Q 24 - How do MPA policies intersect with MSP?

Narrower “Questions”

• Q 25 - How to integrate the process of MPA designation or extension in MSP?

Related sites

• Baltic Sea basin and Vistula Lagoon/Southern Baltic

Answers

Operational approaches

• HELCOM SPIA Tool (Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA))

Policy solutions

Practices: Data collection and presentation

Spatial scales: Transboundary / sea basin National Regional / local

Protection regimes: Strict protection Non-strict protection

Marine zones: Coastal zone Deep sea Offshore zone

Criteria

• Category Socio–economic & governance criteria

  • Subcategory Socio–economic criteria

    • Criteria Area important because it allows access to relevant areas for the marine users.

    • Criteria Area important for locally-caught seafood

    • Criteria Area important for the generation of employment and income linked to non traditional activities

    • Criteria Area important for fishery activity

    • Criteria Area important for dredging

    • Criteria Area important because of the presence of structure with significant historical and cultural. (mo

    • Criteria Area of high scientific interest

    • Criteria Area important for educational interest

    • Criteria Area important because of the occurrence of iconic species/habitats for the local community

    • Criteria Area important for thehealth of coastal residents and/or resource users (mental health, physical hea

    • Criteria Area important due to the socio-cultural dependence of the coastal community with its environ

    • Criteria Area important to be managed due to the presence ofspatial conflicts among users

    • Criteria Area important because of the presence of cultural symbolic value

    • Criteria Area important for recreation and leisure

    • Criteria Area important because of the presence of cultural and tradition activities that support local fo

    • Criteria Area important for traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of

    • Criteria Area with high scenic and/or aesthetic value

    • Criteria Area important for shipping

    • Criteria Area is important for the development of blue economy activities

    • Criteria Area with current/potential importance to explore and demonstrate approaches and management solution

  • Subcategory Governance criteria

    • Criteria Equity

    • Criteria Clear strategic plan for the development of sustainable blue economy

    • Criteria Cross-border cooperation

    • Criteria Decision making is based on best information and knowledge available

    • Criteria Strategic Environmental Assessment

    • Criteria Monitoring and evaluation

    • Criteria Instruments to ensure and guide development and implementation of marine policies

    • Criteria Sustainable fishing management

    • Criteria Climate change measures established

    • Criteria Ecosystem based management approach

    • Criteria Long term strategic adaptive management

    • Criteria Coherence management of the area

    • Criteria Stakeholder participation

Operational approaches: (Tool) HELCOM SPIA Tool

Implementation details

From an ecological perspective, MSP and MPAs share common objectives aligned with international legal frameworks such as the IUCN and the Barcelona Convention. Notably, the Global Biodiversity Framework identifies marine spatial planning as a key tool to mitigate biodiversity loss. Furthermore, the planning processes and methodologies for MSP and MPA management are similar, although they often operate on different spatial scales. Importantly, much of the knowledge applied in MSP processes is derived from MPAs, which have been central for marine environmental studies for decades, accumulating extensive experience in regulatory implementation and monitoring. In the EU, MPAs are governed by several key policies and regulations designed to protect marine biodiversity and address environmental challenges. In particular, the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) provide a foundation for conservation efforts. Complementing these, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (2008/56/EC) promotes an ecosystem-based approach (EBA) to achieve „Good Environmental Status“ (GES) for EU marine waters. Similarly, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 sets an ambitious target to protect at least 30% of the marine environment by 2030. The Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) integrates biodiversity conservation into its framework by requiring Member States to apply an EBA in their maritime spatial plans. However, the MSPD lacks a clear definition of EBA and does not provide guidelines for its application, which may result in inconsistent implementation across countries. The directive emphasizes the need to “preserve, protect, and improve the environment, including resilience to climate change impacts” (Article 5) and allows Member States to consider “nature and species conservation sites and protected areas” (Article 8). Nevertheless, while the MSPD mandates monitoring of its implementation, it does not explicitly require an assessment of the effectiveness of maritime spatial plans in achieving biodiversity objectives.

Policy solutions

Practices: [Not Related to Any Practice]

Policy soutions: Establishing a dedicated coordination framework for marine biodiversity