Assessment of collective pressure in marine spatial planning: The current approach of EU Member States

Kirkfeldt, Trine Skovgaard; Andersen, Jesper H.

doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105448

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The list of EBA criteria located for this paper as well as the studied MSP cases suggest the way forward for EBA in MSP is through improved spatial analysis. The studied cases showed new and improved ways of analyzing ecosystem services and cumulative impacts, which are both activities with a high demand for data, tools and competencies but with great outcomes to use in the planning process (Arkema et al 2015;Kirkfeldt and Andersen 2021). In order to advance EBA practices on a global scale, more MSP processes need to improve in this area, for instance by following the examples presented in this paper or others (cf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

The Way Forward on Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Planning in the EU

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Marine spatial planning (MsP) is currently practiced by almost half of the world's nations. While some countries are working on their second, third or fourth round of MsP, many are going through their first round of marine spatial planning. thus, there are experiences to share and to reflect upon. current practices of MsP show a minimum of ecosystem-based approaches, which indicates a need to develop the practice further. this paper examines and compares best practices, selected by MsP experts, of how to take an ecosystem-based approach in MsP and presents a list of concrete actions for an ecosystem-based approach. the consulted experts consider close connections to other policies, such as the Marine strategy Framework Directive and the habitat Directive, as key to an ecosystem-based MsP process. While most experts think there is a need for more, preferably localized and specific, guidelines, some find the existing guidelines adequate but the knowledge of how to operationalize them inadequate. the selection of best practices is diverse and suggests many different ways to practice ecosystem-based MsP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

The Way Forward on Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Planning in the EU

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Paper 4 (Kirkfeldt, van Tatenhove and Calado submitted), the consulted experts found a close connection between MSP and the MSFD to be among the most important criteria for an efficient EBA. In line with this, Paper 3 concluded that a close connection between the two activities, by sharing knowledge, competences and other resources, would enhance both activities in their assessment of the collective pressures and, thus, in ensuring a good environmental status (Kirkfeldt and Andersen, 2020).…”

Section: Ambiguities In the Msp Directivementioning

confidence: 82%

“…Within this practice, there is conceptual muddling with similar concepts being used interchangeably, for example cumulative/combined/collective pressure/ impact/effect. Again, the Directive applies a relatively unused term 1 , leaving the interpretation to member states, in addition to the task of building a framework for the assessment of 'collective pressure' (Kirkfeldt and Andersen, 2020). The aim to ensure that collective pressure stays below a level compatible with the achievement of a good environmental status connects an aspect of the MSPD 69 with a policy goal of another directive.…”

Section: Ambiguities In the Msp Directivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There was, however, a general agreement that the assessment of collective pressure through the practice of a cumulative impact assessment is a necessary step for MSP to attain sustainability objectives, although it does not ensure a good environmental status in itself. The actual achievement of a good environmental status and the overall outcome of MSP depend on the actions of planners, policymakers and contractors, and on the achievements of other policies (Kirkfeldt and Andersen, 2020).…”

Section: The Way To Sustainability -Through An Ecosystem-based Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Assessments of collective pressures are few and sporadic and, in most cases, assessed as part of the strategic environmental assessment in the later stages of the MSP rather than as part of an EBA (Kirkfeldt and Andersen, 2020). As the assessment of collective pressure through cumulative impact assessments is a key element of EBA Kirkfeldt, van Tatenhove and Calado submitted), the majority of MSP practices in the EU were found not to be ecosystem-based (Kirkfeldt and Andersen, 2020). This conclusion supports the findings of a global assessment of MSP practices, conducted by , which likewise found that most MSP practices do not qualify as being ecosystem-based.…”

Section: When Constructive Becomes Destructivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Marine spatial planning: Facilitating sustainability in an ocean of ambiguity

Kirkfeldt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. -You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain -You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal -

show abstract

Making Marine Spatial Planning Matter

Flannery

2023

MARE Publication Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last decade, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has become one of the key components of marine governance. In the European Union, member states are working towards the development of their first plans under the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive. Internationally, UNESCO and the European Commission have launched their MSP Global initiative to speed up the implementation of MSP around the world. MSP is also framed as being a key mechanism for sustainably realising the benefits of the Blue Economy and emerging Green Deals. During this same period, however, a substantial body of critical academic work has emerged that questions whether the implementation of MSP will transform unsustainable marine governance and management practices. This scholarship illustrates that the current trajectory of many MSP initiatives is to preserve the status quo and that they fail to adequately address longstanding marine governance issues. Drawing on Flyvbjerg’s vital treatise on phronetic social science, this chapter will explore: where is MSP going; who gains and loses, and how they do so; is this desirable, and if not, what can be done to make MSP matter? I particularly focus on mechanisms of winning and losing, characterising them as key tensions in MSP processes that can be unsettled to make MSP more transformative.

show abstract

Assessment of collective pressure in marine spatial planning: The current approach of EU Member States

Cited by 6 publications

References 38 publications

The Way Forward on Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Planning in the EU

The Way Forward on Ecosystem-Based Marine Spatial Planning in the EU

Marine spatial planning: Facilitating sustainability in an ocean of ambiguity

Making Marine Spatial Planning Matter

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About