Keywords

Introduction

The EU has set an ambitious agenda to combat climate change, in which renewable energies play a fundamental role in achieving climate neutrality by 2050 (European Commission, 2019). In this scenario, offshore renewable energy sources, including marine energy, will have increasing importance in the European energy system. Therefore, Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) is an important tool to ensure the sustainable deployment of the blue energy sector within the framework of the European Integrated Maritime Policy (García et al., 2020). In 2014, the EU adopted the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive to promote the sustainable development of marine areas and the responsible use of its resources, requiring each Member State to adopt and implement a Maritime Spatial Plan (as of 2023, all member states have either adopted or are in the process of adopting these plans). This Directive, in particular Articles 4–7, 10–12, sets forth seven minimum requirements, requiring maritime planning to (Friess & Grémaud-Colombier, 2021):

  1. 1.

    take into account land-sea interactions;

  2. 2.

    take into account environmental, economic, and social aspects, as well as safety aspects;

  3. 3.

    aim to promote coherence between maritime spatial planning and the resulting plan or plans and other processes, such as integrated coastal management or equivalent formal or informal practices;

  4. 4.

    ensure the involvement of stakeholders;

  5. 5.

    organise the use of the best available data;

  6. 6.

    ensure transboundary cooperation between Member States;

  7. 7.

    promote cooperation with third countries.

In addition, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (UNESCO-IOC) developed in 2021 an International Guide on Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning, outlining the main and most important aspects to be included in marine spatial plans.

Despite the common understanding, acceptance, and adoption of MSP across the EU as a tool to jointly consider industrial, economic, and social objectives, limitations and challenges exist in its development and implementation as a decision-making tool and conflict-resolution resource. Although the ambition is to prioritise and optimise the use of maritime resources and areas, conflicts often arise when software-based decisions, such as those arising from MSP, are perceived by stakeholders as either complex or untrustworthy. Therefore, MSP-based decisions should be inclusive, socially fair, equitable, and flexible in order to be effective (Boussarie et al., 2023).

In this chapter, we review the design and implementation process of maritime spatial plans in two key case studies—Portugal and Norway—to highlight the critical discussions that have taken place, and are currently underway, regarding how to utilise MSP as a tool for the just and equitable distribution and use of maritime areas. The interdisciplinary author team, whose expertise spans social sciences, marine ecology, climatology, and risk analysis, reviewed the MSP processes and plans in both countries, while critically looking into the public discourses and current events regarding maritime development. An intensive writing retreat was conducted as part of this work, where the authors dived deeply into these topics, bringing up important cross-cutting interdisciplinary considerations discussed further below. Thanks to this interdisciplinary approach, we base our arguments not only on data provided by the natural sciences but also on a wider range of perspectives that include the issues of justice and fairness.

Experiences with MSP: Case Studies from Portugal and Norway

Portugal

The Maritime Spatial Plan for Portugal (acronym in Portuguese: PSOEM) was established in 2014 through the Basic Law of the National Maritime Spatial Planning and Management Policy targeting the temporal and spatial management of human activities operating in the Portuguese maritime area. PSOEM is an instrumental framework for planning the entire Portuguese maritime space, including inland maritime waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves extending beyond 200 nautical miles. It is considered the situation plan as it delineates the spatial and temporal distribution of current and potential uses and activities and identifies relevant areas of conservation, including biodiversity and underwater cultural heritage values. It also includes critical networks and structures associated with national defence, internal security, and civil protection. Functioning as a pivotal tool for maritime policy, this plan aims to optimise compatibility among competing uses or activities, with the overarching goal of enhancing the economic utilisation of the marine environment and mitigating the adverse impacts of human activities on marine ecosystems.

Another type of national MSP instrument corresponds to the allocation plans (Calado et al., 2024) that are meant to identify—and allocate areas to—specific “new” uses that were not yet included in the PSOEM (either as existing or potential uses). Upon approval, these plans become automatically integrated into the PSOEM, and may be carried out either by public or private initiatives, although in this case, there must always be a public entity responsible for the plan. Hence, PSOEM and the allocation plans serve as the enabling mechanisms for the issuance of a Permit for Private Use of the National Maritime Space (PPUNMS), which is the specific instrument to manage the private use of Portuguese maritime space.

PPUNMS are formalised through the issuance of a Title of Private Use of the Maritime Space (TUPEM) that has a specific duration and can be of three types: concession, licence, or authorisation, irrespective of the nature and legal structure of the recipient. Several TUPEM modalities are foreseen, namely in aquaculture; energy resources, including exploration of renewable energies, gas, and oil; research; recreation, sports, and tourism; immersion of waste/dredging; infrastructure and equipment; as well as other uses or activities of industrial nature.

Notwithstanding, some gaps have been recognised in PSOEM, particularly regarding the complexity and state of marine ecosystems and the impact of certain existing and potential activities in the marine environment. For example, for some emerging activities such as marine biotechnology, metallic mineral resources, and geological carbon storage, the situation plan only characterises the activities without presenting potential areas or guidelines for compatibility between activities and minimising impacts on the environment (Calado et al., 2024).

Another point of concern relates to areas with protection status, including the Natura 2000 Network and marine protected areas, where special care must be ensured to comply with their management guidelines while adopting complementary measures to minimise possible negative impacts. In addition, the participation of stakeholders in the Portuguese MSP has been mostly top-down, from the initial definition of objectives to the final stages, despite being recommended that stakeholders be integrated throughout the entire process (Gómez-Ballesteros et al., 2021).

To account for some of the current limitations of PSOEM, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) process was implemented, aiming at optimised environmental integration by assessing opportunities and risks of actions, evaluating, and comparing alternative development scenarios before decision-making. Adding up to this, specific methodologies have been developed to address missing links between different instruments (e.g., EU MSP Directive, EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive, EU Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive) (Calado et al., 2021).

Besides the existence of a legal framework for MSP in Portugal, the PSOEM made possible the existence of a geoportal with relevant information in a digital, open-access format that is continuously updated, which facilitates transparency, information sharing, and consultation by all interested parts, from authorities to investors, and thus supports and expedites decision-making (Calado et al., 2024). Overall, the Portuguese experience is positive, although further improvements should be considered given the complexity and dynamic nature of the process.

Norway

Although not an EU member state, Norway is part of the European Economic Area (EEA). However, the EEA follows a smaller thematic and geographical area of operation than the EU. For example, directives related to conservation, agriculture, fisheries, and EU habitats are not included as part of the EEA agreement’s scope. In addition, the EEA agreement only applies to the Norwegian territory, which is the area between the main border and up to 12 nautical miles, while the rest of the regions follow constitutional law and international agreements (Schütz & Johansen, 2023).

The MSP Directive is not included in the EEA agreement, and therefore Norway is not required to abide by it. Still, Norway is considered one of the European countries with an established system to manage their seas, and in many ways, the country’s legal framework already included the requirements of the EU MSP Directive. Norway’s strategy for ecosystem-based management includes the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea, the North Sea, and Skagerrak. Also, maritime spatial use follows different laws. For instance, in coastal regions, it follows the National Planning and Building Act, the Land and Water Act, the Marine Resources Act, and the Aquaculture Act. In addition, maritime spatial use is decided by municipal spatial plans (Schütz & Johansen, 2023).

In 2022, the Norwegian Government developed a roadmap with principles for maritime spatial use. This roadmap is meant to create predictability and a foundation for the coexistence of different maritime industries, such as, but not limited to, wind energy, carbon capture and storage, green shipping, sustainable seafood production, kelp production, and carbon binding. Every fourth year, a message about administration plans for the spatial sea areas is made; the next one being developed in 2024 with a focus on sustainable seas.

One of the most controversial decisions of this process was taken in June 2023, when the Norwegian Government proposed deep-sea mining in a 280,000 km2 region in the Arctic between Svalbard, Greenland, Iceland, and Jan Mayen. In January 2024, the Norwegian Parliament approved this proposition despite clear advice and rejection from the Norwegian Environment Agency and the Norwegian Institute of Marine Research, due to the existing knowledge gaps about its impact and consequences for various species, the environment, and fisheries (Stortinget, 2023).

Therefore, different companies can apply to start deep-sea mining in the proposed region to extract metals such as copper, cobalt, gold, and other rare minerals that can be found in manganese crusts (Stortinget, 2023). This has led to debates and dissatisfaction among numerous international and national environmental organisations, while other countries, US states, and even companies have set in place or demanded a moratorium/ban on deep-sea mining (WWF, 2024). Put simply, local and global actors are worried—based on the current scientific understanding—about the unknown social and environmental consequences; while some industrial actors, such as the companies Loke Marine Minerals and Green Minerals, argue that more minerals are needed for the technological development enabling the green transition.

One of the main concerns is the impact of deep-sea mining on some organisms endemic to this region, such as sponge grounds that grow on manganese crusts. Sponge grounds are areas where a high number of sponges live and can stretch for several kilometres. These sponge aggregations are considered threatened by the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) and are classified as vulnerable marine ecosystems. Also, other species are dependent on these sponge grounds, as they provide structural habitats.

Overall, MSP is an important process to help facilitate difficult but important conversations. By listening to research communities, organisations, and other stakeholders, the hope is that maritime areas can be utilised in the best possible manner, taking into consideration both environmental and social impacts. However, the recent approval of deep-sea mineral mining shows that MSP is not always followed entirely. This case study shows that, although MSP can be used to safeguard marine life, several challenges remain. The exploitation of protected areas for commercial uses or green transitions risks damaging both environmentally sensitive areas and disrupting trust and confidence between the different actors in maritime planning. Lessons learned from deliberation around other topics should be included in future work about maritime planning, particularly on deep-sea mining.

Conclusions and Recommendations

As shown in the Portugal and Norway case studies, there are tensions between different stakeholders relating to the governance of maritime issues. Indeed, since the development of MSP, critique has been raised that this process ignores existing power relations and rather favours scientific knowledge at the expense of other perspectives (Flannery et al., 2018). For example, the introduction of commercial activities such as aquaculture or offshore wind farms can have local implications that are not captured in risk assessments based on quantitative scientific calculations. For instance, these calculations do not take into account the changing physical environment on local social identities or the changes in housing prices. Also, if traditional livelihoods are threatened, even a small risk can be seen as unacceptable by local communities. Indeed, MSP can be seen as a process to increase “blue production” rather than promote sustainable blue growth as intended by the EU.

One explicit aim of this tool is to engage with all stakeholders, but research indicates that previous experiences have much room for improvement. The planning process usually involves making decisions along several phases. However, it is usually not until the process reaches the operational stage—where a final decision has to be made—that stakeholders are involved (Flannery et al., 2018). Involving stakeholders late in the process is often a mere act of tokenism, as they can only react to the proposal in front of them, and often leads to increased conflict arising from power inequalities.

If MSP intends to address all interests and concerns related to maritime-both nearshore and offshore-management in a fair and equitable manner all stakeholders, be they large companies or local communities, need to be able to contribute to the whole planning process and need to be provided with the same opportunities and responsibilities. This also includes fairness in access to resources and information, transparency about how participation is linked to decision-making, and willingness to learn (Chilvers, 2008). In addition, the process can significantly benefit from the facilitation by an independent agent.

Based on the two case studies discussed above, as well as the MSP literature, we conclude that MSP can be an effective platform to bring stakeholders together to make critical, yet difficult, decisions regarding maritime spatial use. Therefore, our main policy recommendation is that EU strategies for Maritime Spatial Planning must ensure the fair and equitable representation of all stakeholders’ needs and concerns to balance environmental, social, and economic goals.

The involvement of all stakeholders, allowing for a multiplicity of perspectives to be included, is crucial for reaching democratic and equitable decisions. This means that representation based on numbers, e.g., one representative per organisation, can lead to the prevalence of existing power dynamics. Instead, representation needs to be equitable among sectors, where industrial interests are given the same power of influence as environmental or cultural interests. When interests compete, there are bound to be situations where not all stakeholders will be satisfied with the final solution. For example, increasing mining for the green transition might not be compatible with preserving biodiversity. In this context, stakeholders with large resources, such as private companies, will be usually more likely to assert their positions than local environmental groups arguing for conservation. To avoid this, there is a need to create fair and transparent processes, where stakeholders are active participants in reaching a joint decision, rather than passive actors asked to justify an already-made decision (Chilvers, 2008). If the process is perceived as fair, chances are that most stakeholders will leave the process with an increased understanding of other stakeholders’ perspectives and needs, even if disagreement on the final decision is difficult to avoid.

To conclude, we have highlighted in this chapter how maritime spatial planning faces the same challenges as many models and frameworks that seek to engage stakeholders in the decision-making processes affecting our collective future. In developing this contribution, the interdisciplinary collaboration between natural and social scientists proved to be an enriching experience, resulting in fruitful discussions among the authors that stressed the need to consider equity aspects. Maritime spatial planning is a fairly new tool, with an opportunity to help, rather than hinder, equity. We, therefore, urge decision-makers to learn from previous experiences and utilise this tool to promote fair and equitable stakeholder involvement and arrive at decisions that can be respected by everyone involved. In this way, MSP has the potential to build trust and pave the way towards a truly sustainable governance of the marine environment.