COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU - achievements and future development
Date: 2010-12-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: development plan, environmental protection, fishery management, management of resources, maritime area, maritime surveillance, maritime transport, pollution control measures, shipping policy

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 17.12.2010 
COM(2010) 771 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

MARITIME SPATIAL PLANNING IN THE EU - ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE 
DEVELOPMENT 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

MARITIME SPATIAL PLANNING IN THE EU - ACHIEVEMENTS AND FUTURE 
DEVELOPMENT 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Policy background and purpose  

In the Blue Paper and the Action Plan on an EU Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP)1, Maritime 
Spatial  Planning  (MSP)  was  identified  as  one  of  the  cross-sectoral  tools  supporting  the 
implementation of the IMP.  

In  2008,  the  Commission  adopted  the  Communication  "Roadmap  for  Maritime  Spatial 
Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU"2, which proposed a set of key principles 
for  MSP.  In  the  Roadmap,  the  Commission  undertook  to  produce  a  report  on  the  series  of 
workshops which were to be held during 2009 and to propose further steps and actions. The 
present  Communication  fulfils  this  commitment  and  seeks  to  outline  the  current  context  of 
MSP in the EU. 

MSP is commonly defined as a process of public authorities of analysing and allocating the 
spatial  and  temporal  distribution  of  human  activities  in  marine  areas  to  achieve  ecological, 
economic and social objectives. 

2. 

WHY EU ACTION ON MSP? 

The Commission emphasises that the implementation of MSP is the responsibility of Member 
States  and  that  it  is  ready  to  act  as  a  facilitator  for  cooperation  and  developing  a  common 
approach. Although a great deal can be achieved at national level, the Commission considers 
it important to pursue action at EU level to achieve a coherent framework for MSP within the 
EU: 

•  A  common  approach  would  enable  efficient  and  smooth  application  of  MSP  in  cross-
border marine areas, favouring the development of maritime activities and the protection of 
the  marine  environment  based  on  a  common  framework  and  similar  legislative 
implications.  

•  Ensuring that MSP is used in all Member States would enhance sustainable growth in the 
maritime  sectors.  MSP  is  crucial  for  legal  certainty,  predictability  and  transparency,  thus 
reducing costs for investors and operators, in particular those operating in more than one 
Member  State.  These  elements  are  instrumental  in  promoting  investments  and  creating 
growth and jobs in line with the Europe 2020 initiative3. In addition, without any MSP in 

1 

2 
3 

Communication  from  the  Commission  "An  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  for  the  European  Union", 
COM(2007) 575 final of 10.10.2007 and SEC(2007) 1278 of 10.10.2007 
COM(2008) 791 final of 25.11.2008 
Communication from the Commission "Europe 2020 - A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth", COM(2010) 2020 of 3.3.2010 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
place,  the  increased  risk  of  spatial  conflicts  between  expanding  maritime  uses,  including 
the  protection  of  the  marine  environment,  may  result  in  a  suboptimal  combination  of 
growth and sustainability. 

•  MSP would support the implementation of existing EU legislation (cf. chapter 5).  

•  A common approach would provide Member States who apply MSP with an opportunity to 

share their expertise with others. 

3. 

WORKSHOPS 

The Roadmap Communication launched a debate on MSP in the EU. Five workshops on MSP 
were  held  in  2009  to  discuss  the  principles  of  the  Roadmap  with  Member  States,  regions, 
NGOs and industry. 

The  overall  result  was  a  general  agreement  that  the  ten  principles  of  the  Roadmap  were 
appropriate and comprehensive and provided an important basis for the further development 
of MSP at EU level, which was broadly welcomed. 

One of the most common views put forward was that MSP is an integrated and balanced tool 
that  has  the  potential  to  provide  long-term  stability  and  predictability,  as  well  as  to  manage 
competition for space in intensively used areas. This is crucial for all economic sectors such 
as maritime transport, oil and gas, sand and gravel, renewable energy, fisheries, aquaculture, 
tourism and for the protection of the environment. 

On the basis of this debate, the Commission draws the following conclusions. 

3.1. 

Ecosystem approach 

In  the  Roadmap,  the  ecosystem  approach  was  highlighted  as  an  overarching  principle  for 
MSP. The discussions confirmed the Commission's assessment that the ecosystem must form 
the basis of, the overall framework for MSP. 

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive requires the application of the ecosystem approach 
to  the  management  of  human  activities  (cf.  section  5.2.).  The  workshops  highlighted  that 
elements of the MSFD can contribute to the application of MSP and vice versa. 

3.2. 

Using MSP according to area and type of activity 

MSP must take into account all area specificities (size, density and character of the maritime 
uses,  environmental  vulnerability,  administrative  and  political  structure)  when  it  is  applied. 
Management areas must also be defined accordingly. An area with many intensive maritime 
uses should be subject to a more detailed MSP process than an area with few activities. 

3.3. 

Defining objectives to guide MSP 

Setting  objectives  for  MSP  at  a  national  or  regional  level  should  be  seen  as  a  process 
beginning  with  an  agreement  on  strategic  objectives,  which  are  then  defined  further  by 
operational - i.e. clearly measurable and quantitative - objectives. Starting with broad visions 
and  general  objectives  allows  more  space  for  negotiation,  but  clear  objectives  must  be 
specified in order to be useful for drafting, implementing and monitoring a plan. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

Objectives should be based on long-term perspectives and must be future-oriented. 

Planning objectives should take into consideration entire regional seas or sea basins, keeping 
the  global  dimension  in  mind.  Strategic  or  operational  objectives  on  different  spatial  scales 
(global,  European,  regional,  national,  local)  should  be  seen  as  components  of  the  same 
planning framework. 

3.4. 

Developing MSP in a transparent manner 

Transparency  underpins  accountability  and  legitimacy.  All  relevant  decision-makers  and 
stakeholders  must  be  identified  and  all  stages  of  the  process  must  be  understandable. 
Expectations  concerning  the  decision-making  process  should  be  addressed  adequately  and 
reasons  for  decisions  taken  within  the  process  need  to  be  communicated  and  justified  to 
relevant stakeholders. 

3.5. 

Stakeholder participation 

All stakeholders should be involved early in the MSP process. This is essential when looking 
for synergies and innovation and for making the goals and benefits of the process clear. An 
open debate must take place between the different sectors in order to identify conflicts and a 
means of coexistence between them. 

It  is  important  to  demarcate  roles  and  responsibilities  and  encourage  interaction  between 
stakeholder groups and not just between policy-makers and stakeholders. 

Substantial  stakeholder  participation  lengthens  the  process;  therefore  enough  time  must  be 
allowed for this. This time will be recouped later on in the implementation phase, through an 
increased sense of ownership resulting from continuous involvement.  

3.6. 

Coordination within Member States – simplifying decision-making processes 

It would be beneficial for the MSP process to have a single administrative entity leading the 
process (a one-stop-shop), which can clarify responsibilities and levels of authorisation (e.g. 
national vs. regional). This does not  necessarily mean that a new entity has to be created: a 
one-stop-shop based on existing governance structures can achieve this objective.  

3.7. 

Ensuring the legal effect of national MSP 

MSP must be applied in accordance with international law. 

To ensure the legal effect of national maritime spatial planning, inter-institutional cooperation 
should  be  ensured  and  administrative  competencies  must  be  clear.  An  Exclusive  Economic 
Zone (EEZ) provides more favourable conditions for an efficient implementation of MSP, as 
it makes it easier to enforce. 

To elaborate a maritime spatial plan, both tools that are legally binding or of a more indicative 
nature  can  be  used.  It  is  essential  to  clarify  who  is  to  be  bound  by  the  plan  (i.e.  economic 
actors, public authorities, general public).  

3.8. 

Cross-border cooperation and consultation 

EN 

4 

   EN 

Communication, consultation and cooperation with neighbouring States need to take place at 
an early stage. Relevant contact persons and groups (policy-makers, stakeholders, researchers, 
etc.) in the countries concerned must be identified. Effective cross-border MSP requires the 
development  of  a  joint  vision  based  on  exploration  of  common  interests  (e.g.  offshore 
electricity grid, fisheries, shipping). 

A strong political will for cooperation is necessary. 

3.9. 

Incorporating monitoring and evaluation in the planning process 

Monitoring and evaluation are needed for adaptive management of sea areas and should cover 
socio-economic, environmental and governance . Indicators need to be defined early on in the 
process. This work should build on existing frameworks (global, European, regional, national, 
local).  The  fact  that  natural  marine  environmental  processes  and  different  uses  of  marine 
space  have  different  spatial/temporal  scales  should  be  fully  built  into  the  monitoring  and 
evaluation systems.  

3.10.  Achieving  coherence  between  terrestrial  spatial  planning  and  MSP  – 

relationship with ICZM 

The  sea  is  not  subject  to  individual  property  rights  in  the  same  way  as  land,  planning 
conditions  are  different  for  each  of  them.  Planning  from  land  to  sea  is,  crucial  and  requires 
coherence  between  marine  and  terrestrial  strategies  and  plans,  as  well  as  their  coherent 
implementation.  Specific  attention  must  be  devoted  to  a  spatial  strategy  for  the  transitional 
space  from  land  to  sea,  which  is  part  of  the  Integrated  Coastal  Zone  Management  (ICZM) 
process. 

Hence the close links between MSP in coastal waters and ICZM (cf. section 5.4.). 

3.11.  A strong data and knowledge base 

The design principles of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODNET) 
are valid and compatible with those of other initiatives that could be used for MSP (cf. section 
5.1.).4 

Data should be managed at the appropriate level (global, European, regional, national, local). 
For example, more detailed data are needed in areas near the coast and different scales of data 
must  be  part  of  the  process.  Different  types  of  knowledge  (environmental,  socio-economic, 
etc.)  are  needed.  Research  to  turn  data  into  integrated  knowledge  that  can  support  MSP  at 
different levels5 can be provided by projects supported under the EU strategy for marine and 
maritime research. 

The  gathering  of  data  and  of  relevant  knowledge  should  be  carried  out  on  the  basis  of 
collaboration  within  maritime  regions,  not  only  between  EU  Member  States,  but  also  with 
other  parties  within  those  regions;  third  countries,  regional  organisations,  as  well  as  other 
stakeholders. 

4. 

DEVELOPMENTS ON MSP SINCE THE ROADMAP COMMUNICATION 

4 
5 

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/emodnet_en.html 
COM (2008) 534 final on an EU strategy for marine and maritime research 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
4.1. 

National level 

There  have  been  significant  developments  on  MSP  in  many  Member  States  and  different 
maritime areas, as well as a large variety of human uses, have led to different approaches to 
MSP. Different administrative structures and legal systems give rise to a variety of policies, 
ranging from no policy or legislation, through policies on ICZM that also reach out to sea, and 
partial use of MSP, all the way to full MSP application in the territorial sea and/or EEZ. There 
are also large variations as regards the governance system for MSP (central, regional and/or 
local authorities, involvement of stakeholders, etc.). 

There  is  a  general  trend  towards  an  increasing  use  of  MSP.  Developments  among  Member 
States  are  proceeding  at  different  speeds  and  the  resulting  MSP  processes  are  likely  to  be 
quite  different  from  each  other.  This  reinforces  the  conclusion  of  the  Commission  that  the 
early  development  of  a  common  approach  or  framework  for  MSP  at  EU  level  would  be 
beneficial. 

Cross-border  cooperation  is  a  crucial  component.  It  is  increasingly  being  pioneered  by 
Member States and in projects that explore the potential of MSP in regional sea basins. The 
needs created by recent economic developments such as projects for an electricity "supergrid" 
in the North Sea, as well as the implementation of EU legislation, e.g. the spatial distribution 
measures within the MSFD, make such cooperation necessary. This, in turn, strengthens the 
case for a common framework at EU level to support cooperation between Member States on 
MSP. 

Similar  developments  are  taking  place  in  third  countries,  for  example  the  US,  Canada  and 
Australia. 

4.2. 

International level 

MSP  is  increasingly  the  subject  of  attention  in  various  international  fora,  such  as 
UNESCO/IOC, the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Council for the 
Exploration of the Sea. 

Regional sea conventions6 are important partners for the EU, given their involvement in the 
international environmental management of sea basins and the implementation of the MSFD. 
Several have also included MSP in their area of work7. These developments are in line with 
the approach of the Roadmap. 

5. 

CURRENT CONTEXT AT EU LEVEL 

There  is  a  wide  range  of  EU  policies  for  which  a  common  EU-level  approach  to  MSP  is 
relevant and useful.  

5.1. 

EU  Integrated  Maritime  Policy,  regional  specificities  and  marine  data  and 
knowledge  

The following two aspects of IMP implementation are of particular importance for MSP:  

6 

7 

Notably  the  OSPAR  Convention  for  the  North  Atlantic,  the  Helsinki  Convention  (HELCOM)  for  the 
Baltic Sea, the Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean Sea and the Bucharest Convention for the 
Black Sea. 
http://www.helcom.fi/Recommendations/en_GB/rec28E_9/ 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
•  The  diversity  in  the  sea  basins  around  the  EU  has  prompted  the  Commission  to  adopt  a 
regional  sea  basin  approach  for  implementing  the  IMP.  Examples  are  the  regional 
approaches  for  the  Arctic8,  the  Mediterranean9,  and  the  macro-regional  strategy  for  the 
Baltic Sea region10. The need to consider the specifics of each sea basin is equally essential 
for MSP. 

•  The  Commission's  initiative  on  marine  knowledge  and  data  aims11  to  provide  quality-
checked  and  easily  accessible  marine  knowledge  and  data  for  the  benefit  of  private 
industry,  public  decision-making  and  marine  scientific  research,  all  of  which  are  highly 
important in the development of MSP. 

5.2.  Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 

The  MSFD12  is  the  environmental  pillar  of  the  IMP.  It  aims  to  achieve  or  maintain  good 
environmental  status  in  the  marine  environment  by  2020,  to  manage  human  activities  in 
marine areas in accordance with the ecosystem approach and contribute to the integration of 
environmental concerns into different policies13. The Directive specifies that the programme 
of  measures  which  Member  States  are  due  to  set  up  by  2015  to  achieve  this  objective  may 
include  spatial  measures14,  spatial  and  temporal  distribution  controls  and  management 
coordination  measures15.  MSP  can  thus  be  an  important  tool  for  Member  States  to  support 
certain  aspects  of  MSFD  implementation,  including  in  the  context  of  cross-border 
coordination  of  marine  strategies.  Both  MSP  and  MSFD  depend  on  sound  data  and 
knowledge (cf. section 3.11). There is also a link between the spatial measures of the MSFD 
and the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives16 in coastal and marine areas. 

5.3. 

European maritime activities 

Fishing  is  one  of  the  oldest  economic  activities  taking  place  in  EU  waters.  In  addition  to 
problems  of  overcapacity  of  the  fleet,  declining  fish  stocks  and  reduced  profitability,  the 
fishing sector also faces increasing competition for space. Aquaculture requires specific areas 
to be reserved for their activities. The catching sector needs flexible access in order to respond 
to changes in distribution patterns of fish stocks. Well defined and long-term access to marine 
space is important for both sectors and an MSP framework involving stakeholders and cross-
border cooperation is essential. In addition, the knowledge of fishermen about the sea can be 
useful  to  optimise  the  location  of,  for  example,  Marine  Protected  Areas  (MPA)  and  wind 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 
14 
15 
16 

Communication  from  the  Commission  "The  EU  and  the  Arctic  region",  COM(2008)  763  final  of 
20.11.2008 
Communication from the Commission "Towards an IMP for better governance in the Mediterranean", 
COM(2009) 466 final of 11.9.2009 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions concerning the EU Strategy for the 
Baltic Sea Region, COM(2009) 248 final, SEC(2009) 712 
Communication  from  the  Commission  "Marine  Knowledge  2020.  Marine  data  and  observation  for 
smart and sustainable growth" COM(2010) 461 final of 9.9.2010 
Directive  2008/56/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  June  2008  establishing  a 
framework for Community action in the field of marine environmental policy , OJ L 164 of 25.6.2008 
Article 1 of the MSFD 
Article 13 (4) of the MSFD 
Annex VI of the MSFD 
Council directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and  flora,  OJ  L206,  22.7.1992,  and  Directive  2009/147/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council of 30 November 2009 on the Conservation of wild birds, OJ L 20, 26.1.2010 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
farms,  while  at  the  same  time  limiting  costs.  The  need  to  ensure  coherence  in  spatial  plans 
between sea areas becomes apparent in the context of fisheries management, because of the 
mobility  of  the  resource  and  because  such  decisions  are  taken  at  EU  level  in  the  CFP.  A 
similar  need  for  spatial  coherence  and  flexibility  is  apparent  in  marine  environment 
protection, e.g. in the designation and delimitation of MPAs. 

The  use  of  renewable  energies  is  crucial  for  the  EU's  climate  change  policy,  as  well  as  for 
other EU objectives. The 2009 Directive on renewable energy17 sets a target of a 20% share 
of  such  energy  sources  by  2020.  Offshore  renewable  energy  sources,  in  particular  offshore 
wind,  will  be  an  important  contributor  to  this.  Offshore  wind  farms  and  other  renewable 
energy sources must be connected to the onshore grid. New grid infrastructure requirements 
will  be  addressed  in  the  Commission's  Energy  Infrastructure  package  to  be  adopted  soon. 
These installations will require significant amounts of space, including in cross-border areas. 
There  are  significant  benefits  to  be  expected  from  a  common  approach  to,  and  enhanced 
cross-border coordination on, MSP. EU funded research within the 7th Research Framework 
Programme  (FP7)  is  aimed  at  supporting  offshore  renewable  energy  development  and  at 
optimising MSP. 

Some parts of the waters off the EU shores are intensively exploited for the production of oil 
and gas. The EU has a vital interest in ensuring the safety of offshore oil and gas activities. 
The  Deepwater  Horizon  accident  prompted  the  Commission  to  envisage  comprehensive  EU 
legislation  on  oil  platforms  aimed  at  ensuring  the  highest  safety  standards.  The  2010 
Communication on the safety of offshore oil and gas activities18 underlines the fact that public 
authorities  are  responsible  for  putting  in  place  a  proper  regulatory  framework  for  offshore 
activities which takes into account the principles of MSP. 

Maritime transport in the waters surrounding the EU is intense. Use of the sea by maritime 
transport  and  traffic  separation  schemes  is  regulated  at  international  level,  mainly  by 
UNCLOS, the SOLAS Convention and IMO Resolutions. Directive 2002/59/EC requires that 
Member  States  and  the  Commission  work  together  towards  mandatory  maritime  traffic 
services and appropriate ships' routing systems19. MSP can support this, taking into account 
internationally  and  EU  agreed  shipping  lanes  and  their  management,  and  vessel  movement 
taking place outside them. The advantages of short sea shipping (environmental performance 
and  energy)  have  encouraged  the  Commission  to  promote  this  mode  of  transport  through 
initiatives such as “Motorways of the Sea” and a "European maritime transport space without 
barriers"20.  Action  under  these  initiatives  will  require  coordination  of  the  related  spatial 
measures. 

5.4. 

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Directive  2009/28/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2009  on  the 
promotion  of  the  use  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  and  amending  and  subsequently  repealing 
Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC, OJ L 140, 5.6.2009 
Communication  from  the  Commission  "Facing  the  challenge  of  offshore  oil  and  gas  activities", 
COM(2010) 560 final of 12.10.2010 
Directive  2002/59/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  27  June  2002  establishing  a 
Community  vessel  traffic  monitoring  and  information  system  and  repealing  council  Directive 
93/75/EEC, OJ L 208, 5.8.2002 
Directive 2010/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting 
formalities  for  ships  arriving  in  and/or  departing  from  ports  of  the  Member  States  and  repealing 
Directive 2002/6/EC 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
ICZM aims at a comprehensive management framework for the whole coastal zone, including 
environmental  policy,  spatial  planning,  industrial  policy  and  other  policies  and  instruments 
which  have  an  effect  on  coastal  regions.  ICZM  seeks  to  improve  the  economic  and  social 
well-being of coastal zones and helps to develop their full potential. In practice, it has focused 
more  on  land  and  the  immediate  shore  vicinity.  In  comparison,  MSP  has  focused  on  the 
allocation of space and achieving a balance of spatial uses in marine areas, although there are 
similarities in terms of stakeholder involvement.  

The European Parliament and Council adopted a Recommendation in 200221 which outlines 
the steps to be taken by Member States in order to develop national ICZM strategies. The EU 
ratified the Barcelona Protocol on ICZM for the Mediterranean in 201022. 

6. 

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTS OF MSP AT EU LEVEL 

In order to advance the conceptual development of MSP, the Commission initiated studies on 
various aspects of MSP: 

•  In 2008 a study on the legal aspects of MSP23; 

•  In 2010 a study on the economic effects of MSP, which concluded that economic effects of 
MSP are reduced transaction costs for new maritime activities and an improved investment 
climate24; 

•  In 2010 a study looking into the potential of MSP in the Mediterranean.25 

In addition, a major FP7 research project was started in 2009 aiming at producing integrated 
management tools for monitoring, evaluation and implementation of spatially managed areas. 

Furthermore,  the  EU  will  co-finance  two  test  projects  on  MSP  in  the  Baltic  Sea  and  in  the 
North  East  Atlantic,  including  the  North  Sea  and  the  Channel  area.  Each  project  involves 
bodies  from  at  least  two  Member  States  and  aims  to  gain  practical  experience  of  applying 
MSP  in  a  cross-border  area.26  The  Commission  also  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  regulation  to 
support the further development of an IMP, which will contribute to the development of MSP 
in the period 2011-2013; more precisely it proposes more test projects on cross-border MSP 
for selected maritime areas.27 

Finally,  several  INTERREG  programmes28  include  important  MSP  components.  The  LIFE 
programme supports spatial management measures, in the context of the Natura 2000 network 
and  the  application  of  the  ecosystem  approach  in  the  implementation  of  the  MSFD.  These 

21 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

28 

Recommendation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  May  2002  concerning  the 
implementation of ICZM in Europe 2002/413/EC, OJ L 148, 6.6.2002 
Council decision of 13 September 2010 (2010/631/EU) 
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/spatial_planning_en.html#6 
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/study_msp_en.html 
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/spatial_planning_en.html 
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/call_proposals_tenders_en.html 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a Programme to 
support the further development of an IMP, COM(2010) 494 final of 29.9.2010 
http://www.plancoast.eu/files/baltcoast_final_report.pdf; http://www.balance-eu.org; 
http://www.plancoast.eu/; http://www.baltseaplan.eu 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
projects are essential to ensuring the development of best practices and experiences in MSP in 
a cross-border context.  

7. 

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK 

The Commission draws three main conclusions from the experience gained on MSP since the 
launch of the EU IMP and the Roadmap Communication on MSP: 

•  The consultation process that followed the Roadmap revealed broad agreement on the need 
for a common approach on MSP and confirmed an interest to develop MSP further at EU 
level for the reasons explained in chapter 2. 

•  Development of MSP processes by Member States is taking place, but on an ad hoc basis, 
following  different  paths  and  time  scales.  A  more  coherent  common  approach  would 
significantly enhance the potential value of MSP for the EU as a whole, as well as in a sea-
basin context. 

•  The increased need for coordinated planning of sea basins, both in the context of current 
economic  developments  and  in  the  context  of  the  implementation  of  EU  policies  and 
legislation, would benefit strongly from MSP, as this policy would set out parameters that 
facilitate cross-border cooperation on MSP among Member States. 

In the light of these conclusions, the Commission sees a clear need for, and added value in, 
continued  work  towards  a  common  approach  to  MSP.  Further  action  on  MSP  at  EU  level 
needs to be based on the significant experience that has been gathered in the Member States, 
as  well  as  in  international  fora  and  third  countries.  The  Commission  also  believes  that  an 
important added value of further action on MSP at EU level lies in focusing on cross-border 
aspects and establishing a common process-oriented framework within which Member States 
can carry out MSP in an optimal way. The Commission will therefore propose further action 
on MSP in 2011. 

Any further action on MSP at EU level must be developed in full coordination with, and in 
support  of,  current  and  future  policies  and  initiatives  within  the  field  of  maritime  policy, 
including in  particular the implementation of  the  MSFD and future  developments  of ICZM, 
and fully respecting the existing competences and jurisdictions of the relevant authorities. 

To determine the way forward, the Commission has launched an impact assessment, including 
public  consultation,  to  explore  a  range  of  options  to  promote  and  develop  MSP  further,  in 
conjunction with options to develop ICZM further, and taking other EU policies into account. 
This range of options will, in principle, cover: 

•  Non-binding options, such as exchange of best practices, cross-border projects, studies and 

research, guidelines and/or recommendations. 

•  Legislative  options  for  setting  the  common  approach  and  cross-border  cooperation  on  a 

firm legal footing, whilst leaving implementation to the Member States. 

•   

EN 

10 

   EN