Aspects of marine spatial planning and governance: adapting to the transboundary nature and the special conditions of the sea

Abstract

Extension of spatial planning from land to the marine space has recently become a key procedure for tackling the growing environmental and blue growth related challenges. However, given the transboundary nature of the sea (facilitating the flow of all kinds of materials and calling for special considerations in terms of resource and ecosystem management) not all the philosophy, planning models and procedures can be "transplanted" from terrestrial to marine spatial planning. Governance issues are subject to the same limitation. This paper discusses key differences in the marine environment (compared to the land), which affect marine spatial planning and governance and is structured around the following key issues: (i) the public status of the sea, which involves a wide spectrum of stakeholders (among them the maritime regimes), (ii) the sovereign rights in the sea that are not separately defined by each state but by UNCLOS (especially beyond the territorial waters), (iii) the geopolitical constraints on proclaiming EEZs that reduce the area within which each coastal country can practice MSP, (iv) the usually non-defined administrative limits in the marine parts of a coastal country that impede decentralization of competencies and decision making, and (v) the lack of geospatial and socioeconomic and cultural data, which creates uncertainty both for the planners and decision-makers. This article concludes by highlighting the need for adopting a tailor-made MSP research agenda and by stressing the need to enhance crossborder cooperation as well as to make transboundary considerations when planning in the sea.

A Review of Sustainability Concepts in Marine Spatial Planning and the Potential to Supporting the UN Sustainable Development Goal 14

“…Although UNCLOS does not refer to MSP as a concept, it does consider spatial planning as a facilitating tool that allows some countries to fulfill obligations within UNCLOS (Ardron et al, 2008;Maes, 2008). Indeed, the spatial boundaries set by UNCLOS, such as Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic Zones, together with specifications for domestic rights within each zone, confirms the potential role to be played by MSP in managing marine resources (both living and non-living) within national jurisdictions (Papageorgiou and Kyvelou, 2018). While there is also a strong push for developing MSP initiatives in areas beyond national jurisdiction (Wright et al, 2019), international initiatives in the high seas are still scarce making MSP a predominantly national-level activity (Ardron et al, 2008).…”

Discussing and Analyzing “Maritime Cohesion” in MSP, to Achieve Sustainability in the Marine Realm

“…What really matters, however, is not the accurate definition but instead the successful adaptation of the "multi-use concept" to different territorial and marine contexts. As Papageorgiou and Kyvelou [77] state for MSP in general, the time has come to pave the way for tailor-made practical implementation of MSP. Furthermore, governance and management methods and arrangements in the marine space should be context-specific, taking into account "evolutionary resilience" [11] of marine/coastal social-ecological systems, and since MU MSP is strongly a matter of governance between a wide spectrum of stakeholders, "evolutionary governance" theory and perspectives [78,79].…”

Stakes and Challenges for Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Era of Blue Growth and the Role of Spatial Planning: Implications and Prospects in Greece

“…MSP under a place-based approach creates better chances for UCH to receive more attention in terms of protection and management. At the same time, MSP under a place-based approach is considered to be suitable for tackling the growing competition among sea uses (user-user conflicts) and for mitigating the pressure these uses put on the marine environment (natural and cultural) [24,25]. However, even if place-based MSP occurs, the greatest challenge for UCH will be how to reconcile blue growth trends with UCH preservation and promotion: In other words, how should UCH be prioritized, compared to other marine economic activities and resources, when planning for human uses of the sea.…”

“…Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSAs): Resolution A.982 (24) of IMO, provides the possibility for the designation of a PSSA, especially in areas fulfilling a set of ecological, social, cultural, and economic criteria (e.g., be a unique or rare ecosystem, be a significant area for education, recreation, or tourism, etc.). The designation of an area as a PSSA requires specific measures for the control of maritime activities in that area, including routing measures, etc.…”