Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning ... - Seanergy 2020

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6. Stakeholder participation;7. Preparing and approving spatial plan;8. Implementing and enforcing the spatial management plan;9. Monitoring and evaluating performance;10. Review and update of the MSP process.All the guidelines stress how many of these activities are likely to be concurrent and how the processneeds to be cyclical so that development of the plan is followed by reviews and updates which will includethe need draw again on information and data analysis and stakeholder consultations.Box 1 Examples of best practice guidelines on MSPUNESCO and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission guidelineson Maritime Spatial Planning (Ehler and Douvere, 2009);BALANCE project guidelines on achieving Maritime Spatial Planning in theBaltic Sea (Balance, 2008) Nordic experience in Maritime Spatial Planning (Blæsbjerg et al., 2009)Plancoast Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning (Plancoast,2008)8.2.2 Legal characterA number of previous experiences in MSP have highlighted the importance of it having a statutory nature inorder to be effectively applied. For instance the BaltSeaPlan MSP pilot projects (e.g. Pärnu Bay in Estonia,Western Coast of Latvia, Gulf of Gdańsk in Poland/Sweden) are providing essential experience in applyingMSP often in a transboundary context but the voluntary plans that are being devised will not be fullyimplemented until they are translated into national legislation. There are however examples where planshave been applied without a legal basis, such as the Belgium Master Plan which has been adopted and isbeing applied through permitting legislation. However, the spatial planning side which relates to the OREdevelopment is implemented through a legally binding Royal Decree of 2004 (as modified in 2011)designating offshore win zones in the EEZ.8.2.3 Setting clear objectivesIt is often highlighted how important it is for MSP Initiatives to have clearly defined objectives and priorities(e.g. Blæsbjerg et al, 2009). The scope of MSP also needs to be considered at this stage, and generally it isagreed that it should cover all maritime interests. For instance, while the German MSP for its EEZ (in theNorth Sea and Baltic Sea) is relatively comprehensive it does not currently include grid infrastructure whichDeliverable 2.344 | P a g e
appears to be an important omission (Wagner & Segelken, 2011). This is where regular reviews of MSPsare important to allow integration of additional elements as the process evolves.8.2.4 Coordinating institutionHaving a coordination institution for MSP can be very effective in ensuring good cross-sectoral and verticalcoordination. For instance, the United Kingdom has opted to establish a new organisation (referred to as aMarine Management Organisation) specifically to coordinate MSP and to develop maritime spatial plans.8.2.5 Pre-planningThere are likely to be a range of activities required before it is possible to start a MSP process. For instanceit may be necessary to review maritime policy and legislation. It will also be important to ensure there aresufficient financial resources for developing a plan, involving stakeholders and for its implementation.There may also be a period of data collection and analysis in order to determine current state and use ofresources. It is often considered a critical step to include a forecasting exercise in preparation of MSP toreview potential future development scenarios and consider impacts of future environmental change (e.g.climate change).Sweden could be considered to be in this pre-planning phase as they have recently developed a maritimepolicy and appointed a committee to propose a planning model for the maritime area. Without politicalpressure this phase may be drawn-out and in some cases it can be useful to set time limits. For exampleMSP legislation in the State of Massachusetts (USA) allows eighteen months to develop a first plan.Although most of the planning team considers this time frame very short, it has nevertheless made theMSP process very efficient in setting goals, finding the best way to achieve them, and specifying moreclearly what is possible and what not given the available resources and constraints (Ehler and Douvere,2009).8.2.6 Developing the planThe experience of MSP in Nordic countries stresses the importance of ensuring a Marine Spatial Plan - totake into consideration national, sub-national and local levels. The role of the Maritime Spatial Plan is toprovide overarching guidelines on implementing planning at a cross-sectoral level. Depending on thegovernance arrangements in any one country it may need to consider current planning systems at a rangeof scales e.g. within the coastal zone, estuaries, territorial seas and the EEZ. It will need to determine howthese different systems interact or develop new planning units that allow for more coherent managementand complete coverage. For instance, currently in Finland there are detailed regional development plansthat cover the territorial seas but no plans for the EEZ.The UNESCO guidelines (Ehler and Douvere, 2009) suggest that preparing and approving the spatialmanagement plan includes the following tasks:1. Identifying alternative spatial and temporal management measures;Deliverable 2.345 | P a g e
Page 2 and 3: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis study forms p
Page 4 and 5: TASK 2.6: TABLE OF CONTENTSTASK 2.6
Page 6 and 7: 1 INTRODUCTIONThis report responds
Page 8 and 9: Before going any further in terms o
Page 10 and 11: procedures, in terms of for example
Page 12 and 13: 3 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT3.
Page 14 and 15: 3.3 Best practice in data and infor
Page 16 and 17: the required data. Once the „cada
Page 18 and 19: Encourage the use of legislation to
Page 20 and 21: As the effectiveness and efficiency
Page 22 and 23: seabed without an EEZ claim being m
Page 24 and 25: een granted. A similar indicator wa
Page 26 and 27: The national reports indicate that
Page 28 and 29: The EIAs should be harmonised to en
Page 30 and 31: Levels of public consultation are m
Page 32 and 33: What particularly distinguishes som
Page 34 and 35: All relevant stakeholders are repre
Page 36 and 37: 6.3 Best practice in sector conflic
Page 38 and 39: 6.3.3 Conflict minimisation agreeme
Page 40 and 41: 7 TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATIONThe aim
Page 42 and 43: Support regional sea-basin cooperat
Page 46 and 47: 2. Specifying criteria for selectin
Page 48 and 49: Optimal spatial use of the maritime
Page 50 and 51: 9 FINAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS9.1 O
Page 52 and 53: There should be a central instituti
Page 54 and 55: 9.3.2 Transboundary cooperationUse
Page 56 and 57: Iuga, D (2010) Analysis of MSP in t
Page 58 and 59: Task 2.7: Table of Contents1 ATLANT
Page 60 and 61: 2. ATLANTIC OCEAN AND IRISH SEAThe
Page 62 and 63: • MSP on a sea basin level should
Page 64 and 65: • Possible impacts of grid expans
Page 66 and 67: undertaken like the „North Seas C
Page 68 and 69: 3. MEDITERRANEAN SEAThe Mediterrane
Page 70 and 71: 3.1.2 Good practicesGreece has rece
Page 72 and 73: simplifies the permitting and licen
Page 74 and 75: ) consult all relevant groups and s
Page 76 and 77: • Explore the role of the existin
Page 78 and 79: • limited availability of maritim
Page 80 and 81: In Denmark, the Integrated Marine S
Page 82 and 83: a) is legally anchored on renewable
Page 84 and 85: 4.5.2 Policy recommendations• The
Page 86 and 87: development of ORE in the North Sea
Page 88 and 89: Estonia has established a four stag
Page 90 and 91: 5.5.2 Good practicesPoland and Latv
Page 92: Poland BaltSeaPlan 0 500 wind YesSw

Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning ... - Seanergy 2020

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?