Bright spots as climate‐smart marine spatial planning tools for conservation and blue growth

After recognizing the importance of marine and coastal resources and the use of marine space for economic growth, the European Union (EU) created and implemented a long-term Blue Economy (BE) strategy that supports the development of traditional and emerging marine and maritime sectors, aiming at the enhancement of Blue Growth (BG). However, despite the existence of a robust policy framework that supports the expansion of BE sectors at both an EU Sea Basin and state level, scholars have been sceptical as to whether the pursuit of BG adequately addresses the challenges that usually come with economic development, including those of climate change and marine biodiversity loss. Various frameworks for integrating sectoral goals with each other and with environmental goals that could facilitate the transition towards Sustainable Blue Growth (SBG) already exist and have been suggested and promoted by the European Commission, such as Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) and Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). They require the consideration of marine ecosystems and biodiversity and their protection as one of the BE sectors to be integrated via planning and management, which in turn requires the estimation of the value of ecosystem services and the spatial implications thereof. Nonetheless, there is little evidence or real-world examples on whether and how ecosystems, and within them coastal and marine biodiversity, are actually integrated (i.e., mainstreamed) when developing sectoral policies and planning and implementing economic activities at sea at various scales, i.e., local, national, and regional, and what the necessary steps and actions are that would facilitate such mainstreaming. By seeking evidence in EU and Atlantic Arc (AA) member states’ sectoral policies on marine tourism, ports and shipping, marine renewable energy, and fisheries and aquaculture (as promoted by the Atlantic Maritime Strategy and its corresponding action plans) and in the outcomes of the Interreg Atlantic Funded Research Project MOSES (aiming at valuating a Sustainable Blue Economy at the national and regional scale of the EU AA), the present article focused on understanding if and how marine biodiversity is taken into consideration by EU and AA BE and/or BG policies, strategies, and sectoral developments. Τhe selected sectoral policies demonstrate a good uptake of marine-ecosystem- and biodiversity-related challenges; however, at both the EU and the AA member-state level, it is unclear whether and how marine ecosystems and biodiversity are addressed as a separate BE sector. As such, we argue why and how Marine Biodiversity Mainstreaming (MBM) could address this gap, and hence it could contribute to planning, implementing, and managing maritime economic activities towards SBG at the Sea Basin level. This is demonstrated by illustrating the central role of MBM in enabling (and being further enabled by) the above integrative frameworks (i.e., MSP and EBM) and by presenting the key elements and actions required for such facilitation.

Integrating natural capital assessment and marine spatial planning: A case study in the Mediterranean sea

In the Anthropocene, marine ecosystems are rapidly shifting to new ecological states. Achieving effective conservation of marine biodiversity has become a fast‐moving target because of both global climate change and continuous shifts in marine policies. How prepared are we to deal with this crisis? We examined EU Member States Programs of Measures designed for the implementation of EU marine environmental policies, as well as recent European Marine Spatial Plans, and discovered that climate change is rarely considered operationally. Further, our analysis revealed that monitoring programs in marine protected areas are often insufficient to clearly distinguish between impacts of local and global stressors. Finally, we suggest that while the novel global Blue Growth approach may jeopardize previous marine conservation efforts, it can also provide new conservation opportunities. Adaptive management is the way forward (e.g., preserving ecosystem functions in climate change hotspots, and identifying and targeting climate refugia areas for protection) using Marine Spatial Planning as a framework for action, especially given the push for Blue Growth.

Balancing blue growth with the conservation of wild species and habitats is a key challenge for global ocean management. This is exacerbated in Global South nations, such as Tanzania, where climate-driven ocean change requires delicate marine spatial planning (MSP) trade-offs to ensure climate resilience of marine resources relied upon by coastal communities. Here, we identified challenges and opportunities that climate change presents to the near-term spatial management of Tanzania's artisanal fishing sector, marine protected areas and seaweed farming. Specifically, spatial meta-analysis of climate modelling for the region was carried out to estimate the natural distribution of climate resilience in the marine resources that support these socially important sectors. We estimated changes within the next 20 and 40 years, using modelling projections forced under global emissions trajectories, as well as a wealth of GIS and habitat suitability data derived from globally distributed programmes. Multi-decadal analyses indicated that long-term climate change trends and extreme weather present important challenges to the activity of these sectors, locally and regionally. Only in few instances did we identify areas exhibiting climate resilience and opportunities for sectoral expansion. Including these climate change refugia and bright spots in effective ocean management strategies may serve as nature-based solutions: promoting adaptive capacity in some of Tanzania's most vulnerable economic sectors; creating wage-gaining opportunities that promote gender parity; and delivering some economic benefits of a thriving ocean where possible. Without curbs in global emissions, however, a bleak future may emerge for globally valuable biodiversity hosted in Tanzania, and for its coastal communities, despite the expansion of protected areas or curbs in other pressures. Growing a sustainable ocean economy in this part of the Global South remains a substantial challenge without global decarbonization.

Marine spatial planning (MSP) as a means of marine governance has been given more prominence recently in response to the problems of fragmentation of marine regulation, environmental protection from increasing pressures upon the seas and the emergence of new maritime industries (Douvere and Ehler, 2009). Therefore enhancing multiple aspects of the way that marine authorities, sectors and stakeholders interact and engage with each other is integral to MSP's role and function and seen as a key means to address fragmented and isolated decision-making in marine space (Portman, 2016). While the function and processes of enhancing integration should not be seen as ends in themselves, they aim to create institutionalised platforms that support multi-level and multi-sectoral governance interaction to achieve 'sustainable use' of marine space (Gilek et al., 2016; Ritchie and Ellis, 2010; Varjopuro et al., 2015). Here, integration mostly plays an instrumental role in realising multiple and divergent political ends (e.g. blue growth, sustainable use, legitimate decision-making) related to ‘integrated spatialized outcomes' that seek to reflect a balance of competing goals (Flannery et al., 2016; Flannery et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2016; Olsen et al., 2014a). Integration is also seen to be important to foster greater connectivity over borders, beneficial for conservation, shipping and fishing (Jay et al., 2016). While claims of the benefits of more integration are intuitively appealing, whether and how these are actually delivered through integration practices remains under-examined in MSP practice; as are empirical insights on the multiplicity of roles that integration plays in MSP. So, while integration has been universally adopted as a policy principle where it is believed that more integration is seen to be closely related to successful planning in numerous ways, there is confusion about what it means, how to do it and what it implies in different MSP contexts. In response, the key aim of this article is to develop an analytical framework useful for examining integration in MSP across a diversity of contexts and processes. Given the central role of integration in MSP, it is vitally important to better understand the linkages between ideas of integration and their practical application in MSP. To examine the role of integration across multiple MSP contexts, we first describe the approach taken in this study. This is followed by a review of relevant MSP and integration related literature to develop an analytical framework. We draw on this framework to illustrate important expressions of integration challenges and responses in our cases. The experiences from the multiple cases are then discussed to generate insights into the various roles that integration plays in MSP and how problems arise and have been addressed. In closing, we underline key findings and reflect on the usefulness and adaptability of the integration approach developed in this article.

This paper explores the realities of marine spatial planning (MSP’ing), drawing on 12 case studies around Europe, employing a structured qualitative empirical approach. The findings indicate that (1) MSP’ing is often focused on achieving specific sectoral objectives, related to nationally important strategic priorities, and might better be termed ‘strategic sectoral planning’. (2) MSP’ing processes tend to be complex, fragmented and emergent on an ad hoc basis, rather than cyclical, adaptive and prescribed on an a priori basis. (3) Top-down processes tend to dominate, more participative platforms tending to be ‘disconnected by design’ from executive decision-making. (4) Blue growth is the dominant overall priority, often aligned with strategic sectoral priorities, despite growing indications that the target for Good Environmental Status (GES) by 2020 is unlikely to be met. This is consistent with growing concerns about the tensions between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Directive Establishing a Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning. It is concluded that the realities of how MSP’ing is working contrast with widely recognised concepts and ideals as to how MSP’ing should work, as integrated-use MSP’ing based on political expedience and blue growth priorities is diverging from and potentially competing with ecosystem-based MSP’ing, including marine protected area networks, based on GES priorities. It is argued that a more empirical approach should be taken to MSP’ing research, whereby conceptual approaches which integrate sustainable blue growth and GES co-evolve with marine spatial planning practices through critical analyses of whether the realities of MSP’ing are consistent with these concepts.

Community participation and influence are vitally important for meeting the multidimensional sustainability aims of marine spatial planning (MSP) and more specifically for procedural and distributive justice. While participation has received substantial research interest, we identify a need to: 1) develop equity-based principles for coastal community participation that can be used to assess and reform MSP practices; 2) generate rich empirical accounts of coastal community participation and representation linked to real-world MSP practices. Here we present the results of a study that synthesizes critical MSP and blue justice scholarship to develop principles and indicators of coastally equitable and just planning. Drawing on interviews with planners and stakeholders and analysis of planning and legal documents, these principles are used to assess participatory processes linked to Latvian MSP practices in the period 2015 to 2019. Our analysis shows that equitable and just MSP needs to be based on participation that is timely, inclusive, supportive & localized, collaborative, methodical and impactful. When applied to the Latvian case these six principles provide a comprehensive and versatile heuristic approach to assess participation in MSP. In the context of Latvian MSP practices, we revealed a fundamental challenge of maintaining inclusive and localized participation throughout the full planning cycle. To counteract the successive narrowing/hardening of participatory space our results indicate a need for continuously promoting diversity of voices and perspectives, opportunities for collaborative sense making, visioning and critique. This will help to bridge diverse MSP divides (e.g., between land and sea, between local, national, and global values and priorities, between science and local knowledge, and between blue growth, conservation, and justice goals). If applied more generally in research and as part of MSP evaluation an equity-based approach can promote the mainstreaming of coastally just and equitable MSP practices. Finally, considering contextual factors (e.g., history, culture, power, legislation) that shape participation and representation is crucial when applying the equity principles to a particular MSP setting to acknowledge and accommodate its particular characteristics and challenges.

Purpose: The study aims to investigate the intricate relationship between ocean acidification and climate change, providing insights into their impacts on marine ecosystems. It seeks to identify sources of greenhouse gases, assess reef vulnerability, and analyze temperature changes' effects on marine biodiversity.
 Methodology: Quantitative research methods are employed, utilizing data from Bangladesh, the USA, India, and the UK. Dynamic patterns in coral reef health, ocean acidification, greenhouse gas emissions, and marine ecosystem health are assessed between 2019 and 2023. Qualitative analysis supplements the quantitative findings, enhancing understanding of climate change's impacts on marine ecosystems and mitigation strategies.
 Findings: The study reveals clear patterns in the countries studied, emphasizing the urgency for continuous monitoring and protection of marine ecosystems. It provides insights into how climate change affects marine ecosystems, triggers ocean acidification, and identifies sources of greenhouse gas emissions. The research underscores the necessity for collaborative efforts to address climate change impacts and promote ecosystem resilience.
 Unique Contribution to Theory, Practice, and Policy: The study contributes to a better understanding of the complex dynamics between ocean acidification, climate change, and marine ecosystems. It offers valuable insights to inform conservation initiatives, policy decisions, and strategies aimed at mitigating adverse impacts on marine species. By highlighting the importance of collective action, the research advocates for a comprehensive approach to address climate change's effects on ecosystems and oceans, fostering resilience and sustainability.

Increasing demand for marine resources, because of the finite nature of ecological capital (e.g., food and energy), has led to a growing number of resource extraction activities in our oceans and coastal areas. We only need to highlight the rise of economic strategies such as ‘Blue Growth’ and ‘Blue Economy’ to see a clear trend towards increased exploitation of these areas. These strategies, and the policies originating from them, are leading to increasing pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems as well as competition and conflict amongst the users of these environments. These are major challenges for governance, and new management strategies tools are required to address these threats. One such tool, marine spatial planning (MSP), is quickly becoming the dominant approach to address these issues of increased pressure and conflict, with a number of policy initiatives calling for the development of marine spatial plans (Jay et al., 2012; Qui & Jones, 2013) in addition to an increasing academic literature on the topic (Flannery et al., 2016).

Achieving Coherent Policies for Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Ecosystems

The conservation and sustainable use of oceans, seas and marine resources has been declared by the United Nations as one of 17 priority Sustainable Development Goals. At present, most of the maritime states are striving to improve the efficiency of their use of marine resources, including sea space. In particular, the European Union is implementing a number of projects related to the implementation of marine spatial planning (MSP) tools. The Baltic Sea is considered as a pilot region, where a pan-Baltic coordinated MSP plan has been developed to provide for sustainable development and blue growth in the marine and coastal economy. The Russian Federation is one of the Baltic countries, but the MSP procedure at the state level does not have institutional and regulatory support, which requires the elimination of gaps and additional development of the maritime management system. The laws of the organization and development of the general theory of management are used in this study. An Integrated Management Model for sustainable marine and coastal use is proposed as a tool for ensuring blue growth, including four interrelated elements (specific management functions), namely “Integrated Coastal Zone Management”, “Marine Spatial Planning”, “Management of Marine Macroregion” and “Ocean Governance”. Their functional content and interaction mechanisms are discussed in order to implement an integral approach to marine use. The vertical structure of the proposed integral model includes three levels corresponding to the federal and regional levels of government and the level of municipal self-governance. The use of the integral model should help accelerate the process of introducing and using MSP instruments in the process of strategic planning in the socio-economic development of the Russian coastal territories.

How sustainable is sustainable marine spatial planning? Part II – The Portuguese experience

Atmospheric CO2 concentration [CO2] has increased from a pre-industrial level of approximately 280 ppm to approximately 385 ppm, with further increases (700–1000 ppm) anticipated by the end of the twenty-first century [1]. Over the past three decades, changes in [CO2] have increased global average temperatures (approx. 0.2°C decade?1 [2]), with much of the additional energy absorbed by the world's oceans causing a 0.8°C rise in sea surface temperature over the past century. The rapid uptake of heat energy and CO2 by the ocean results in a series of concomitant changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, including reductions in pH and carbonate saturation state, as well as increases in dissolved CO2 and bicarbonate ions [3]: a phenomenon defined as ocean acidification. Time-series and survey measurements [4–6] over the past 20 years have shown that surface ocean pH has reduced by 0.1 pH unit relative to pre-industrial levels, equating to a 26% increase in ocean acidity [3]. Reductions of 0.4–0.5 pH units are projected to occur by the end of the twenty-first century [1] and, while atmospheric [CO2] has consistently fluctuated by 100–200 ppm over the past 800 000 years [7], the recent and anticipated rates of change are unprecedented [8].

Marine Spatial Planning and sustainability: Examining the roles of integration - Scale, policies, stakeholders and knowledge

Choi, H.-J.; Cho, S.-J.; Hwang, T.; Nam, J., and Hwang C.S., 2021. Cumulative impact assessment for marine spatial planning: A case study of the Gyeonggi Bay in South Korea. In: Lee, J.L.; Suh, K.-S.; Lee, B.; Shin, S., and Lee, J. (eds.), Crisis and Integrated Management for Coastal and Marine Safety. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue No. 114, pp. 360–364. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208. Cumulative impact assessment (CIA) techniques for marine spatial planning (MSP) exist in Europe and North America. Effective MSP requires a process for evaluating the effects of human activities on marine ecosystems, that is, a CIA. In Korea, MSP has progressively been developed for waters since the enactment of an MSP law (Act on Marine Spatial Planning and Management) in 2019. This study aims to perform the first CIA for Korea, evaluate its limitations, and assess alternatives for an operational MSP. This study involves an extensive review of the literature, followed by an assessment of the cumulative impact of human activities on the marine ecosystem in Gyeonggi Bay, Korea. Information on the marine ecosystems and influencing activities was collected, and the concept of the activity–pressure–ecosystem relationships adopted. The results reveal high cumulative impact scores along the coast, where human activities are concentrated, with fishing activities accounting for the highest proportion (i.e., 60.3% for gillnet, trap, and stow-net fishing) of the total cumulative impact among the marine activities. The cumulative impact is confirmed to vary by activity depending on whether the weight of the marine ecosystem is applied. This study provides an overview for quantifying the cumulative impacts of marine activities within a spatial context. It also highlights the importance of adequately considering the collection and processing of data before CIA. In addition, the activity–pressure–ecosystem linkage concept must consider the conditions of the study area to improve the accuracy and reliability of CIA. Further, the analysis and mapping techniques for CIA require improvement. This study can be used as a guideline for developing and utilizing the CIA tool in countries and regions planning to adopt MSP.