Disclaimer

This report commits only the Commission's services involved in its preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission.

1. Introduction 3

1.1. Context and purpose 3

1.2. Maritime planning and coastal management – what is it about 4

2. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties 8

2.1. Identification 8

2.2. Organisation and timing 8

2.3. Incorporating comments from the Impact Assessment Board 8

2.4. Consultation and expertise 10

3. Problem definition 12

3.1. What is the issue or problem that may require action? 12

3.2. Underlying causes of the problems – what are the drivers and regulatory failures? 19

3.3. Who is affected? 24

3.4. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal (baseline scenario)? 25

3.5. Does the EU have the right to act and is EU added-value evident? 30

4. Objectives 34

5. Policy options 35

6. Analysis of impacts of policy options 40

6.1. Methodological considerations 40

6.2. Effectiveness of the options in reaching the objectives 41

6.3. Economic Impacts 45

6.4. Environmental impacts: 51

6.5. Social impacts: 52

7. Comparing the options 54

7.1. Overview policy options 54

7.2. Joint policy options for integrated maritime planning and coastal management processes 55

7.3. Conclusions and preferred option 55

8. Monitoring and evaluation 58

Annexes 60

Introduction

1.1. Context and purpose

Exploitation activities within maritime zones and of marine resources are an important field of economic activity in the Union. Several sectors compete for maritime space and resources across marine regions. Conflicts between sea users and demands for sea space are anticipated to increase dramatically in the coming years (in particular due to emerging activities such as offshore renewable energy and aquaculture). Almost half of the Union's population live within 50 kilometres of the sea. This increasing intensity of maritime activities leads to unsustainable use of marine and coastal resources

Good management of our oceans, seas and coastal zones thus becomes increasingly important.

European legislators have adopted ambitious policy initiatives relevant for oceans, seas and coasts to be implemented in the next 10-20 years. These initiatives include Agenda 2020[1], the Marine Strategy Framework Directive[2], the Renewable Energy Directive[3] and the Motorways of the Sea initiative[4]. The EU is expected to adopt a reformed Common Fisheries Policy in 2012.

Limited space and resource availability in marine regions make that the organisation of activities in there face important challenges in different policy areas, including environment, fisheries, maritime transport, off shore energy, etc. Under each of these policies, specific objectives are set, which might cause conflicts of implementation if not dealt with in a co-ordinated way across maritime sub-regions, including co-ordination of land-sea interactions. Currently, those in charge of these mentioned sectoral policy areas often adopt decisions relevant to the management of our seas and oceans independently from each other. Ocean management decisions thus may not only become incoherent with each other, but run the risk of undermining each other. An additional problem is that maritime governance to a large extent remains national although the problems faced by Europe's coastal regions and seas relate to marine regions or sub-regions and involve more than one country. Key transnational topics, such as, a coherent energy policy, transnational cables, safe, a healthy marine and coastal environment, clean and efficient maritime transport and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture depend on connectivity and a more transnational and cross-sectoral approach.

At the time where Europe is going through a severe financial/economic crisis, resource efficiency is more important than ever. Economic growth must be encouraged to safeguard Europe's future through creating new jobs across the maritime sectors and this must happen in phase with major initiatives such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Agenda 2020. There is a need for tools that enable growth by increasing efficiencies and streamlining and facilitating coexistence of multiple activities. The use of smarter maritime and coastal governance tools will most likely enhance resource efficiency and facilitate the implementation of distinct sectoral EU policies by promoting synergies between activities, co-existence of uses, and multiple uses of the same space through shared infrastructures of different sectors. These tools could help reduce or remove obstacles to the efficient use of resources and economic development while attaining the achievement of ecosystem health.

The purpose of this Impact Assessment is to assess the potential for EU action to support an integrated approach to the governance of the European seas and coastal zones as a means to tackle the above challenges. This entails moving from a sectoral approach to a more integrated and coherent governance system across marine regions and sub-regions. The implementation of an ecosystem approach to maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal zone management is fundamental to ensure that development and growth remain sustainable.

The governance tools examined in this impact assessment to implement these objectives are Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). The purpose of these tools is to ensure an integrated and comprehensive planning of maritime uses and management of coastal zones. These tools cover specific measures that offer a solution for the identified problems and are assessed under different possible policy options. A summary overview of the effectiveness of possible solutions in relation to the identified problem causes and the extent to which they are covered by the different analysed policy options is given in Annex 1.

It follows up on the Commission's commitment to consider EU action on MSP in conjunction with further work on ICZM[5].

1.2. Maritime Planning and Coastal Management – what is it about

1.2.1. Maritime planning

Maritime Spatial Planning, hereafter referred to as MSP or maritime planning, is commonly referred to as a public process for analysing and allocating spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in maritime zones to achieve environmental, economic and social objectives. It is a multi-sector tool to facilitate the implementation of the ecosystem approach and to support the reconciliation, in a given maritime region or sub-region, of concurrent human activities in the same area and of maritime activities and their impact on the marine environment without any built-in priority for either type of spatial claim.

MSP as a process serves to include all sectoral policy decision makers who have an interest in the use of sea space in a coherent decision making process on the most efficient and sustainable use of sea space. The ultimate aim of the process is to avoid or reduce the potential for conflicting decisions to arrive at a situation where agreed/binding plans are adopted which identify the utilisation of sea space by different uses.

MSP differs from terrestrial planning, because it operates within three dimensions, addressing activities on the seabed, in the water column and on the surface. It is also different compared to land planning because ocean space is in principle not subject to private ownership. States' rights over ocean space also differ from those exercised over land space, as the former - depending on the maritime zone concerned or maritime activity envisaged - differentiates between sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdictional rights. It is the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which regulates, amongst other issues, the rights and duties of the coastal States and third countries in the waters falling under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the coastal State. A coastal State which carries out MSP in their waters will therefore have to take due account of relevant rights and obligations of third countries according to UNCLOS.

MSP is regularly being promoted by the scientific community as a useful tool to manage the sea space[6]. Although MSP practice is recent (in Europe it has been developed over the last ten years), it is widely accepted as a crucial tool to support sound management of our seas. Work to develop and/or promote MSP is on-going in numerous regional and international bodies such as UNESCO, OECD and Regional Sea Conventions.[7] A number of States, including EU Member States[8], have already taken action for the introduction of MSP, and in other countries, its implementation is under preparation[9]. Experiences from those Member States which have introduced MSP processes have been very positive and lead to a better management of their waters and important resource efficiency gains. MSP is implemented in third countries such as the US[10], Canada and Australia.

Example 1: In Germany, comprehensive legislation has been adopted to ensure the implementation of MSP in territorial waters (under the regime of the Länder) and in their Exclusive Economic Zone (under federal competence). This legislation has to a large extent been adopted to allow for the orderly development of renewable energy installations in German waters and to avoid conflicts between this emerging sector and other marine sectors competing for the same ocean space.

Example 2: In the Netherlands, fully fledged MSP has been implemented at national level in order to cope for the management of their busy sea areas. Of particular importance for the Netherlands has been to secure a safe access of maritime transport activities to their ports, such as Rotterdam.

At EU level, MSP was identified as an important tool for integrated sea use management in the Blue Book "An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union", of 2007[11]. Elements for a coherent approach to MSP at EU level were set out in the 2008 Commission Communication "Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU"[12]. This Communication proposed a common approach to Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU and elaborated 10 key principles[13] for good governance.

In 2010, the Commission adopted a second Communication on MSP entitled "Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU – Achievements and future development"[14]. One of the main conclusions of this progress report was that there was broad agreement among stakeholders to further develop a common approach on MSP at EU level.

Annex 2b illustrates how MSP could potentially be used to organise maritime space by economic activities in the Baltic Sea (which is not currently the case)[15].

1.2.2. Coastal Management

The purpose of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, hereafter referred to as ICZM or Coastal Management, is to ensure the sustainable exploitation of coastal zones. Coastal zones are commonly understood as the area where sea and land processes interact. These processes are dynamic and include effects of tiding, erosion, sedimentation, deposition, flooding and saltation. It is also the zone where many human activities are concentrated thus serving many important socio-economic functions.

ICZM is a process tool aiming to achieve integrated management of all policy processes affecting the coastal zone. The added value[16] of Integrated Coastal Zone Management is that it addresses the land and the sea simultaneously. Linkages between “dry side” (land) and “wet side” (sea) of the coast are such that the sustainable development of coastal/marine resources requires their co-ordinated management. Existing EU legislation focuses either on the terrestrial side or marine side. In the rare cases where land-sea interaction is considered, not all relevant interactions are addressed[17].

The sea strongly affects the land and intertidal areas such as through pollution from tanker bilge washings or destruction from storm flooding and wave action. The “natural defences” of the coastline - beaches, mangroves and coral reefs are very important to protecting shorelines and coastal villages.

ICZM (similarly to MSP) is designed to "join up" all the different policies which have an effect on coastal regions by ensuring that coastal planning activities or development decisions are taken in an integrated fashion, rather than on a sectoral basis. Furthermore, it can complement coastal management and protection in areas where no EU legislation exists, e.g. on coastal erosion, adaptation to climate change and promotion of green infrastructure. ICZM covers the full cycle of problem identification, information collection, planning, decision making, management and monitoring of implementation. It uses participation of all stakeholders to assess the common goals in a given coastal area, and to develop action towards meeting them. Cross-border co-operation is crucial for the integrated management of coastal zones.

Several case studies have demonstrated that ICZM can be both environmentally and economically beneficial.

Example 1: In Rotterdam the integrated, long term ROM Rijnmond programme (1993-2010), has brought together local stakeholders and led to an increase in throughput of goods, and to significant pollution reduction. The extension of the harbour went hand in hand with environmental restoration projects and the creation of a Marine Nature Reserve which resulted in improved quality of air, water and soil (e.g. reduction of cadmium concentration and noise pollution).[18]

Example 2: The cross-border ICZM project for the German/Polish border region of the Szczecin Lagoon (1995-2004) developed a joint future vision for the Szczecin Lagoon Region, defined strategic goals for sustainable development and identified possible measures. The project failed due to national inconsistencies and different perceptions of ICZM[19].

Due to the increasing activities in near and offshore areas, the implementation of ICZM increasingly involves the marine area. Like MSP, ICZM is applied in many countries worldwide, through legislation and/or programmes[20].

In 2002, the Council and the European Parliament adopted a Recommendation on ICZM[21] defining the principles of sound coastal planning and management and including the need for sound and shared knowledge, a long term and adaptive approach, a cross sector perspective, involvement of stakeholders and taking into account terrestrial and marine components of the coastal zone.

The ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention[22], entered into force in March 2011. This protocol makes ICZM compulsory for coastal Member States in the Mediterranean.

1.2.3. Towards a better integration of maritime planning and coastal management

MSP and ICZM are linked concepts because they both address the use of coastal and maritime space and the management of human activities. They have both been identified as integrated management tools under the Integrated Maritime Policy of the EU (Bluebook 2007). Their objectives are to ensure a more integrated decision making process and coherence between potentially competing sector policies. They are both multi-sector oriented and aim to achieve economic, social and environmental goals. They also rely on very similar key principles such as stakeholder involvement, transparency, the ambition to implement the ecosystem approach and decision-making based on good data and information. Despite these similarities and although there are strong connections between them at the land-sea interface, the two concepts have to a great extent been developed separately. In Member State there is a tendency to implement either MSP or ICZM, or to implement them separately. In Northern Europe MSP is more frequent, while in Southern Europe there are more ICZM- type processes.

Applied jointly MSP and ICZM improve sea-land interface planning and management. This is particularly relevant for offshore wind which necessitates closely linked and co-ordinated planning and management activities both at sea and land (e.g. the construction of offshore wind farms has an impact on the coast and requires the connection of the grid from the sea to the land part). Management decisions taken on land affect maritime activities, and vice-versa. Ensuring a joint approach to MSP and ICZM is a logical next step. The need to ensure a more joint up approach between MSP and ICZM at EU level was highlighted during the public consultation and a number of Member States have expressed support for it.

But there are also distinctions between the concepts which should be kept in mind: MSP focuses exclusively on the management of human uses of maritime space, ICZM goes beyond human uses. The geographical scope is also different: ICZM covers the intensively used coastal land and coastal waters. The geographical scope of MSP is larger and applies to all marine waters which are subject to conflicting uses, however, it does not cover coastal land use[23]. The maritime areas of the Member States are different from land areas in that no specific sea ownership exists. Use management therefore depends essentially on usage rights which in turn depend on cross-border linkages.

In conclusion, there are strong arguments to examine the benefits of a joint approach on MSP and ICZM at EU level and integrate both process tools into a streamlined maritime planning and coastal management process. DG MARE and DG ENV, therefore, decided to join forces in evaluating the need for developing and integrating MSP and ICZM further within the EU. The added value of addressing MSP and ICZM jointly in one legal initiative was confirmed in the stakeholder consultation.

2. Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties

2.1. Identification

The objective of this Impact Assessment is to provide an analysis of the options for EU action to enhance coherent planning and management of marine waters and coastal zones. The agenda planning reference is 2011/ENV/013 and 2011/MARE/017.

This Impact Assessment aims to:

– Analyse the need for EU action;

– Determine the most suitable delivery instrument for this action.

2.2. Organisation and timing

An Impact Assessment Steering Group (IASG) was created in November 2010 when it met for the first time. DG MARE and DG ENV organised four meetings of the steering group in total between November 2010 and October 2011. The Secretariat-General, the Legal Service, DG AGRI, ENTR, EMPL, MOVE, ENER, CLIMA, RTD, REGIO, EEAS, ELARG, and JRC have been invited to participate in the steering group.

Final consultation of the IASG was carried out through electronic means in early November 2011.

2.3. Incorporating comments from the Impact Assessment Board

A report was sent to the Impact Assessment Board on 16 November 2011.

In its opinion of 16 December 2011[24], the IAB recommended (1) to better present the nature and the scope of the problems, (2) to better demonstrate the need for and value added of EU action, (3) to design and present options that relate more clearly to the identified problems, (4) to improve the assessment of impacts and (5) to better present the monitoring and evaluation arrangements. These recommendations have been taken into account in the final version of this impact assessment report.

A revised version was submitted on 20 March 2012 which took into account the comments from the Impact Assessment Board in the following way:

1. Apart from a slight revision of the introduction, the policy instruments of ICZM and MSP are presented in more depth including through concrete examples. The specific nature of maritime planning as opposed to land planning is outlined. Links and synergies between MSP and ICZM are further elaborated.

2. The request to clearly state the concrete nature and scope of the problems was only partially complied with because of the absence of reliable data on the scope of spatial conflicts in European seas. Illustrative examples such as Belgian spatial claims in the North Sea and cross-border co-operation in the Baltic coastal zone, and figures on the expected expansion of offshore wind farms were added to underline current trends. To better highlight the problems related to coastal zones, relevant figures on population distribution are added and the vulnerable features of coastal zones are outlined.

3. The presentation of the problems and their drivers was restructured and referred to a general overarching problem which is broken down in six concrete problems. The lack of available information systems or the incompatibility between various data sets is now well described as one of the underlying problems.

4. An overview table that links the effectiveness of possible solutions to resolve the problem drivers and the extent to which they are covered by the different policy options is added in Annex 1.

5. Illustrations to better exemplify MSP and ICZM concepts were added. An additional table illustrating conflicts between sea uses was added in Annex 4.

6. The reasoning behind the legal basis for EU action on MSP and ICZM and the synergy effects of an integrated application of MSP and ICZM tools was expanded. The legal basis for EU action is clarified. The need for and value added of EU action is illustrated through references e.g. to the experiences of the Interreg project BaltSeaPlan.

7. The request to present the policy options in a more neutral way and less biased towards the preferred option was addressed by restructuring the whole policy option part into three main groups of policy options. The separate cross-cutting option on availability of data and information was presented in more detail.

8. The methodology used for the analysis of impacts was explained more substantially through referencing the qualitative and quantitative approaches that were used and explicitly taking into account the limits imposed by the lack of available data and constraints of monetary assessment frameworks. Justification for combining the analysis of qualitative economic, social and environmental impacts for all policy options was included. An example underlying the expected positive benefit-cost ratio of ICZM implementation was added. In Annex 6 the methodology to quantify ICZM implementation costs was further elaborated. The fact that fully representative calculations for the administrative costs of different policy options are impossible due to the absence of EU wide data on the matter was clarified.

9. On monitoring and evaluation arrangements, this section was expanded to clarify the intention to propose "light" provisions on monitoring measures which are in line with achieving the optimal mix between administrative burden and regulatory effectiveness.

In its opinion on the revised version of 30 April 2012, the IAB noted that the report had been improved following its initial recommendations and provided further recommendations to strengthen some issues that relate to (1) the added value of EU action, (2) better presentation of the measures under the different policy options and (3) providing more detail on the underpinning of the impact analysis.

These recommendations were addressed in the following way:

1. More prominence was given to shortcomings of the current situation and areas where Member State action is insufficient. A new section 3.4.3 "Examples of identified shortcomings" was added that contains a list of most prominent shortcomings of current action by Member States. Furthermore, the baseline scenario (point 3.4) was strengthened in order to give a clearer and more detailed explanation of the extent to which no or non-binding EU action will maintain fragmentation and encourage a pick-and-choose approach.

2. Revisions were made throughout the text and in order to further underline the need for legislative EU action. In particular, deliberations on the added value were split from those on subsidiarity and proportionality and transferred into a separate paragraph to underline their fundamental importance. This paragraph motivates more solidly the EU added value and includes a few illustrative examples.

3. As for the better presentation of the concrete measures under the different policy options, especially for option 3 (Directive/Regulation), the concrete obligations and measures are described in more detail. Moreover, further explanation was added of the impacts of the other options, notably by elaborating on their effectiveness. This now should provide for a better understanding of the preferred option.

4. The request to strengthen the impact analysis and presentation of underlying evidence could only be complied with partly, because of the absence of reliable data. The explanation of lack of evidence, and the assumptions on which conclusions are based, was reinforced.

5. As regards the distinction between environmental, economic and social impacts, a clear differentiation is made for each policy option. The section on economic impacts already contained differentiated assessments for the different policy options. The comparison of the options in the table under point 7.1 is now more detailed.

6. Regarding the request to streamline annexes and the main text, the number of annexes was reduced with regard to their necessity for this Impact Assessment.

7. Also concerning shortening and streamlining, tables and figures were moved from the main text into the annexes and some tables were deleted completely.

2.4. Consultation and expertise

On 23 March 2011, DG MARE and DG ENV launched a joint public web-based consultation on MSP and ICZM, in support of the present Impact Assessment. This consultation ended on 20 May 2011. A total of 225 contributions were received, among which 109 responses on behalf of organisations. The overall result of this consultation was as follows:

· Confirmation that conflicts of the use of sea space is becoming more frequent and will continue in the future.

· Confirmation of the usefulness of implementing MSP in European waters and overall support of the work towards a common approach within the EU.

· Confirmation that the work so far towards implementing a common approach was appropriate and relevant, in particular the establishment of 10 key principles for MSP in the roadmap Communication of 2008.

· No clear answer to the question if a legally binding or a non-binding option for MSP in the EU would be the preferred option; stakeholders emphasized that any initiative would need to be coherent with other legal instruments such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Renewable Energy Directive. They also referred to subsidiarity concerns, but acknowledged the need for a common framework. Several stakeholders emphasized that such a common framework should not be over-prescriptive, but relatively simple and leave flexibility to Member States to implement MSP in accordance with the particularities of each region and/or administrative set-up.

· Consideration that EU action on cross-border issues on MSP would be particularly useful.

· Confirmation of the benefits and the added-value of EU action on ICZM. There is still important potential to improve on the full implementation of ICZM principles.

· Sustainable development remains an important objective, with institutional co-ordination, coherent planning of land and sea part of coastal zone, and integration across interests (social, economic and environmental) forming the core tenets of ICZM.

· There is scope to strengthen the basis of EU ICZM policy up to a binding but flexible legislative framework[25]. The support to ICZM through studies, projects, research is considered important as well.

· Confirmation of the need to ensure a strong link between ICZM and MSP.

A public hearing on ICZM was organised on 30 May 2011[26] that highlighted the need to consider the differences in coastal contexts and the linkages between ICZM and MSP. The lack of legal push was mentioned as an important barrier to progress ICZM. Mere support to ad-hoc projects would not be enough to advance ICZM, although financial support per se was valued. Spatial planning was said to be important, but should not solely focus on spatial conflict resolution.

The consultation has shown that the business community, in particular sectors involved in cross-border investments at sea - like transnational grids - is very favourable towards a European approach to MSP and ICZM, since such processes are expected to reduce their operative costs and facilitate the development of their activity. Others express reservations mostly related to concerns for over-regulation, emphasising that national authorities already have a burdensome task to implement existing policy initiatives. The reaction of the NGO Community has been mixed: some have been positive because of positive effects on nature conservation, others were more sceptical due to concerns that co-operation with other sectors could slow down the implementation of initiatives of their interest. The reactions from Member States representatives have been mixed, and depend on the content of the future action. A key concern for Member States is subsidiarity and fears that planning and management competences would be transferred to EU authorities.

The report of the public consultation and a more detailed summary of the results of the stakeholder consultation are available in Annexes 9 and 10.

The Commission has regularly consulted stakeholders on their view on MSP and ICZM, in addition to the consultation carried out for this impact assessment. Information on this, as well as studies and preparatory actions are summarised in Annex 3.

It should also be noted that in its report "Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing"[27], launched on 30 January 2012, the High-level Panel on Global Sustainability of the United Nations recommends the establishment of regional oceans and coastal management frameworks in order to support sustainable marine and coastal ecosystems[28].

3. Problem definition

3.1. What is the issue or problem that may require action?

Marine waters and coastal zones are subject to intense and increasing use for economic activities. The demand for space and competition and conflicts between uses in marine regions and sub-regions are expected to increase rapidly in the future[29]. Traditional activities such as fisheries, shipping, dredging and oil exploitation have expanded rapidly over the past decades. New uses (such as tourism, mineral extraction, or recently wind energy and offshore marine aquaculture), have started to claim their own sea space[30]. Crucial decisions on maritime spatial use will be made over the next few years. A study done for the Belgian part of the North Sea shows that the total claim for ocean space is almost three times as high as the space that is available. Similar experiences in other countries confirm this.[31]

Compared to inland areas, coastal zones are affected by more intense land-use and higher urbanisation rates as almost half of the EU's population lives within the 50 kilometres of the sea. These zones increasingly suffer from ecosystem degradation which also has negative social and economic consequences. Climate change impacts such as sea level rise will further increase the exposure to risks for assets, population and biodiversity and the need for adaptation measures which should be planned and executed in an integrated framework.

Annex 2a illustrates the potential for competition/conflicts of uses in unplanned space (here: the Baltic Sea).

The intense and increased use of coastal and maritime areas, the close interactions between land and sea based activities and the lack of clearly defined property rights for coastal and marine waters has led to the general problem of competition for maritime and coastal space and inefficient use of resources. This overarching problem can be broken down into five more concrete problems in maritime and coastal areas such as conflicting claims on maritime and coastal space (problem 1), leading not only to inefficient and unbalanced use of maritime and coastal space (problems 2 and 3) and suboptimal exploitation of economic potentials (problem 4), but also to insufficient adaptation to climate risks and degradation of marine and coastal environment (problem 5).

It should be noted that the problems and their underlying causes (presented below in 3.2) were very similar or closely interconnected between MSP and ICZM which was one of the reasons which led to merging the two initiatives and integrate both tools into an overarching maritime planning and coastal management process.

As requested by the Impact Assessment Board, these five concrete problems are analysed in more detail including the illustration of these problems by examples:

Problem 1: Conflicting claims on maritime space

The rapid increase in the use of the maritime space has led to increased conflicts between competing uses, such as sand extraction, cables, pipelines, wind parks, fishing activities and shipping routes, although in some cases there can also be synergies between them. The most frequent examples of conflicts between sea uses occur in shallow marine waters of heavily used sea areas such as the North Sea and the Baltic Sea where for example fishing activities compete with Natura 2000 designations and sand and gravel extraction sites. In the Mediterranean, such as in Greece, tourism (e.g. bathing water use) often competes with other economic activities close to the coastline, such as aquaculture. The most significant driver among new emerging activities is the rapidly expanding renewable energy sector following the implementation of the 2009 Renewable Energy Directive[32] which requires EU Member States to produce a pre-agreed proportion of energy consumption from renewable sources by 2020. According to the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA), 4 GW has already been installed in European waters by the end of 2011, making Europe world leader in offshore wind. EWEA expects this capacity to grow tenfold by 2020, achieving 40 GW. By 2030 this should grow by an additional 110 GW, for a total of 150 GW.[33] 60 % of the offshore wind capacity should be situated in the North Sea basin and around 20 % in the Atlantic Ocean. The offshore wind energy sector is already competing with many other sectors (such as fishing and nature conservation).[34] Offshore wind installations are also competing with the maritime transport sector, in particular around the British Isles, which leads to longer transport routes[35]. The Maritime transport[36] and the dredging[37] sectors have themselves been growing rapidly despite the financial crisis. For maritime transport especially, activity is intensifying and ports are expanding. The latest development is the building of an 18.000 TEU container vessel for a European shipping company – this is 50% larger than the largest current vessel. Ports and shipping lanes will have to accommodate this as well as the continuing increase in maritime transport (14% in 2010). Offshore transhipment facilities are part of this discussion. In intensively used sea areas, the cross-border nature of shipping lanes calls for intensive and upstream coordination of planning activities to avoid conflicts with these shipping lanes. At the same time, the need to plan and organise any changes to shipping lanes through international coordination in the IMO requires a good understanding by all involved Member States and stakeholders. Shipping companies also spend financial resources fighting unplanned decisions, lose time due to inefficient changes in shipping routes, and are often uncertain about the timing of infrastructure developments.

Stakeholders' views collected in the consultation of April/May 2011 confirmed competition for space as a major issue in the context of the economic use of marine regions around Europe.

Sectors with less growth potential indicate serious concerns with regard to the encroachment of fixed and mobile uses, as well as expansion of the legally required environment protection areas: in the North Sea[38], maritime transport and fishing sector have indicated that some of them could lead to € 160 million losses in the short term. Most of this development takes place in limited space and increasingly needs to be managed.

Problem 2: Inefficient use of maritime space

The lack of co-ordination between different sectoral decision makers during the process of granting the use of sea space has led to situations where activities are dispersed and larger areas of the sea space than necessary are occupied. This experience was made in Germany where the territorial waters already are fully utilised. At EU level, Ministers for Spatial Planning stressed, on 19 May 2011 ""Economic activities such as energy production and transport [at sea] are increasing rapidly […] there is a need to solve user conflicts and balance various interests".[39]

Inefficient use of sea space can also be quite costly. The study[40] on the economic benefits of MSP carried out at the initiative of the European Commission demonstrates, taking examples from the North Sea, that an innocuous event as the inefficient displacement of a ferry route can lead to significant and avoidable costs.

The Interreg project Baltseaplan[41] promotes the concept of spatial efficiency. The concept of spatial efficiency means that sea space shall be used sparingly, that uses should be concentrated as much as possible to keep other areas free, and that co-uses, synergies and multiple spatial use should be promoted. The most common example of co-use is the one of off shore wind installations and aquaculture installations, which could co-exist in the same area and make use of similar infrastructures.

The public consultation[42] has showed that stakeholders are favourable to more efficient use of the sea space, which can lead to more sparing use of sea space and economic efficiency gains through enhanced co-operation between sectors.

Problem 3: Unbalanced use of coastal space

In the public consultation more than 60% of respondents "disagree" or "somewhat disagree" that currently "a balance is sought between stakeholders needs, including the environment, for new coastal development". Even more disagreement is noted regarding the integration of long-term interests and the co-ordination of infrastructure and building plans[43]. Although variations in land-use changes are observed between coastal regions, a common feature is an increase in built-up areas (artificial surfaces) by more than 20% over the past two decades in EU coastal regions[44] outpacing the growth of coastal population density[45]. Fragmentation and built up land is likely to increase by over 20% across the EU coastal areas[46]. Diffuse sprawl and continuous linear urbanisation along the coast, as contrasted to compact development, are particularly noticeable: 40% of the Mediterranean shoreline is already built-up and by 2025 this could be 50%[47].

Europe's sea ports play an important role in the EU economy and provide significant direct and indirect employment in coastal regions and serve as the key gateways to the EU transport network.[48] Options for expansion of port infrastructure in existing locations are often limited, due to already dense use of coastal space. Port authorities are increasingly aware that appropriate embedding of ports development in line with the local environmental and coastal communities is a necessary condition for stable, sustainable development[49].

Environmental protection laws already address some of the imbalances. However, some important aspects are not covered (explicitly) by EU legislation, such as coastal erosion, sediment management, coastal adaptation to climate change or green infrastructure and are therefore not sufficiently considered in an appropriate way when planning the use of coastal areas. In order to do such planning in an appropriate way there is an emerging need to co-ordinate land-sea interactions of human activities in marine regions and sub-regions across sectors.

Problem 4: Suboptimal exploitation of economic potential

Uncertainties and lack of predictability on appropriate access to the marine space has led to a suboptimal business climate for investors with potential job losses. Business investors have throughout the consultation process stated that industry needs transparency, stability, predictability[50]. Unnecessary additional costs for economic operators and administrations (e.g. licensing, administrative and legal costs, increased costs for investments further offshore due to poor planning) are related to the need for repeated search for similar information – some operators confirm that the same asset (research vessel) executes the same research tasks related to a particular sea area several times due to uncoordinated requests from different operators and/or administrations. Purely national approaches cause unnecessary transaction costs for economic operators and administrations for all sea use activities that have cross-border relevance[51]. This is in particular true for trans-national companies seeking to invest in cross-border installations such as for renewable energy grids, for example in the North Sea offshore grid.[52]

Sector-by-sector management of economic sectors such as aquaculture, tourism, agriculture, renewable energy, oil and gas industry can cause conflicts and disadvantageous economic trade-offs between sectors, while at the same time putting significant pressures on the environment. Management of sea use needs to take all aspects into account in allocating space to uses and supporting co-existence. This again shows the need for co-ordinated management of land-sea interactions of human activities in marine regions and sub-regions.

Fishing vessels may require similar port services as tourism activities as well as an infrastructure system that supplies water, sanitation, transportation, and telecommunications. Therefore, plans for both tourism and fisheries activities should be integrated with those for transportation and public works in coastal areas. This would lead to cost savings for infrastructure and service provisions.

Better co-ordination across the key economic sectors and resource management would create beneficial trade-offs and contribute to long term sustainable economic development.

Such co-operation is particularly valid in cross-border areas. Euro-region Baltic[53] (ERB) was established in February 1998 and is a co-operation project in the south-east Baltic Sea, involving eight coastal regions of Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Sweden. In 2005, ERB partners elaborated a long-term development strategy for sustainable economic growth. Concrete activities focus on reducing marine pollution, promoting innovation in SMEs, better transport links, improving accident responses, transferring knowledge between regions and development of information exchange systems.

Such forms of co-operation are rarely seen across the EU which shows the added value of an EU initiative that would create the framework for such co-operation.

Problem 5: Insufficient adaptation to climate risks and degradation of marine and coastal environments

EU coastal states have not been able to fully address the challenges of climate change through a more risk resilient coastal development: With 140 000 km2 at less than 1 m above sea level, coastal zones are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels, related erosion, flooding and increased risk of salinisation[54]. The EUROSION study[55] showed that ill-planned coastal defence infrastructures made erosion worse in adjacent coastal areas. Despite the recognition that climate change aggravates these risks, the majority of EU coastal Member States do not have a climate change adaptation plan or strategy dedicated to their coastal zones[56]. At the end of 2010 the ANCORIM network evaluated that risks are not systematically integrated into coastal land planning decisions[57]. Coastal reinforcements in the context of rising sea levels and other climate change impacts will require significant and continued use of sand and gravel extracted at sea[58]. In a context where sea space is limited, the impacts of dredging and extraction on other resources need to be considered in a wider framework to enhance resource efficiency and maximise sustainability[59].

The principal threats to the marine environment have been identified in the Marine Strategy[60] and include the effects of climate change, pollution; the impacts of commercial fishing, the introduction of non-native (exotic) species, eutrophication and associated algal blooms. Economic activities that directly depend on the quality of the marine environment would be particularly affected.

In coastal areas intensive human activities such as fishing, aquaculture, agriculture and tourism cause large and severe impacts on local ecosystems. This includes so called 'blue carbon ecosystems'[61]. Only 8% of coastal habitats have a favourable conservation status, and only 11% of coastal species are in a favourable condition.

The EU objective of halting biodiversity loss by 2010[62] was not met, neither in the coastal nor the marine environment. Coastal erosion is a main driver and contributes to 64%[63] of losses observed. About twenty thousand kilometres of coasts, corresponding to 20%, face serious impacts in 2004.

Many of the above mentioned impacts are regulated through environmental legislation[64]. However, some environmental pressures and possible instruments to address them are not (sufficiently) covered by the current acquis, in particular:

· Adaptation to climate change impacts, including erosion control;

· Degradation due to urbanisation, changes in agriculture land-use, and pollution[65];

· Increased use of sediment related uses.[66]

The effective implementation of marine strategies by Member States requires the management of the use of space by human activities across marine regions and sub-regions. In the same vein, the requirement to implement networks of MPAs under Natura 2000 legislation requires planning across marine regions and sub-regions in order to be effective.

Maritime planning and coastal management can be effective to help complement the objectives set out in these pieces of legislation and fill in the gaps not sufficiently covered by EU legislation.

The above mentioned problems occur or are potentially to occur throughout the coastal and maritime areas in the EU. Many of the problems faced by European coastal regions have an international dimension.

3.2. Underlying causes of the problems – what are the drivers and regulatory failures?

Not all EU Member States have adapted their governance structures to manage human uses in marine regions or sub-regions and coastal zones through fully integrated and dedicated processes. Some EU Member States tend to continue to organise themselves in a sectoral manner, or to manage maritime and coastal issues with minimal or ad-hoc processes. In some cases, decision makers of individual policy areas continue to adopt decisions without full scale co-ordination, or comprehensive long-term planning. This was not a big problem in the past since the utilisation of the coasts, seas and oceans was scarce (mostly linked to fishing and maritime transport) and seldom subject to any conflicts. This modus operandi is costly and inefficient in a situation with a need for maximum efficiency, high demands for space and increasing conflicts/competition between uses. Without fully integrated and dedicated planning and management mechanisms, decisions at sector level risk undermining each other and reduce growth opportunities.

The five problems as identified above can be linked to one or several of the following causes:

At the marine region and sub-region level:

· Lack of (seamless) coherent and sustainable planning and allocation by Member States of maritime and coastal space to uses across complete marine regions in the EU. This can be linked to the absence or incomplete establishment of appropriate mechanisms within and between Member States, and at EU-level, that enable such planning as well as limited and/or late stage cross-border co-operation (cause 1).

· Lack of scientific data and assessment to support integrated governance and planning mechanisms and the capacities to provide (cause 3).

· Inadequate involvement of the stakeholders in formulating and implementing solutions to coastal and maritime problems, particularly across marine regions (cause 4).

At EU level:

· Feeble or insufficient elaboration of the spatial/human sea use management aspects (including coherence between them) of EU policies and programmes affecting the sea and coasts as defined in the EU Treaty (cause 2).

As requested by the Impact Assessment Board, these causes are further discussed, explained and illustrated with examples:

Cause 1: Lack of (seamless) coherent and sustainable planning and allocation by Member States of coastal and sea space to uses, including across marine regions and sub-regions in the EU

Member States (and the EU as a whole) do not at this stage collectively ensure appropriate management of human sea uses across marine regions and sub-regions. Although a good number of Member States apply some aspects of MSP or ICZM processes, the types of process differ widely, or are still in the process of being established. Only in a few cases is MSP applied on the basis of a complete single documented MSP process. In other cases, existing national governance structures and co-ordination of sectoral policies do not per se explicitly address spatial issues and have thus not systematically led to tangible improvements.

Coastal zone governance today is characterised by a mixture of sectoral/thematic plans and strategies (e.g. fisheries, energy, ports) on the one hand, and spatial management (e.g. terrestrial planning) on the other hand. An analysis of 350 coastal practice cases found that fragmentation in decision- and policy-making is one of the most important factors limiting success in[67]. A study on coastal governance in East England found that actors in the decision making process were poorly organised and coastal issues were dealt with in isolation without sufficient connection to mainstream planning and management programmes[68]. Little co-ordination between levels of governance was found regarding climate change adaptation measures in the Baltic[69]. Although integration over the land-sea boundary is at the heart of ICZM and constitutes a key principle of MSP, a separation between on-shore and offshore planning regimes is often observed[70].

At sea, the coherent organisation of the management of human sea uses through integrated processes is only beginning, on an individual, mostly national basis[71]. There are only a few cases of such co-ordinated approaches in and between the Member States[72] while much more widespread implementation would be needed[73].

Having available reliable data and linkage of data sources and making data more compatible is essential to implement MSP and ICZM policies. Decision makers and planners would be able to take more informed decisions if all had access to the same data.

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) are necessary for integrated and sustainable management of coastal and maritime regions. Access to and integration of existing data sources is indispensable in order to arrive at well elaborated spatial management plans. Current scientific data are not organized towards an integrated policy approach. The incompatibility of data sets and information systems make planning and management especially in cross-boundary context very difficult and hinders international co-operation and exchange of data. The on-going plan Bothnia project[74] between Sweden and Finland has demonstrated that authorities spend considerable time and effort to collect and compile data even before any planning of activities can take place.

Work is on-going at EU level to improve the situation through the creation of common information sharing environments such as EMODNET[75] and GMES[76]. Data collected by Member States through the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is also expected to improve the situation. Moreover, the Commission is integrating its data and information initiatives under the Marine Knowledge 2020 agenda which could be expanded to cover coastal areas as well. These issues have been examined in the recent impact assessment and Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Marine knowledge 2020.[77]

Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European Community (the Inspire Directive) could provide a suitable platform for collecting marine spatial data. However, this Directive does not focus on data on maritime space.

Cause 2: Feeble or insufficient coherence or linkage between the different elaboration of the spatial/human sea use management aspects (including coherence between them) of EU policies and programmes affecting the sea and coasts as defined in the EU Treaty.

The realisation of EU policy objectives affecting the sea ultimately depends on the organisation of human activities vs. maritime space. They also require coherence both to achieve maximum efficiency and economic potential, and because the result could otherwise be that decisions taken under one EU policy undermine decisions taken under another EU policy or vice versa. Currently, there is no requirement for this to take place. None of the existing EU instruments on the management and utilisation of our coasts and oceans and its resources foresee a system whereby decision makers co-ordinate the management of the human uses of coastal and maritime space amongst each other or across marine regions and sub-regions. For example, the designation of a Marine Protected Area will not prevent fishing or maritime transport activities from taking place in that area unless additional or compatible measures, such as developing appropriate fisheries management plans are also taken. Complaints about the cross-purpose action of EU policies as implemented by MS/EU are frequent and demonstrate the gaps identified above. For instance, the Commission received several complaints on excessive green algae growth nearby the coast of Brittany France. This is a serious environmental but complex problem that affects different sectors and policies, including agriculture, waste water treatment, nature protection, health and tourism. Several EU instruments are relevant in this context and need co-ordination., among which: nitrate action programmes under the Nitrates Directive, river basin management plans under the Water Framework Directive, rural development programmes and support measures under the Common Agricultural Policy, application of best available techniques in the poultry and pig business under the Directive on industrial emissions and the treatment of urban wastewater Directive.

EU environment legislation provides for specific norms and targets, with direct implications for the spatial planning and management of marine and coastal uses (see Annex 8; e.g. Birds- and Habitats Directives, Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive). However, none of these instruments require specific and coherent action to manage human activities vs. sea space. They do not set out mechanisms to link planning and management of sea and coastal uses across relevant policies (e.g. agriculture, etc.) through a coherent cross sector decision making process. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive goes furthest in recognising the need for a comprehensive, ecosystem based approach to the management of the seas and in fact demands cross-border co-operation among Member States in sea regions or marine regions, in the context of achieving Good Environmental Status. In the programme of measures, it explicitly mentions the possible use of “spatial and temporal distribution controls”. Yet, maritime spatial planning is only part of the possible mix of measures and the implementation of the MSFD does not necessarily provide in itself for maritime spatial planning systems, in particular where requirements are concerned that go beyond environmental objectives[78].

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive only applies to existing plans (or plans under development) falling in the scope of the Directive, but it does not call for planning to take place across sectors. The results of the public consultation indicated that additional work on MSP and ICZM is expected to contribute to the achievement of Good Environmental Status. The Common Fisheries Policy requires the management of fishermen's activities at sea, yet does not foresee the linkage of this management with the management of human sea uses in other contexts, although fisheries activities routinely interact or enter into conflict with other sea uses – wind energy, MPAs, etc.. Again, the outcome is economic cost and inefficiency.

This reasoning also be applies to energy and transport. Sectoral legislation is already in place in these policy areas, but it does not provide for co-ordination of the management of human activities with other policy areas. Recent initiatives (Regulation on guidelines for Trans-European Energy Infrastructure) refer to MSP as an important tool to support the objectives of this legislation [to be adjusted following ISC/adoption], particularly with regard to the implementation of the North Sea Offshore Grid identified as one of the energy infrastructure priority corridors. [to be adjusted following ISC/adoption].

The targets imposed by the Renewable Energy Directive require speedy and in particular cost-efficient development of renewable energy sources (offshore wind) by Member States. The cost savings and investment acceleration that can be expected through the application of coherent planning mechanisms across connected sea areas are significant, as indicated by the EWEA and in the context of the Commission’s study on the economic impacts of MSP.

The Ministers for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development, in their declaration of 19 May 2011 stated: "The Marine Strategy Framework Directive and EU Integrated Maritime Policy call for co-ordinated action… on Maritime Spatial Planning. Such planning should … enable sustainable development of the land-sea continuum."

Implementation of the EU ICZM Recommendation is fragmented and progress remains slow. Member States’ action has improved since 2006[79], but the number of dedicated national ICZM strategies remains small (5 out of 22 coastal Member States). Most Member States use existing frameworks and for some countries considerable effort and progress on ICZM is noted. An evaluation of Member States’ progress reports on ICZM concluded this approach leads to more heterogeneity, in scope and level activity[80]. The overall level of implementation is evaluated at just 50% showing significant divergence between Member States. Consequently large potential benefits are not realised[81].

Cause 3: Lack of (seamless) coherent and sustainable planning and allocation by Member States of coastal and sea space to uses across marine regions and sub-regions in the EU

Member States that are already applying MSP to spatially manage human maritime uses are doing this based on a purely national basis, even though the main drivers are at EU-level (renewable energy, maritime transport, MSFD implementation, CFP). Developments proceed at different speeds[82] and through unspecified co-ordination mechanisms, with the risk of continued inefficiency and lack of realisation of the potential benefits of a more comprehensive and co-ordinated system, as highlighted by a number of studies and operators[83].

Cross-border co-operation on maritime planning and coastal management in EU marine regions and sub-regions is highly relevant since many maritime features and infrastructures run across national borders, such as cables, pipelines, shipping lanes, oil, gas and wind installations as well as fishing grounds and marine protected areas. Ecosystems tend to be transnational and do not acknowledge administrative borders.

The on-going work on a North Sea Offshore Grid Initiative explicitly recognises the importance of cross-border MSP and facilitation of licensing processes in the context of building the grid structure to support the supply of increasing quantities of offshore wind energy, and similar work is starting in the Baltic Sea and Atlantic[84]. Cross-border impacts or effects of economic activities at sea cannot be mitigated by sea use management or MSP that is organised on a purely national basis[85]. Some steps have already been taken towards a common approach among EU Member States for coherent and efficient management of sea uses, i.e. through the development of 10 key principles developed in the 2008 Roadmap Communication on MSP.

Apart from these efforts, there are no agreed standards or mechanisms for co-operation on the cross-border management of sea uses. Cross-border planning takes place on an ad hoc basis or is absent[86]. Areas where cross-border co-operation is either suboptimal or absent, but would benefit from active development, include border areas between Germany and Poland, Poland and Denmark (Bornholm), Germany, the UK and Holland and joint areas of the Dogger Bank in the North Sea, or some areas of the Mediterranean. This means that sea use (or spatial) planning frequently remains purely a national matter. Cross-border installations can only be carried out when separate national planning and permitting processes have been completed separately. This means that prospective planning which could lead to direct cost benefits for operators.

Existing mechanisms and provisions can be useful to support cross-border development of MSP in the EU. Cross-border co-ordination of management of sea uses is in some cases based on existing cross-border co-operation mechanisms such as under the SEA Directive. As in other cases, the SEA Directive does not provide a sufficient basis for fully integrated cross-border co-operation which goes beyond environmental issues to allow a wider consideration of social and economic aspects.

The results of the public consultation support the analysis that improvements in co-ordination of maritime spatial planning and coastal zone management and related participation processes in a cross-border context are necessary. This includes analysis of cross-border impacts[87]. This conclusion is, inter alia, confirmed by the on-going pilot project for cross-border co-operation on MSP in the North Sea, which confirms that barriers to effective cross-border co-operation are important and that opportunities for improvement are considerable[88].

Cause 4: Inadequate involvement of the stakeholders in formulating and implementing solutions to coastal and maritime problems

The involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process is necessary to ensure the buy in of those affected by decisions. Today, stakeholders of one sectoral policy are in general well informed and follow the decision making process within their specific policy area, but they are often a lot less acquainted with policy decisions of other sectoral policies affecting the same sea area.

For example, fishermen often complain that they are not sufficiently consulted or informed or involved about the establishment of Natura 2000 sites and offshore wind park installations despite the fact that these uses are put in place in shallow waters which at the same time are important fishing grounds, and despite the fact that fishermen could contribute to these processes through their historical knowledge of the areas concerned. Inadequacies in stakeholder involvement of this nature reduce the acceptance level of new investments or uses among stakeholders and create unnecessary conflicts between sectoral policies.

At EU level, initiatives have been taken to improve the situation through the promotion of an integrated maritime policy and the cross cutting tools identified therein, including MSP and ICZM. No legislative action has yet been taken at this level for an integrated maritime policy, with the exception of the adoption of the Council and EP recommendation on ICZM. No EU approach for transboundary issues is in place.

In order to address this situation, a number of potential solutions have been identified for this initiative which would address the above mentioned problems and causes and would form the basis for identifying possible policy options. The possible solutions (measures) and the way they are addressed in the analysed policy options are described in section 5. The effectiveness of the measures to resolve the underlying problems is assessed in section 6.2. The link between the possible solutions, their effectiveness for resolving the underlying problems and the analysed policy options is provided in the overview table in Annex 1.

3.3. Who is affected?

MSP and ICZM directly involve public administrations involved with planning and management of human uses in marine waters and the coastal zone (at central, regional and/or local levels).

Conflict or competition for maritime space is likely to happen to a varying degree across marine regions and sub-regions in the EU and affects almost all operators[89]. Sectors and services affected include maritime transport and shipbuilding (deep sea shipping, short sea shipping, passenger ferry services and inland waterway transports), commercial and recreational fishing, aquaculture, energy and raw materials (oil, gas, offshore wind, wave tidal, carbon capture and storage, aggregates mining fresh water supply, etc.) agriculture on saline soils, nutrition, health and cosmetics (high value use of marine resources for cosmetics), leisure, working and living (coastline tourism, yachting and marinas, cruise shipping, living in coastal areas), coastal protection (against flooding and erosion, preventing salt water intrusion protection of habitats) and maritime monitoring and surveillance (security of good supply chains, prevention of illegal movements of goods and persons, environmental monitoring). Further details on relevant actors within the field of maritime economy are found in Annex 4, which also has a table with conflicts of space between sectors.

Giving the pivotal role of governance and spatial planning in MSP and ICZM, public authorities have the primary role regarding implementation.

Given that the problems are most acute in heavily used sea areas, in particular coastal waters and adjacent land, the authorities, economic actors, civil society and stakeholders operating in these areas are most affected.

3.4. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal (baseline scenario)?

MSP and ICZM are widely recognised as tools to achieve co-ordinated planning and management of human uses in marine regions or sub-regions and coastal zones and to provide benefits, in particular as regards governance, by increasing efficiency and in contributing to more balanced and sustainable planning and development[90]. Stakeholders expect that the systematic use of MSP would contribute significantly to enhanced regulatory efficiency by facilitating the co-ordination between actors responsible for implementation of these instruments[91]. One can therefore expect that also under a baseline scenario, the pressure for strengthened management and planning of sea uses will mean that both MSP and ICZM will continue to progress to some extent, notably in cases where conflicts between uses are apparent and need to be resolved in the short term. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that such progress will lead to processes which are mutually compatible between Member States, evolve eventually on similar timescales, or allow for co-ordinated cross-border maritime planning and coastal management in marine regions within a reasonable timeframe.

3.4.1. MSP

Under the baseline scenario MSP is likely to progress to deal with conflicts between uses or short term needs. However, there is a risk that policy action will remain largely national. The risk is further that priorities and objectives that are set at national level might not be fully shared with neighbouring States and without appropriate ex-ante analysis of potential benefits of cross-border planning of uses within marine regions and sub-regions which would facilitate the co-existence of the priorities set at Member State level. This in turn may well lead to cross-border co-operation that is essentially reactive and leads to suboptimal results. As current practice shows, the development of MSP processes as such is progressing and can be expected to continue to progress. But it takes place at different speeds, is not always geared towards a common approach and does not per se include fully effective cross-border co-operation. More details on identified shortcomings at national level, which are common for MSP and ICZM, are found in section 3.4.3

Against the background of continued intensification of maritime economic activities and pressures for the use of space described above, an outcome which does not ensure the development of MSP processes by all Member States is likely to lead to unnecessary costs and inefficiencies[92] in areas where potential conflicts between users may arise. In the absence of structured cross-border co-operation, the risk of inefficient forward planning, conflicts and unnecessary costs continues to exist, including for administrations[93]. Inefficient resource use is a more indirect, but equally clear consequence.

Competition for space and conflicts between traditional uses (such as fisheries) and rapidly emerging uses (such as offshore renewable energy) will become much more frequent in the future. The absence of a proper framework for managing the development of emerging activities at Member State level could either lead to an unnecessary impact on traditional activities or undue delays in developing new installations such as wind farms as described in the Commission's Communication on offshore wind energy[94]. Lack of use or slow development of proper planning systems will lead to suboptimal allocation of space and spatial inefficiency[95] because the relative costs of displacing one activity to allow for another are not properly weighted. Inadequate governance structures, and in particular poor co-ordination of sectoral policies, are likely to persist in some cases.

Member States who do not implement a national integrated framework for MSP will have difficulty participating in cross-border planning on transnational issues since they will be unable to implement measures into national law. Another concern is that Member States may be tempted to limit the management of a designated sea area to one specific issue rather than ensuring comprehensive planning.

The result currently, and under a no-action scenario, would be divergent implementation of MSP in different European sea areas. The risk is that in such a situation, potential synergies or even development potentials are not even considered in the absence of appropriate mechanisms for co-ordination or planning of cross-border activities. Indeed the drivers and challenges for MSP differ significantly across marine regions and sub-regions. In sum, the baseline tendency would be that only those Member States with heavily used sea areas will be addressing these challenges, whereas Member States without such pressures will take limited action or remain absent from the process[96].

Table 1: Current MSP implementation in EU Member States

|| || ||

MARINE & COASTAL MEMBER STATES || Applies MSP? || Specific MSP legislation? || Member States last known MSP status

Belgium || YES || IN PREP* || Applies MSP legislation in preparation, preparing to develop their MSP further

Bulgaria || NO || NO || No MSP action yet

Cyprus || NO || NO || MSP use is under development, single authority in process of designation. Need for cross-border co-operation with other EU member States limited because of the geographical situation

Denmark || PROG* || IN PREP* || No specific MSP legislation or governance structures in place but MSP principles are to some extent applied within the present legislation and governance structures, new MSP legislation is in preparation but pending further action at EU level

Estonia || PARTIAL || NO || in territorial waters only

Finland || PARTIAL || NO || No specific MSP legislation or governance structures in place but MSP principles are to some extent applied within the present legislation and governance structures, in territorial waters

France || PARTIAL || NO || No specific MSP legislation or governance structures in place but MSP is to some extent applied within the present legislation and governance structures

Germany || YES || YES || Advanced MSP in place, including legislation and governance structures

Greece || YES || NO || No specific MSP legislation or governance structures in place but MSP principles are to some extent applied within the present legislation and governance structures. Planning is taking place in territorial waters mainly

Ireland || PARTIAL || NO || Introduction of full MSP use is under consideration

Italy || PROG* || NO || MSP use is under consideration, first steps in applying MSP are taken

Latvia || PROG* || IN PREP* || Progressing rapidly towards wider application of MSP, MSP legislation is in preparation

Lithuania || NO? || NO || First steps in applying MSP are taken

Malta || YES? || NO || No specific MSP legislation or governance structures in place but MSP principles are to some extent applied within the present legislation and governance structures

Netherlands || YES || YES || Advanced MSP in place, including legislation and governance structures

Poland || PROG* || IN PREP* || Progressing rapidly towards wider application of MSP, MSP legislation is in preparation

Portugal || YES || YES || Applies MSP, legislation in place, preparing to develop their MSP further

Rumania || NO || YES || First steps in applying MSP are taken

Slovenia || YES || YES || First steps in applying MSP are taken

Spain || PROG* || NO || First steps in applying MSP are taken

Sweden || PROG* || IN PREP* || Progressing rapidly towards wider application of MSP, MSP legislation is in preparation

UK || YES || YES || Advanced MSP in place, including legislation and governance structures

Implementation of relevant EU legislation, such as the Renewable Energy Directive, the Regulation on Trans-European Energy Infrastructure, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Habitat and Birds Directives, and policies developed under the Europe 2020 agenda including resource efficiency and policies designed to combat the financial crisis, also depends on the co-ordinated management of human use of sea space across sea areas in order to be fully effective[97].

The time factor is likely to be a significant element in the effectiveness of introducing MSP in the Member State's marine waters over the next 5 to 10 years[98]. This is linked to two specific points: (1) The timing of the outcomes as foreseen under EU legislation and policy initiatives (e.g. MSFD, Renewable Energy Directive, Europe 2020 targets, etc.) and (2) The continued growth of economic activities at sea leading to increased competition for space.

A purely national approach to the management and planning of sea uses through MSP is likely to lead to opportunity costs for business investments since the potential for cross-border projects are not fully exploited. A baseline or no-action scenario may lead to some improvements on an ad-hoc basis, but it is not likely to ensure upstream cross-border planning co-ordination. This scenario will not lead to significant additional administrative cost in the short term, but may entail unnecessary (opportunity) costs for investors and administrations are likely to occur in the medium to long term because potential efficiency gains of coherent planning across adjacent sea or coastal areas are not exploited. This is in particular the case for cross-border investors[99] . The stakeholder consultation showed very clearly that EU action on cross-border co-operation is expected to provide significant added value.

To sum up, although further progress is projected in absence of an EU MSP policy, current experience shows overall insufficient progress and divergences in approach between Member States. The problems and their underlying causes identified in chapter 3.1 and 3.2 are addressed but only partially, and with a significant risk for delay. From a holistic perspective, a significant portion of the benefits of integrated management of human sea uses (MSP) will therefore not be realised.

3.4.2. ICZM

The problems and their underlying causes are likely to continue and intensify in the future. Land-use modelling results[100] from 2000 up to 2050, indicate that under the baseline scenario the share of built up areas in the coastal zones will grow by about 15% across the EU, and confirm the more intense pressures in coastal areas compared to in-land areas. Coastal areas are furthermore likely to see an increase of infrastructure related to renewable energy, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and transport developments at sea. A sea-level rise scenario may lead in 2080 to 1.5 million people being at risk of flooding every year in the 22 EU coastal Member States and provoke a yearly costs of nearly 19 billion € due to land losses, salinisation, sea and river flooding, as well as migration[101]. Sectoral policies address these problems but are not applied in an integrated way.

Against this background of persisting and growing challenges in the coastal zones, the average ICZM implementation level across the 22 EU coastal Member States is projected to increase from 50% today to 62% in 2020 in the baseline scenario[102]. This is an estimate, based on the tendency for Member States with relatively larger populations and more concentrated economic activity to be further ahead in terms of implementation of ICZM principles. The existence of a national ICZM Strategy and progress in implementing ICZM principles in the period 2006-2010 are considered factors that will continue to positively support progress. For the baseline scenario, some development of measures related to the identified problems is expected in particular through the implementation of the Floods Directive (covering coastal floods, preliminary risks assessments, hazard and risks maps, and where appropriate risk management plans, by the end of 2015) and the INSPIRE Directive (as regards facilitation of GIS based-distributed information systems). For the EU coastal Member States concerned[103], the ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention will provide impetus, but it is noted that the Protocol does not set out milestones for implementation, nor does it specify any minimum requirements for planning or management processes.

To sum up, although further progress is thus projected in absence of further EU ICZM policy, the pattern of overall slow progress and significant divergence between Member States is confirmed. Still a significant portion of potential benefits of ICZM will not be harvested.

3.4.3: Examples of identified shortcomings

As shown above, an inventory of the implementation of MSP and ICZM at Member States show quite a diverse picture. The following is a list of examples of some of the shortcomings which have been observed in at least one or in some cases in several Member States or in marine regions and sub-regions:

· Lack of a fully integrated, co-ordinated national planning and management process in for marine waters and coastal zones (including the development of authoritative plans including all uses for sea areas under jurisdiction of Member States and their coastal zones) involving all concerned administrations upstream. Progress under baseline scenario: MSP and ICZM processes will evolve but on different timescales, and without comparability Lack of fully appropriately documented, or comparability between, MSP and ICZM processes and risk of further developing different approaches

· Lack of designated authorities that “front-ends” the MSP and ICZM processes towards stakeholders and co-ordinates co-operation with neighbours. Progress under baseline scenario: uncertain.

· Lack of a fully comprehensive, cross-cutting analysis or objectives development for future developments and needs, in marine regions and sub-regions. Progress under baseline scenario: likely to vary, with progress in some areas (environment) moving faster than in others, and no overall co-ordination on objectives.

· No dedicated forum for planning co-ordination across-borders. Progress under baseline scenario: is underway in some areas, but on an ad-hoc basis. No dedicated mechanism to ensure co-ordination of planning with different EU level objectives and processes. Progress under baseline scenario: highly dependent on Member State. At EU level, this does not exist, several parallel processes are taking place (renewables/NSOGI, MSFD, EIA, SEA, CFP) No, or minimal co-ordinated planning of areas of common interest in marine regions and sub-regions, including land-sea interactions of activities in coastal areas. Progress under baseline scenario: likely to progress, but on an ad-hoc basis with low perspective for prospective planning over longer time periods.

· Tendency to plan where pressures exist, but not to set out strategic planning objectives for maritime areas. Progress under baseline scenario: plan for areas where there is an immediate need, prospective planning only in exceptional cases where full-scale MSP is implemented

· Lack of fully prospective, comprehensive stakeholder consultation processes. Progress under baseline scenario: no change, as short-term pressures and priorities will continue to define the objectives; stakeholder consultation takes place on as-needed basis.

· Different time-frames for planning across marine regions and sub-regions. Progress under baseline scenario: will gradually improve indirectly through enhanced cross-border co-operation

· No fully systematic linkage between ICZM and MSP in cases where both exist

3.4.3. Regional Sea Conventions

Maritime Spatial Planning and ICZM are addressed to varying degrees in the Regional Sea Conventions.

Table 3: Regional Sea Conventions' (RSC) MSP and ICZM activities

RSC || MSP and/or ICZM Guidance? || Regional MSP and/or ICZM forum? || Non-Binding MSP and/or ICZM legislation? || Binding MSP and/or ICZM legislation?

HELCOM || Principles, Guidance documents, on-going project (PlanBothnia) || Yes, a joint Working Group with VASAB on MSP, HELCOM-GIS webpage || Yes, Recommendations for both MSP and ICZM || No

OSPAR || No, but the need for OSPAR measures is under consideration || Yes, the Environmental Impacts of Human Activities Committee || No || No

Barcelona Convention || Yes || Yes, regional co-operation as a part of the protocol implementation || No || Yes, for ICZM applicable in national waters

Bucharest Convention || Yes || Yes || No || No

Implementation has not been fully efficient since these bodies do not have the legal competences and capacity to enforce decisions. Given that the mandate of these regional bodies is limited to environment issues, the inclusion of other objectives remains a challenge.

For the Mediterranean a significant step was the adoption of the ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention. However, this approach cannot be replicated in other regional seas. The EU is not a contracting party to the Bucharest Convention (Black Sea). The Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) does not include ICZM among its activities and the interest in discussing MSP has been lukewarm. The same applies to a large extent to Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment in the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM), although work is progressing on MSP.

However, work at EU level can still be complemented by work through regional seas conventions to the extent these efforts will be compatible with the efforts made at EU level and can be beneficial within marine regions and sub-regions.

3.5. Does the EU have the right to act and is EU added-value evident?

3.5.1. The right to act -Treaty basis

This impact assessment examines policy options combining MSP and ICZM. The concept of maritime spatial planning is currently not addressed in EU legislation. In case of legislative action on MSP, it will be process oriented to support the specific objectives of a number of relevant sector policies listed below. Against that background, EU action for MSP will have to be based on those Articles of the EU Treaty which serve as the legal base for the main policy areas whose objectives will be supported through the application of MSP processes. The table below includes a list of the main policy areas which will first and foremost be included in the MSP process:

Table: List of policy areas and TFEU articles relevant for MSP

Article 43 || fisheries – requirement to manage living marine resources

Article 100 || transport – pursuit of EU transport policy goals

Article 175 || economic, social and territorial cohesion

Article 192 || Environment

Article 194 || energy – notably the development of marine energy resources

MSP and ICZM are instruments of the Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union (IMP). The objective of IMP is to ensure better coherence between the sector policies of the TFEU and to achieve multiple concurrent objectives of an economic, social and environmental nature. Initiatives taken so far under the IMP, such as Council Regulation 1255/2011[104], have accordingly been adopted with a multiple legal bases, representing those sector policies which affect seas, coasts and oceans. The same rationale applies to legislative action on MSP. Furthermore, it is settled case-law that when a measure simultaneously pursues a number of objectives or has several components that are indissolubly linked, without one being secondary or indirect in relation to the other, such an act will have to be founded on the various legal bases[105].

In the past and by contrast, ICZM was based on Article 192(1) of the Treaty which provides the basis for EU policy on the environment, inter alia, to pursue the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the environment, and to promote a prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources. Given that ICZM similarly to MSP more recently has been identified as an integrated maritime governance tool within the framework of the Integrated Maritime policy of the EU with the aim to achieve both environment, economic and social goals and therefore constitutes a cross sector policy aiming to ensure consistency between the different policy areas of the EU Treaty warrants, a more broad legal basis for the management of our coasts. The list of Articles identified above as a legal base for MSP would allow for a joint up proposal with one set of objectives.

These objectives of MSP and ICZM consist of:

· the facilitation of sustainable development and growth of the fisheries sector, including employment in fisheries and affiliated sectors;

· the need to secure the energy supply of the union by promoting development of maritime energy sources and energy transport;

· the need for efficient and cost-effective shipping routes across Europe, including port accessibility and transport safety;

· the reduction of disparities between regions by increasing the competitiveness of coastal regions and facilitating a level playing field;

· the preservation, protection and improvement of the quality of the coastal zone and the coastal and marine environments, as well as the need to utilise natural resources in a prudent and rational manner.

If the present Impact Assessment should determine that the optimal action on MSP and ICZM would be a proposal for legal instrument, this should be based on a combined, multiple legal basis.

3.5.2. Application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

The subsidiarity principle is highly relevant for MSP and ICZM and it is important to ensure that it is fully respected when EU action is envisaged. Issues such as the choice of actual development, location of investment, priority setting and determining solutions in cases of conflicting spatial claims are clearly a matter for national, regional or local decision-making. In the context of MSP processes, this means that spatial challenges should be dealt with at the lowest most appropriate level[106]. The scale of national MSP can vary, from relatively broad plans established at regional or national level for bigger sea areas, to detailed plans established by local authorities for a limited or densely used sea area. The planning process as such needs to be carried out by authorities in the Member States in accordance with the national governance and constitutional structures. It is thus not intended that the EU tackles practical planning processes in themselves. The same reasoning also applies to ICZM. ICZM aims at the development of improved coastal planning and management mechanisms, with particular attention to sustainable development, a long-term perspective and effects across the land-sea and administrative boundaries. However, the normative setting within coastal plans or programmes needs to be necessarily left to the coastal area(s) and the national or regional institutions concerned to fit the local context. The ICZM principles recognise in this respect the need for ‘local specificity’.

3.5.3 EU added value

EU action is therefore of added value in a context where it provides the appropriate framework at EU level which allows Member States to adopt comprehensive, co-ordinated planning and management mechanisms that ensure an integrated maritime planning and coastal management process in European marine regions. EU Action is equally of added value where it sets out a framework for co-operation between Member States that share marine regions and sub-regions through which the co-ordinated, long-term planning of connected cross-border sea areas becomes possible. At the same time, there would be no added value for EU-level involvement in the planning processes as such, or in determining detailed processes to be set up in Member States where institutional set-ups are very different.

Particularly relevant in this context are the following elements where EU action can provide added value:

o Streamlining of Member State action on maritime planning and coastal zone management to ensure consistent and coherent implementation across the EU, for example through minimum standards.

o Ensuring coherent and cross-cutting cross-border co-operation on maritime planning and coastal management, notably to achieve prospective medium and long-term planning and coherence of plans/planning across marine regions and sub-regions.

The second aspect of the added value of EU action is recognised in the responses to the public consultation[107] and the fact that coastal and maritime development processes both have a strong trans-boundary nature. This applies to natural processes (e.g. water, sediments), but also to economic and social networks which span across traditional administrative borders. Issues which have a trans-boundary nature can vary from one European marine region or sub-region to the next depending on the specificities and geographical conditions of each region.

The Interreg project BaltSeaPlan 2030 report identified four key areas for which transnational co-operation would be necessary. Those topics are a strategy for a healthy marine environment, a coherent pan Baltic energy policy, a safe clean and efficient maritime transport policy and a sustainable fisheries and aquaculture policy.

The same report concluded that transnational co-operation can only take place if all Baltic States have established a national framework for implementing MSP, shared values of how to carry out MSP and appropriate governance mechanisms for cross-border co-operation. This conclusion mirrors the added value of EU action, namely ensuring the implementation of a national system for MSP in all EU member states, the development of a common approach between EU Member States (further development of best practices and key principles in an organised process) and appropriate mechanisms for cross-border co-operation on transnational issues.

The following two examples illustrate potential problems due to the fact that there is no transboundary spatial planning at sea:

· The planned wind park Norther 21 km west from Zeebrugge received in January 2012 a license from the Belgian Government. The Dutch authorities raised objections against this license because of a possible conflict with certain parts of this park with shipping routes and started a legal procedure. They are of the opinion it will influence the shipping traffic in the area negatively and this aspect is not taken fully into account when licensing the whole park.

· A safety zone next to a main shipping route is the zone in which no fixed construction such as a wind farm should be build. There is a difference between the width of the safety zone applied in Germany and the width applied in the Netherlands, north of the Wadden Sea Island in the North Sea. In the UK other width are applied. Discussions between the countries have started to come to a (more) coherent approach.

There are a number of similarities between MSP and ICZM which could lead to considerable synergy effects. These include process issues such as development of best practices, and key principles leading towards a common approach for MSP and ICZM (issues like stakeholder involvement, transparency, cross-border co-operation as well as monitoring and review provisions). A joint elaboration of frameworks for MSP and ICZM processes at EU level should enhance coherence between ICZM and MSP at national level.

A joint approach to EU action on integrated maritime planning and coastal management would eliminate some of the current shortcomings, notably through the following:

· Reduce or eliminate the risk that MSP and ICZM are managed through different and not necessarily connected processes;

· Streamline seamless Member State action towards long-term planning across connected areas.

· Provide a framework for co-ordination that co-ordinates land-sea interactions of human activities across sectors

· Contribute to regulatory efficiency by ensuring coherent implementation of various EU legislative policies (Europe 2020, Energy 2020, MSFD, N2k, CFP, and WFD) through a coherent maritime and coastal zone management processes.

Not establishing a framework at EU level for the implementation of MSP and ICZM processes risks a fragmented development due to a pick and choose approach. Absence of such a framework might lead to lack of co-ordination in terms of linking MSP and ICZM, on cross-border co-operation as well as on harmonisation of processes. This fragmented non-co-ordinated approach would also prevent coherent implementation of the various applicable EU policies across marine regions and sub-regions.

Lack of co-ordinated action would also prevent that the synergetic effects of integrating both process tools come to its full potential. Planning activities on seas will have consequences for coastal management and vice versa, given the strong land-sea interface connections. Inappropriate management of these interactions might lead to non-geared activities in marine regions and sub-regions resulting in reduced economic efficiency, unnecessary costs and administrative burdens, which ultimately would lead to non-efficient use of coastal and maritime resources.

EU action will have maximum added value if it ensures that planning for economic uses in European waters and coastal management is achieved without excessive burden on Member States, in particular in times of financial crisis (proportionality). Measures need to establish the right level of requirements and guidance without micro-managing the processes. They should be as simple as possible and build upon existing experience in Member States. Measures need to allow for consideration of the special circumstances in each sea and coastal region. The ambition level needs to be proportionate and in line with Member States’ ability to implement the policy and to comply with the subsidiarity principle as mentioned above.

4. Objectives

The general objective of EU action is to ensure a coherent approach to the sustainable development of the Member States' uses of marine waters and coastal zones, in accordance with the ecosystem approach. It thus also includes the achievement of various objectives under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, various policies and legislation including: Europe 2020, the Common Fisheries Policy, Territorial Cohesion, the MSFD, the Energy 2020 Directive, etc. Therefore, the general objective would provide a solution for the overarching problem defined in section 3.2.

The proposed EU action is limited to delivery mechanisms for achieving existing policy objectives.

The specific objectives, which serve to achieve the general objective and provide a solution for the specific problems identified in section 3.2, are to ensure:

· balanced and sustainable territorial development of marine waters and coastal zones;

· optimised development of maritime activities and business climate;

· better adaptation to risks; and

· resource efficient and integrated coastal and maritime development.

The operational objectives, which serve to achieve the specific objectives and provide a solution for the underlying causes of the problems defined in section 3.2, are:

· The implementation of integrated maritime planning and coastal management to coherently manage and plan human uses of maritime space (defined as MSP) and to co-ordinate coastal management policy instruments (defined as ICZM), in all coastal Member States; [indicative time target: by 2016 - 2020]

· Delivery and further development of common minimum standards and approaches for integrated maritime planning and coastal management , such as for process organisation, designation of responsible authorities, exchange of information on objectives, cross sector integration, better data information sharing environment, stakeholder involvement, one stop shop promotion, co-ordination between the two processes; [indicative time-target: by 2016 - 2020]

· Implementation of appropriate cross-border co-operation on maritime planning and coastal management between Member States, including measures for regional and bilateral co-operation. [indicative time-target; by 2018 - 2022]

These objectives are fully in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Roadmap of the EU 2020 flagship initiative for a Resource-efficient Europe[108] recognises the need for EU action on maritime planning and coastal management, in order to safeguard natural coastal and maritime capital. Enhanced strategic planning in coastal and marine waters will aim at a spatial development which is better balanced regarding available space and respects the limits of ecosystems structure and function. As such it will support other components of the Resource Efficiency flagship initiative (such as valorisation of ecosystem services, development of gre