Implementing the EU MSP Directive: Current status and lessons learned in 22 EU Member States

This paper takes stock of the impact the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU has had on developing maritime spatial planning (MSP) practice in Europe. Drawing on the practical experience of 22 Member States, it analyses how countries with varying political, planning and regional contexts, as well as varying MSP experience prior to 2014, have chosen to implement the Directive and what lessons they have learned in the process. A key lesson is that while the Directive provides a normative framework for approaching MSP, this has been variously adapted to national contexts. MSP in Europe is thus characterised by varied territorial coverage of plans, different national institutional arrangements for MSP, a variety of planning processes, and a variety of sectors covered by maritime spatial plans. We then examine four topics that are likely to remain prominent in future MSP, namely: • taking account of climate change, • applying the ecosystem approach, • considering social and community impact of MSP and • improving coherence. While planners identify a range of challenges associated with each of these topics, countries have also developed practical solutions, although these are constrained by the respective remit and capacity of MSP as a process. The sheer diversity of maritime spatial plans and approaches, differing overall visions for MSP and methodological challenges, such as cumulative or socio-economic impact assessment, feature among the key challenges for achieving greater coherence in MSP within sea basins and beyond.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Marine Policy
Published
2024-11-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106425
Citations
15
Primary Topic
Coastal and Marine Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
10.65

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Implementing the EU MSP Directive: Current status and lessons learned in 22 EU Member States

Jacek Zaucha, Kira Gee, J Zapatero, Neil Alloncle et al.
15 citations
Marine Policy
Coastal and Marine Management
10.65
article

Implementing the EU MSP Directive: Current status and lessons learned in 22 EU Member States

Jacek Zaucha, Kira Gee, J Zapatero, Neil Alloncle, Charles N. Ehler, Emiliano Ramieri, Sigrid Eskeland Schütz, Cristina Cervera-Núñez, Joanna Witkowska, Leila Neimane, Nerijus Blažauskas, Margarita Stancheva, Helena Calado, Vesna Marohnić Kuzmanović
article en
15 citations

Abstract

This paper takes stock of the impact the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2014/89/EU has had on developing maritime spatial planning (MSP) practice in Europe. Drawing on the practical experience of 22 Member States, it analyses how countries with varying political, planning and regional contexts, as well as varying MSP experience prior to 2014, have chosen to implement the Directive and what lessons they have learned in the process. A key lesson is that while the Directive provides a normative framework for approaching MSP, this has been variously adapted to national contexts. MSP in Europe is thus characterised by varied territorial coverage of plans, different national institutional arrangements for MSP, a variety of planning processes, and a variety of sectors covered by maritime spatial plans. We then examine four topics that are likely to remain prominent in future MSP, namely: • taking account of climate change, • applying the ecosystem approach, • considering social and community impact of MSP and • improving coherence. While planners identify a range of challenges associated with each of these topics, countries have also developed practical solutions, although these are constrained by the respective remit and capacity of MSP as a process. The sheer diversity of maritime spatial plans and approaches, differing overall visions for MSP and methodological challenges, such as cumulative or socio-economic impact assessment, feature among the key challenges for achieving greater coherence in MSP within sea basins and beyond.

Marine PolicyVol. 171
Universidade dos Açores (PT), Flanders Marine Institute (BE), Klaipėda University (LT), University of Gdańsk (PL), Instituto Español de Oceanografía (ES), Istituto di Scienze Marine del Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (IT), Gdynia Maritime University (PL), Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon (DE), National Research Council (IT), Centre d'Études et d'Expertise sur les Risques, l'Environnement, la Mobilité et l'Aménagement (FR), Maritime Institute in Gdansk (PL), University of Bergen (NO), University of Latvia (LV)
Havs- och Vattenmyndigheten, Ministry of Environment
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Coastal and Marine Management
10.65
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.