are as follows.
4.1 France
Although France has a long maritime tradition, this sector has historically been less of a focus than in some nearby countries. This is reflected in the legal framework where the focus of legislation in the territorial waters is an extension of the concept of terrestrial public domain and focuses exclusively on the seabed without considering the water column. Likewise the spatial planning tools that have been developed for the coastal zone tend to focus on terrestrial activities including those that use marine waters. The management of maritime zones is unintegrated and characterised by a sectoral approach, although some recent developments, such as ICZM represent a shift towards a more holistic approach. One example is a 2006 legislative amendment that permits the creation of marine parks in the French territorial sea with the possibility of extension into the EEZ. In addition the law establishes a new specialised agency to coordinate the national network of MPAs. One of the main tools for MSP is the Sea Enhancement Scheme (SES) introduced in 1983 which can be used to set out the fundamental orientations for the management of land and maritime areas. Although only two SES have been established to date, it is seen as a valuable tool that will play a central role in marine planning for the next few years. As France moves to review its maritime policy a number of key issues will need to be considered including the distribution of powers between different levels of government, the development of appropriate decision making processes and the balance between economic development and environmental protection.
4.2 Germany
In Germany the debate over MSP began in the mid-1990s, in response to heightened interest in the potential for increased economic activity in offshore areas particularly in connection with wind energy exploitation (which will be necessary to enable Germany to achieve its ambitious carbon dioxide reduction targets). A stable and predictable planning framework was seen as a prerequisite. The first steps were taken in 2002 with introduction of a mechanism for the designation of areas in the EEZ that are particularly suitable areas for wind farms as well as legislation for the establishment of MPAs in the EEZ. While the Länder were required to extend their spatial structure plans into their respective parts of the territorial sea, a 2004 amendment to the Federal Spatial Planning Act conferred the necessary competence on the Federal Government to organise spatial planning in the EEZ. Spatial plans for the territorial seas adjacent to Lower Saxony and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania were adopted in 2006 and 2005 respectively while the extension of the state spatial plan of Schleswig-Holstein into the
12
territorial sea is ongoing. Consultation has recently closed on spatial plans for the German EEZ in the Baltic and North Seas. In accordance with the Federal Spatial Planning Act, these may contain binding goals and non-binding principles that decision makers must take into account. They may also designate priority areas where certain activities are prohibited. Overall the system seeks to balance a comprehensive approach with sufficient flexibility while involving a broad range of stakeholders. Nevertheless it is too early to assess the success of this system for MSP.
4.3 Greece
In Greece spatial planning of maritime activities is governed by a broad range of regulations, including transposed international and European legislation. A holistic approach is absent and instead specific maritime activities are mainly addressed in sectoral legislation. Often the planning of a maritime activity is ruled by a number of regulations, and the same legislation may apply to a range of different activities. Furthermore, many authorities have jurisdiction depending on the activity implemented in the marine environment. Recently, the regulatory background for spatial planning seems to be improving through the elaboration of the National Spatial Plan and certain sectoral spatial plans; however, there do not seem to be any developments in the short and medium term towards a comprehensive practice for MSP.
4.4 Poland
The planning of maritime activities in Poland is regulated by a complex set of international, EC and national legislation. National legislation applicable is partly specific to maritime activities (e.g. fishing, shipping) and partly of a general nature (environmental protection, nature conservation, as well as general requirements of spatial planning and construction permits). It seems there are no major problems in application of this legislation (no major legal constraints) although some of the requirements are often neglected (e.g. SEA requirements). In practice MSP is not too developed: no formal spatial plan for maritime areas has yet been adopted, so all the activities are authorised by individual decisions.
4.5 United Kingdom
Planning of maritime activities in the UK is regulated by a complex array of international, EC, regional, national, devolved and local legislative controls. Much of this legislation is sectoral, applying to specific activities or users of the marine environment. The management of UK waters is complicated by the devolution of responsibility for domestic affairs from central government to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are many overlapping jurisdictions for maritime planning and licensing, with a duplication of powers and no single authority with an overview of all activities being planned in the maritime environment. The development of a new Marine Bill may help to overcome some of the existing legal constraints. A draft Marine Bill was published in April 2008, with the aim of introducing a new legislative framework for the seas, based on MSP.
13
5. Relationship between MSP and governance Among the variables faced by each Member State in terms of MSP, one potentially important issue concerns the constitutional governance structure. Among the Member States mentioned in the previous Part, France, Greece and Poland are unitary States, Germany is a federal State while the UK comprises four separate countries (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The management of UK waters is further complicated by the devolution of responsibilities from central government to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with the result that the territorial seas are the responsibility of the relevant devolved administrations. The proposed Marine Bill will set out a series of overall policies and objectives for all UK waters from which a number of regional/local plans will be developed across the four administrations. And as described above, in Germany the Länder are responsible for MSP in the territorial sea with the Federal Government responsible for the EEZ. So what is the relationship between governance structure and MSP? To a certain extent it could be considered premature to consider this question given the relative lack of overall progress with regard to MSP. At the same time while it might seem reasonable to assume that centralised governance structures would favour progress on MSP the findings of this Study do not seem to support this assumption. Germany with its federal set-up and rather complex system of shared jurisdictions has made considerable progress in extending and adapting its traditional spatial planning regime to its marine areas. In the more centralised States – France, Greece and Poland, MSP has progressed to variable degrees while the progress of the UK seems to be somewhere in between. Although the sample size is clearly small, this leads to the preliminary conclusion that the type of governance structure of a country may not necessarily affect that country’s ability to develop and implement MSP. Centralisation may be useful to a certain degree to ensure the coordination of national plans but decentralisation may also facilitate improved consultation and conflict prevention/resolution. Currently it seems that one of the key driving factors for the introduction of more integrated, comprehensive MSP systems is the extent of competing economic demands on maritime space and the level of interest in developing economic activities there. Therefore while the governance structure of a country does not necessarily appear to assist or hamper the development of MSP, it is likely to affect the type of MSP that emerges. One issue is the degree to which legislation used for MSP can also address activities in the water column and on the surface of the sea.
14
6. Conclusions On the basis of the Study a number of observations can be made and conclusions drawn. These are considered preliminary given that MSP is a relatively new concept and there is as yet limited experience in its implementation across Member States. First of all, EU Member States encounter relatively few constraints under international or EC law with regard to MSP in their internal waters and territorial seas. Constraints for Member States in their territorial seas include the need to undertake EIA in respect of proposed developments and to examine alternatives (but only beyond certain criteria set by the country) and the requirements to consult neighbouring states regarding plans or projects in the territorial sea that may have significant trans-boundary environmental impacts. Within the EEZ, MSP can be undertaken in connection with the most important maritime related activities including the exploration and exploitation, conservation and management of living and non-living natural resources. Other constraints that exist for coastal Member States arise in connection with the freedom of navigation (particularly as far as ships’ routeing is concerned) and which require consultation with the IMO; the limited influence on the laying of cables and pipelines by other States; and the fact that commercial fishing is regulated under the CFP. Similar constraints apply regarding the continental shelf. With regard to the Mediterranean Sea, the ability of Member States to engage in MSP beyond their territorial seas up to 200 nm is limited to the scope of the purpose for which specific protection zones have been claimed (as no EEZs have been declared in this area). With regard to the high seas (beyond 200 nm), the scope for MSP by individual States is extremely limited, although particularly in the context of the establishment of MPAs there is growing interest in multilateral approaches. SEA and EIA requirements established under international and EC law as well as transboundary consultation requirements have implications as to how MSP should be undertaken as does the Water Framework Directive. The national studies for France, Germany, Greece, Poland and the United Kingdom show that progress towards MSP remains variable. Germany has made considerable progress with developing maritime spatial plans for some sub-national regions (up to 12nm) and has recently concluded a public consultation on the national maritime spatial plans for the EEZ. The UK is currently going through the process of drafting a Marine Bill which will address and consolidate a number of MSP issues. France, Poland and Greece still have a wide range of sectoral legislation, and the need for a coordinated MSP approach has not yet arisen given the relatively low levels of conflicting maritime activities. However, instruments are emerging such as the Sea Enhancement Schemes in France that contribute to the objectives of MSP. A preliminary finding is that a country’s governance structure does not in itself appear to impact progress in this regard. Key drivers towards MSP include: the intensity of activities and need to resolve potential conflicts; support and demand for planning from the industry; and sufficient resources to address the issue. However, the governance structure and current legislation will affect the type of MSP that emerges. Some of the legal issues that affect the outcomes of MSP in Member States include the degree to which spatial legislation is compatible between land and sea (with implications for the coastal zone); the division of responsibilities for planning and whether it is the central or regional government that plans for the territorial sea and the EEZ; the degree to which the planning legislation covers both the
15
seabed and the water column; and the legal form of implementation of MSP e.g. through plans, or principles and criteria. A draft set of indicators, together with instructions for their use, has been prepared and tested on the basis of readily available information. These indicators have also been refined based on discussions with the Commission, and are now based on the following categories: Policy and legal framework; Information management; Permitting and Licensing; Consultation; Sector conflict management; Cross-border cooperation; and Implementation and evaluation of maritime spatial plans. As required by the terms of reference for the Study, the indicators were tested using countries in the Plancoast, Baltcoast and OSPAR reports. The countries selected were: Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. It was found that there was not sufficient information within these reports to fully assess the indicators. Information from the case studies was used to supplement the assessments for Germany and the UK. This shows that an assessment of the status of these indicators for all Member States would require collection of additional information and validation by the Member States. The next step for the indicators will be to design a detailed methodology for their application across all Member States and then use the results to show how the Commission can support and promote the process of MSP both in each case and Community-wide.
16
Ann
ex A
Ann
ex A
- M
SP in
dica
tors
A
. P
olic
y an
d le
gal
fram
ewor
k
B.
Dat
a an
d in
form
atio
n m
anag
emen
t
C.
Per
mit
ting
and
L
icen
sing
D.
Con
sult
atio
n
E.
Sect
or c
onfl
ict
man
agem
ent
F.
Cro
ss-b
orde
r co
oper
atio
n G
. Im
plem
enta
tion
of
MSP
0 N
o po
licy
on M
SP.
Sect
oral
legi
slat
ion
does
not
con
trib
ute
to M
SP in
any
m
ater
ial w
ay.
No
/few
spa
tial d
ata
exis
t on
biol
ogic
al/
ecol
ogic
al a
spec
ts (
e.g.
mar
ine
subs
trat
es,
habi
tats
, spe
cies
) an
d no
dat
a on
so
cial
/eco
nom
ic a
spec
ts (
e.g.
mar
itim
e ac
tiviti
es).
N
o m
echa
nism
s in
pla
ce f
or c
olle
ctio
n or
di
ssem
inat
ion
of r
elev
ant i
nfor
mat
ion.
Ope
n ac
cess
– n
o re
stri
ctio
ns o
r re
quir
emen
ts f
or
licen
sing
.
No
cons
ulta
tion
requ
ired
nor
taki
ng
plac
e on
pla
ns o
r pr
ojec
ts.
No
tran
spar
ency
or
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e on
pla
ns
or p
roje
cts.
No
mec
hani
sms
for
deal
ing
with
/red
ucin
g co
nflic
ts in
are
as w
ith
high
pot
entia
l of
conf
licts
.
No
mec
hani
sm f
or c
onsu
lting
w
ith
neig
hbou
rs o
r co
ordi
natin
g ac
ross
oth
er
boun
dari
es (
land
/sea
; ad
min
istr
ativ
e bo
unda
ries
) be
yond
req
uire
men
ts o
f E
C
envi
ronm
enta
l law
.
No
mar
itim
e pl
an (
or s
ecto
ral p
lans
) ou
tlini
ng m
ariti
me
plan
ning
pri
oriti
es
and
no m
echa
nism
for
pre
pari
ng a
pl
an.
1 L
imit
ed s
ecto
ral
legi
slat
ion
eg
ad
hoc
zoni
ng o
f m
ariti
me
area
s fo
r sp
ecif
ic s
ecto
ral
activ
ities
. N
o po
licy
on M
SP.
Bas
ic b
iolo
gica
l dat
a ex
ist (
e.g.
dep
th a
nd
subs
trat
e ty
pe)
for
mos
t of
the
coas
tal z
one,
bu
t are
not
eas
ily a
vaila
ble
to
plan
ners
/sta
keho
lder
s bu
t no
soci
al/e
cono
mic
dat
a.
Unc
lear
/non
tran
spar
ent
or c
ontr
adic
tory
lice
nce
requ
irem
ents
. In
com
plet
e lic
ensi
ng
regi
me.
N
o in
ter–
agen
cy
coor
dina
tion.
Vol
unta
ry
cons
ulta
tion
enco
urag
ed f
or
som
e pr
ojec
ts.
Info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e on
req
uest
fo
r so
me
proj
ects
.
Ad-
hoc
mec
hani
sms
for
deal
ing
wit
h/
redu
cing
con
flic
ts in
ar
eas
wit
h hi
gh
pote
ntia
l of
conf
licts
.
Ad
hoc
mec
hani
sms
for
cons
ulta
tion
acro
ss
boun
dari
es.
Cas
e by
cas
e ba
sis.
Info
rmal
non
-bin
ding
sec
tora
l pla
ns.
Dif
fere
nt c
ontr
adic
ting
sect
oral
pla
ns.
2 Se
ctor
al le
gisl
atio
n w
ith
no f
orm
al
mec
hani
sms
to
coor
dina
te s
pati
ally
re
leva
nt d
ecis
ions
. D
raft
MSP
pol
icy.
Bio
logi
cal d
ata
exis
t on
mar
ine
subs
trat
es,
habi
tats
, mai
n sp
ecie
s of
com
mer
cial
in
tere
st a
nd v
ery
limit
ed s
ocia
l/eco
nom
ic
data
on
som
e m
ariti
me
activ
ities
(e.
g.
loca
tion
and
dir
ect e
cono
mic
val
ue f
or
som
e ac
tivi
ties
) fo
r th
e co
asta
l zon
e.
Lac
k of
coo
rdin
atio
n on
dat
a co
llect
ion,
an
alys
is a
nd s
ynth
esis
of
info
rmat
ion.
Com
preh
ensi
ve
licen
sing
reg
ime.
U
ncle
ar/n
on tr
ansp
aren
t pr
oced
ures
. - li
cenc
es
from
dif
fere
nt a
genc
ies
wit
h di
ffer
ent
obje
ctiv
es.
OR
. -
uncl
ear
divi
sion
of
com
pete
nces
bet
wee
n di
ffer
ent a
genc
ie e
ither
ho
rizo
ntal
ly o
r ve
rtic
ally
N
o in
ter-
agen
cy
coor
dina
tion.
Req
uire
men
t for
pa
ssiv
e co
nsul
tatio
n
for
som
e pr
ojec
ts
(eg
new
spap
er
adve
rts,
not
ices
) ty
pica
lly la
te in
the
proc
ess.
In
form
atio
n av
aila
ble
on r
eque
st
for
mos
t pro
ject
s.
Indi
cati
ve (
non-
bind
ing)
gui
delin
es
for
deal
ing
wit
h/re
duci
ng
conf
licts
plu
s ad
-hoc
m
echa
nism
s.
Non
-bin
ding
nat
iona
l cri
teri
a fo
r cr
oss-
boun
dary
co
nsul
tatio
n (b
eyon
d re
quir
emen
ts o
f E
C
envi
ronm
enta
l law
).
Lim
ited
gui
delin
es a
vaila
ble.
Form
al s
ecto
ral p
lans
with
lim
ited
cr
oss-
sect
or a
nd v
erti
cal c
oord
inat
ion.
Se
ctor
al p
lans
rev
iew
ed a
nd r
evis
ed
on a
n ad
-hoc
bas
is.
17
3 Se
ctor
al
legi
slat
ion
and
spec
ifie
d co
ordi
natio
n m
echa
nism
s fo
r sp
atia
lly
rele
vant
C
lear
ly d
efin
ed
MSP
pol
icy
adop
ted
but n
o M
SP le
gisl
atio
n ye
t A
dopt
ion
of
MSP
legi
slat
ion
in p
rogr
ess.
Goo
d bi
olog
ical
dat
a ex
ist o
n m
arin
e su
bstr
ates
, ha
bita
ts, m
ost s
peci
es o
f co
mm
erci
al in
tere
st a
nd
biod
iver
sity
, for
the
coas
tal z
one
and
som
e of
the
EE
Z.
Som
e so
cio-
econ
omic
dat
a av
aila
ble
on s
ome
mar
itim
e ac
tivi
ties
(i.e
. loc
atio
n an
d di
rect
ec
onom
ic v
alue
), f
or th
e co
asta
l zon
e an
d so
me
of th
e E
EZ
. So
me
data
are
ava
ilabl
e in
GIS
for
mat
. E
ffor
ts a
re u
nder
way
to c
olle
ct f
urth
er d
ata.
Dat
a ca
n be
acc
esse
d w
here
req
uire
d bu
t may
not
be
wel
l coo
rdin
ated
(eg
dat
a he
ld b
y m
any
diff
eren
t in
stitu
tion
s, d
iffe
rent
for
mat
s us
ed, d
iffe
rent
ac
cess
pro
cedu
res)
. Bas
ic a
naly
sis
and
synt
hesi
s of
dat
a in
to u
sefu
l inf
orm
atio
n.
Seve
ral d
iffe
rent
lic
ence
s fr
om d
iffe
rent
ag
enci
es.
Cle
ar d
ivis
ion
of
com
pete
nces
bet
wee
n in
stitu
tion
s, n
ot a
lway
s ef
fect
ivel
y im
plem
ente
d.
Lim
ited
inte
r-ag
ency
co
ordi
natio
n w
ith
resp
ect t
o m
ost a
spec
ts
rele
vant
to th
e al
loca
tion
of
perm
its.
In
form
atio
n to
app
lican
t on
per
mitt
ing
proc
ess
is
avai
labl
e.
Req
uire
men
t for
act
ive
cons
ulta
tion
on a
lim
ited
num
ber
of p
lans
(m
ay b
e se
ctor
al)
and
proj
ects
. C
onsu
ltatio
n of
lim
ited
nu
mbe
r of
rep
rese
ntat
ive
stak
ehol
ders
. In
form
atio
n on
sel
ecte
d pl
ans
and
proj
ects
mad
e av
aila
ble
to th
e pu
blic
thro
ugh
a lim
ited
num
ber
of m
echa
nism
s
(e.g
. mee
ting
s).
Cle
ar p
roce
dure
s an
d bi
ndin
g pr
inci
ples
ad
opte
d fo
r co
nflic
t re
solu
tion
.
Mut
ual r
ules
gui
ding
tr
ans-
boun
dary
co-
oper
atio
n, e
nsur
ing
perm
anen
t exc
hang
e of
In
form
atio
n (e
.g. b
i-la
tera
l agr
eem
ents
).
Vol
unta
ry g
uide
lines
on
coop
erat
ion
and
coor
dina
tion
acro
ss
sub-
nati
onal
bou
ndar
ies
(i.e
. lan
d/se
a bo
unda
ries
, ad
min
istr
ativ
e bo
unda
ries
).
Form
al s
ecto
ral p
lans
an
d de
fine
bin
ding
ob
ject
ives
for
the
over
all M
SP p
roce
ss
Som
e cr
oss-
sect
or a
nd
vert
ical
coo
rdin
atio
n
Sect
oral
pla
ns r
evie
wed
an
d re
vise
d on
a r
egul
ar
basi
s.
4 C
ompr
ehen
sive
M
SP le
gisl
atio
n ad
opte
d bu
t not
ye
t im
plem
ente
d.
Com
preh
ensi
ve b
iolo
gica
l dat
a ex
ist o
n m
arin
e su
bstr
ates
, hab
itats
, eco
syst
em f
unct
ions
, all
spec
ies
of c
omm
erci
al in
tere
st, a
nd b
iodi
vers
ity
for
the
coas
tal z
one
and
mos
t of
the
EE
Z.
Som
e so
cial
/eco
nom
ic d
ata
exis
t (i.e
. loc
atio
n an
d di
rect
& in
dire
ct e
cono
mic
val
ues)
for
mos
t se
ctor
al a
ctiv
ities
in th
e co
asta
l zon
e an
d m
ost o
f th
e E
EZ
. M
ost d
ata
are
avai
labl
e in
GIS
for
mat
. Eff
orts
are
un
derw
ay to
col
late
exi
stin
g da
ta in
to a
n in
tegr
ated
, com
preh
ensi
ve G
IS-b
ased
cen
tral
dat
a fa
cilit
y. D
ata
are
proc
esse
d in
to u
sefu
l in
form
atio
n an
d re
lati
vely
eas
y to
acc
ess
whe
re
requ
ired
. E
ffor
ts a
re u
nder
way
to p
rovi
de c
ompl
ete
cove
rage
of
the
EE
Z.
Seve
ral d
iffe
rent
lic
ence
s re
quir
ed f
or a
sp
ecif
ic a
ctiv
ity
but
clea
r an
d co
ordi
nate
d pr
oced
ures
. C
lear
div
isio
n of
co
mpe
tenc
es e
ffec
tive
ly
impl
emen
ted.
In
ter-
agen
cy
coor
dina
tion
with
re
spec
t to
all a
spec
ts
rele
vant
to th
e al
loca
tion
of
perm
its.
E
asily
ava
ilabl
e an
d tr
ansp
aren
t inf
orm
atio
n on
per
mits
.
Req
uire
men
t for
act
ive
cons
ulta
tion
on m
ost p
lans
(m
ay b
e se
ctor
al a
nd p
roje
cts)
Fi
ndin
gs h
ave
to b
e do
cum
ente
d.
Info
rmat
ion
on m
ost p
lans
an
d pr
ojec
ts m
ade
avai
labl
e to
the
publ
ic th
roug
h
a nu
mbe
r of
for
ms
(e
.g. n
ewsp
aper
s,
mee
ting
s, w
ebsi
tes)
.
Cle
arly
def
ined
and
bi
ndin
g pr
oced
ures
, as
wel
l as
prin
cipl
es a
nd
obje
ctiv
es f
or d
ecis
ion
mak
ing.
B
indi
ng g
ener
al
prio
ritie
s.
Man
dato
ry tr
ans-
boun
dary
con
sulta
tion
pr
oced
ures
bas
ed o
n bi
ndin
g na
tiona
l cri
teri
a an
d m
utua
l rul
es
guid
ing
co-o
pera
tion
. G
uide
lines
on
coop
erat
ion
and
coor
dina
tion
acro
ss
sub-
nati
onal
bou
ndar
ies
acce
pted
as
norm
al
prac
tice
(i.e
. lan
d/se
a bo
unda
ries
, ad
min
istr
ativ
e bo
unda
ries
.
A c
ompr
ehen
sive
pl
an/s
yste
m w
ith
spat
ially
def
ined
pr
iori
ties
in p
lace
wit
h so
me
limit
ed
impl
emen
tati
on.
Goo
d cr
oss-
sect
or a
nd
vert
ical
coo
rdin
atio
n.
5 C
ompr
ehen
sive
M
SP le
gisl
atio
n ad
opte
d an
d im
plem
ente
d
- A
dopt
ion
of
any
nece
ssar
y su
bord
inat
e le
gisl
atio
n.
- L
aw h
as s
tood
th
e pa
ssag
e of
ti
me.
-
No
seri
ous
litig
atio
n.
Com
preh
ensi
ve d
ata
exis
t on
mar
ine
subs
trat
es,
habi
tats
, eco
syst
em f
unct
ions
, all
spec
ies
of
com
mer
cial
inte
rest
, bio
dive
rsit
y an
d m
ariti
me
sect
oral
act
iviti
es f
or th
e co
asta
l zon
e an
d th
e w
hole
EE
Z.
Com
preh
ensi
ve s
ocia
l/eco
nom
ic d
ata
on
mar
itim
e ac
tivi
ties
(i.e
. loc
atio
n, e
cono
mic
, soc
ial
and
cultu
ral v
alue
s) f
or th
e co
asta
l zon
e an
d th
e w
hole
EE
Z.
All
data
are
pro
cess
ed in
to u
sefu
l inf
orm
atio
n an
d av
aila
ble
in G
IS f
orm
at a
nd m
ost h
ave
been
co
llate
d in
to a
n in
tegr
ated
, com
preh
ensi
ve G
IS-
base
d ce
ntra
l dat
a fa
cilit
y. D
ata
are
easi
ly
avai
labl
e, a
nd e
ffec
tive
ly d
isse
min
ated
whe
re
requ
ired
.
Stre
amlin
ed tr
ansp
aren
t pr
oces
s w
ith
info
rmat
ion
read
ily
avai
labl
e.
No
cont
radi
ctio
ns
Sim
plif
ied
and
clea
r pr
oced
ures
. C
lear
mec
hani
sm to
co
ordi
nate
/ man
age
over
all d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
proc
ess
for
the
allo
cati
on o
f sp
ace.
or
O
ne s
top
shop
– a
sin
gle
appl
icat
ion
proc
ess
that
ca
n co
ver
mul
tiple
lic
ence
app
licat
ions
and
ta
ke in
to a
ccou
nt th
e ov
erar
chin
g M
SP
obje
ctiv
es.
Req
uire
men
t for
act
ive
cons
ulta
tion
on a
ll pl
ans
and
proj
ects
. In
form
atio
n on
mos
t pla
ns
and
proj
ects
act
ivity
pr
omot
ed to
the
publ
ic
thro
ugh
a nu
mbe
r of
for
ms
(e.g
. new
spap
ers,
web
site
s,
mee
ting
s).
Find
ings
are
ref
lect
ed in
the
deci
sion
. C
onsi
dera
tion
docu
men
ted.
Pr
oced
ures
for
rev
isio
ns a
nd
cons
ulta
tion
on e
valu
atio
n.
Cle
arly
def
ined
pr
oced
ures
, as
wel
l as
prin
cipl
es a
nd
obje
ctiv
es f
or d
ecis
ion
mak
ing.
Pr
iori
ties
agr
eed
wit
hin
a ge
ogra
phic
co
ntex
t to
guid
e de
cisi
on m
akin
g.
Com
pens
atio
n m
easu
res
for
pers
istin
g co
nflic
ts.
Man
dato
ry tr
ans-
boun
dary
con
sulta
tion
pr
oced
ures
im
plem
ente
d w
ith jo
int
deci
sion
mak
ing
and
conf
lict r
esol
utio
n.
Leg
isla
tion
and
rel
ated
m
echa
nism
s fo
r co
oper
atio
n an
d co
ordi
natio
n ac
ross
su
b-na
tion
al b
ound
arie
s (i
.e. l
and/
sea
boun
dari
es,
adm
inis
trat
ive
boun
dari
es).
A c
ompr
ehen
sive
pl
an/s
yste
m d
efin
ing
lega
lly b
indi
ng
prio
ritie
s w
ithi
n a
geog
raph
ic c
onte
xt h
as
been
dev
elop
ed a
nd is
be
ing
effe
ctiv
ely
impl
emen
ted
at
regi
onal
and
nat
iona
l le
vels
. E
ffec
tive
cro
ss-s
ecto
ral
and
vert
ical
co
ordi
natio
n.
Mon
itor
ing
mec
hani
sms
in p
lace
R
egul
ar r
evie
ws
unde
rtak
en a
nd p
lans
ev
alua
ted
in th
is li
ght.
European Commission
Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning – Summary report
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
2009 — 20 pp. — 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-12064-0
KL-80-09-613-EN-C
