COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management
Date: 2013-03-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: coastal pollution, economic development, management of resources, maritime area, resources of the sea, sustainable development, town and country planning, water management














EUR-Lex - 52013SC0065 - EN











|



52013SC0065

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document PROPOSAL FOR A DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management /* SWD/2013/065 final */









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 green infrastructure, improving land-use,
combating water-stress and enhancing climate resilience). 
5.           Policy options
A set of possible measures to resolve the
problem drivers has been identified and combined in overarching policy options.
An overview of the link between the measures and their effectiveness, as
described in section 6.2, and the way the measures are addressed in the analysed
policy options is given in an overview table in Annex 1. 
The options have been elaborated on top of
the baseline scenario already referred to in the problem definition. All
options are to be compared to this baseline scenario.
The proposed options are (i) non-binding
guidance, (ii) non-binding policy instruments stimulating the implementation of
MSP and ICZM and (iii) legally binding instruments ensuring implementation of
MSP and ICZM. All options aim to reach the operational objectives outlined in
chapter four, but they differ in the used instruments, their degree to which
they are binding and the level of prescriptive detail. 
Option 1:
Providing guidance and development of best practices
The policy initiatives under this option
would be the establishment and distribution of a guidance document, or a
dedicated policy programme for maritime planning and coastal management.
This option can therefore be divided into
sub-options as follows:
1) a guidance document on 'best
practices'
The purpose would be to establish and
promote non-formalised guidelines on best practices for maritime planning and
coastal management, to be elaborated together with a group of Member State experts. The guidelines would identify best practices and list the different
approaches that can be taken in Member States in order to achieve a
satisfactory outcome. Guidelines would for example relate to the way
stakeholders are involved in policy planning, the way the different relevant
policies are integrated and managed, identification of relevant steps of the
planning and management processes, the institutional set up for implementation
of policies, appropriate ways to enhance transboundary co-operation and
consideration of land-sea interactions. The result would be a set of well
elaborated best practices. Member States could then select and adapt approaches
according to local needs. 
2) a Policy Programme
This sub-option would go a step further
than sub-option one by incorporating the guidance document in a dedicated
policy programme to implement the operational objectives of EU action
identified in chapter 4. 
A policy programme would be based on the
guidance document and add a series of supportive actions that promote and
facilitate implementation of integrated maritime planning and coastal
management. These other actions could include:
·     
 seminars and workshops;
·     
studies and research;
·     
recruitment of  MSP facilitators;
·     
providing technical assistance to MS for the
implementation of MSP and ICZM;
·     
co-ordination of a platform or network that
facilitates the exchange of experiences; 
·     
support the development of a data and
information system to support MSP.

The programme’s detailed delivery method would be elaborated in consultation
with a network of experts on MSP/ICZM, and in close co-operation with Member
States in order to make use of the expertise already developed at national
level.
This sub-option draws on the experience
with support actions that have accompanied the implementation of the ICZM
Recommendation. The work on common indicators and coastal assessments[109], guidance and
best-practice is of interest, e.g. the recent deployment of the OURCOAST
initiative[110]. The EU ICZM and MSP Expert groups would serve as an initial, but
limited, proxy for a wider EU coastal platform that would be the main delivery
mechanism of the Programme option. A MSP expert group is also in place and  
the work of both groups would be interlinked, if not merged.
The emphasis in this option would be on
collective action to support an integrated maritime planning and coastal
management process, rather than a more detailed framework for implementation in
and by Member States. 
Option 2:
Stimulating integrated maritime planning and coastal management through
non-binding measures
This option refers to policy initiatives
that would stimulate implementation of maritime planning and coastal management
processes in Member States by means of non-binding measures. These measures
would aim to implement the operational objectives defined in chapter 4 and can
be divided into sub-options as follows:

1) Stimulating the establishment of a
policy framework through a Council Recommendation to Member States adopted in
accordance with Article 292 of the EU Treaty:
This sub-option would recommend to coastal
Member States the development of a policy framework for maritime planning and
coastal management that aims to reach the operational objectives identified in
chapter 4, taking into account developments at national and EU level so far. It
would make a limited number of recommendations, including: 
·     
the adoption of an integrated governance
structure in all coastal States which have not already done so to allow for 
integrated maritime planning and coastal management;
·     
provisions on stakeholder involvement;
·     
development of a national  framework for developing
a maritime planning and coastal management policy 
·     
reporting provisions, nomination of competent
authorities;
·     
recommendations for co-ordination between
national authorities;
·     
recommendations on bilateral and multilateral
co-operation in marine regions; 
·     
provisions on the elaboration of data management
tools.

This recommendation would need to be coupled to a process through a committee
involving Member States and the Commission identified under option 1 a).
Recommendations no longer form part of the
ordinary legislative procedure in accordance with Article 289 of the Lisbon
Treaty. This means that the European Parliament no longer takes part in the
adoption process. A new recommendation, covering both ICZM and MSP would be
adopted by the Council only, and complement the 2002 ICZM Recommendation which was
a joint European Parliament and Council Recommendation. 
 
2) Stimulating the establishment of a policy framework linked to funding
This sub-option would mean linking the
recommendation as described in sub-option 1 to a funding instrument. A funding programme
would incite Member States to elaborate such frameworks or programmes and
contribute to more streamlined and co-ordinated action on maritime planning and
coastal management across the EU. 
Without prejudice to on-going negotiations
under the new financial perspectives 2014-2020, EU funds from a number of
financial programmes[111] could be envisaged for support of some measures in strategies or
programmes, as well as co-funding projects and using and disseminating their results.
A MSP/ICZM strategy or programme could, inter alia, be supported by the
proposed European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) [COM 2011 804 final],
depending on the actual content of the strategy or programme and in accordance
with the provisions of the proposed EMFF.
Option 3:
Obligation to implement integrated maritime planning and coastal management
through a legally binding framework 
The operational objectives, referred to in
chapter 4, would under this option be implemented through a binding legislative
framework adopted under the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 289 of the
EU Treaty).
This option can be divided into sub-options
that differ in the level of prescriptive detail for the establishment of
frameworks or plans and the level of flexibility left to Member States for
their implementation.

1) Establishing a set of general binding obligations (framework Directive) 
This sub-option would establish a limited
number of general obligations for the elaboration of a policy framework. Member
States would be obliged to establish and implement a national policy framework
for integrated maritime planning and coastal management and to set up bilateral
and regional co-operation by, making use of existing regional institutional co-operation
structures as appropriate, covering specific marine waters or a coastal zone.
It would set out the main minimum requirements for such planning and management
processes but leave the specifics of implementation to Member States. 
Similarly to option 2, this option would
need to be coupled with a process for the development of best practices
identified under option 1 a). 
This sub-option would in principle not lead
to any additional obligations for those Member States which already have
established maritime planning and coastal management regimes which are in line
with the operational objectives identified in chapter 4. 
Concrete obligations envisaged under this
option to tackle the shortcomings of current Member State implementation
identified in section 3.4.1 would be identical to those identified under option
2.1, with the important distinction that under the current option they would
become compulsory instead of non-binding. [9]
In line with the subsidiarity and
proportionality principles, this sub-option would not affect the competence of
Member States to plan in their marine waters and to manage coastal zones and
there would be no transfer of management or planning powers from the Member
States to the EU. In practice, the envisaged obligations would not apply to
landlocked Member States.

2) Establishing a more detailed set of binding obligations (Directive)
This sub-option would prescribe more in
detail the way a policy framework should be elaborated. In addition to the
obligations listed above under sub-option 1) it would include a detailed
normative description on how these processes should be set up and organised
within the governance structure of the Member States. Instead of leaving room
for the elaboration of best practices on the specific implementation of the
minimum standards, it would set out exact rules for items such as those
referred to under option 2.1. 
It would also detail how integrated
maritime planning and coastal management must be established and implemented.
This sub-option would in particular elaborate more on the precise substance
elements to be considered for coastal management such as on the protection and
sustainable use of the coastal zones, development of coastal activities,
coastal landscape protection and the risks affecting the coastal zone (e.g.
natural hazards, coastal erosion and responses to natural disasters). 
It would centralise certain pan-European
issues to be planned at EU level, seek to harmonise how integrated maritime
planning and coastal management processes  will be implemented, and include
specific provisions on how cross-border co-operation will be ensured, such as
formal set of regional bodies in each European marine region.
By way of example, the level of
prescriptive detail of provisions and concrete action to be undertaken by
Member States for coastal zone management could be similar to the provisions of
the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean
(Barcelona Protocol) under the Barcelona Convention. 
Guidance to complement the provisions of
the Directive would still be possible, to provide more practical details on
minimum requirements and best practices for implementation, but it would be
significantly less central to the proposal than under option 3.1.
Compared to sub-option 1, this option would
guarantee a more harmonised and detailed approach for maritime planning and
coastal management throughout the EU and still leave some flexibility for
implementation to Member States. It would require some transfer of competences
to the EU level.

3) Establishing a fully detailed set of binding obligations which would be
directly applicable in Member States (Regulation)
This sub-option would prescribe in detail
how the operational objectives in section 4 are to be implemented. The
obligations would be the same as under 3.1 and 3.2, but in contrast to both
preceding sub-options, this sub-option would prescribe the specific measures
and instruments to be applied directly in Member States. That is to say, it
would set out binding obligations regarding institutional set-up and
co-ordination for maritime planning and coastal management. In addition, it
would set out measures related to the protection and sustainable use of coastal
zones for specific coastal ecosystems and it would prescribe ICZM instruments
on monitoring and observation mechanisms and networks. This sub-option would in
addition prescribe in detail the centralisation of certain pan-European issues
to be planned at EU-level, prescribe harmonised delivery of maritime planning
and coastal management and impose the method of cross-border co-operation.
Given that a Regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States and that no transposition is needed at Member States level,
this option would leave no flexibility for implementation to Member States,
which would ensure fully harmonised approaches throughout the EU.
An alternative to the above described
sub-options could have been to implement integrated maritime planning and
coastal management processes through an amendment of the different sectoral
policy instruments in EU legislation. Such an approach would however require
launching amendments to a large number of EU instruments to envisage the
inclusion of the respective policy areas. Furthermore, the scope of existing
instruments often prevents the inclusion of a fully integrated regime covering
coastal zones and marine waters. Given the complexity of such an exercise, it
is not realistic that such an approach can be implemented in a relatively reasonable
timeframe and within realistic resource constraints. This alternative is
therefore not analysed further. 
Combinations
of options:
As already mentioned, some combinations
of options are also possible: In particular, the sub-options under options 2 or
3 could usefully be combined with one of the sub-options under option 1,
supporting the more legal obligations with best practices jointly elaborated
between Member States and Commission through an examination committee. 
Cross-cutting
option on information and data gathering and systems
All of the options above will need to
consider actions for the improvement of available data and information. As
highlighted throughout this impact assessment, data and information are
essential for maritime planning and coastal management and not always readily
available. The need for sharing information including
though establishing new systems was also stressed in the web based
consultation. 
Several information systems and initiatives
already exist. By building on these (in particular Maritime Knowledge 2020), a
complementary action would be designed which would help to address EU level
data needs at this stage.
It is clear that any action on this must be
developed in accordance with the INSPIRE Directive[112] which aims to create a European Union (EU)
spatial data infrastructure. The main object of such action would be the
sharing of environmental spatial information among public sector organisations
and facilitating access to spatial information across Europe.
The establishment of the Marine Knowledge
2020 framework which links up existing systems and initiatives has the
potential to provide for a large proportion of the needs of integrated maritime
planning and coastal management processes provided that it can be expanded to
coastal zones. This improvement of information option is considered in a
similar way across all options. 
6.           Analysis of impacts of policy options
6.1.        Methodological considerations 
Support studies showed that all policy
options will lead to similar kind of impacts[113]. These impacts would vary in timeliness, magnitude or scale,
depending on the effectiveness of the options to achieve the operational
objectives. In this section, it is therefore first examined to what extent each
option leads to the implementation of such maritime planning and coastal
management processes referred to in the previous sections. Thereafter the
economic, environmental and social impacts are presented.
It should further be noted that impacts can
be split up into two types:
First, direct impacts (mostly of an
administrative nature), and second, indirect impacts related to the achievement
of the operational objectives.
Both qualitative and quantitative
approaches were used to assess impacts. Qualitative impacts have been mainly
examined on the basis of literature and case study reviews. 
Quantifying costs and benefits has proved
to be very difficult as they are determined by the range of processes,
functions and products and services found and produced in the coastal and
maritime area. In addition, the potential long-term socio-economic benefits of
implementation of ICZM and MSP and the fact that many positive impacts are
based on further discretionary decisions means that they are extremely
difficult to be quantified, even though they have to be taken into account. Due
to the complexity of developing a monetary assessment framework and the lack of
data, only rough estimates can be given. The available data from individual
examples do provide some useful indications as to expected costs and benefits –
in particular to estimate probable gains or losses and support qualitative
analysis. Therefore the present impact assessment report mainly focuses on the
qualitative impact analysis and a quantitative analysis is added where
possible.
6.2.        Effectiveness of the options
in reaching the objectives
The effectiveness of measures under the
different options to resolve the underlying problem causes is summarized in the
table in Annex 1: 
Option 1:
Providing guidance and elaboration of best practices

1) Guidance document on 'best practices'
A guidance document would improve the
situation compared to the baseline scenario, and could be helpful in addressing
indirectly some of the shortcomings identified under the baseline scenario,
such as better alignment of planning processes of Member States, which per se
cannot be addressed by way of binding EU measures. However, the elaboration of
a guidance document cannot alone address the main shortcomings identified under
the baseline scenario and would therefore not contribute significantly to the
achievement of the operational objectives. It would help spreading information
on best practices. Due to the non-binding nature, it would not significantly
strengthen maritime planning and coastal management regimes at national level,
but would rather be used as a 'pick and choose' list. As a stand- alone option,
this option also provides little added value with regard to existing policy
documents or actions, but would be useful to complement other options..

2) Policy Programme 
The advantage of a programme compared to
the baseline scenario is that it would provide an EU dimension on maritime
planning and coastal management. The Programme is potentially helpful to
overcome barriers in terms of skills and knowledge by setting up supporting
activities such as workshops, studies, research, technical assistance, etc.
However, supportive actions such as exchange platforms, workshops, research
activities and technical assistance risk being not more than stand-alone actions
without achieving overall coherence. Barriers in institutional set-up or the
lack of legal effect of integrated MSP and ICZM processes are unlikely to be
overcome through this option. Most likely such a programme will be considered
as low priority given its low ambition level[114]. 
A Programme would allow development of
maritime planning and coastal management processes in particular in Member
States not yet having a MSP or ICZM policy. In coastal areas the Programme
option is expected to achieve more progress in Member States that have already
reached a significant ICZM implementation level by facilitating implementation
of measures from EU level to national and local delivery. These Member States
might also be incited to extend ICZM policies to MSP polices into integrated
maritime planning and coastal management policies. It may also kick-start
implementation of an integrated governance process in Member States which have
only taken limited initiatives to implement ICZM and MSP processes by filling
in knowledge gaps or exchange of experience. But they would still be likely to
apply MSP and or ICZM "à la carte" (pick-and-choose approach) and not
fully achieve objectives such as cross-border co-ordination, timeliness
implementation of planning and management processes, or fully address the
continued diversification of practices and differences of progress between
Member States. 
In the baseline scenario, however, the
majority of Member States are situated in the intermediate range of
implementation as far as ICZM implementation is concerned. Hence only moderate
further progress is expected[115] on integrated coastal management; however there is still some
considerable scope for further integration with MSP processes. Where
neighbouring Member States have similar levels of ICZM implementation, the
Programme option could improve cross-border implementation and integrate this
co-operation with MSP processes. For MSP, the baseline scenario considers a
lower and fragmented rate of implementation; however implementation is likely
to progress to deal with conflicts between uses or short term needs (see
section 3.4.1). A programme could more significantly increase implementation of
MSP processes and stimulate integration with ICZM processes into an overall
maritime planning and coastal management policy. 
Overall, the Policy Programme option is
only expected to moderately achieve the operational objectives. 
Option 2: Stimulating implementation of integrated maritime planning
and coastal management through non-binding measures 

1) Recommendation
A Recommendation can foster awareness of
integrated ICZM and MSP processes but, as an instrument, is likely to be
insufficient to lead to effective implementation of integrated maritime
planning and coastal management. Compared to the baseline and Programme option,
given that a Recommendation constitutes a legal act of the Union pursuant to
Article 288 of the EU Treaty, it may provide a stronger motivation for the
implementation MSP[116]objectives. However, given its non-binding nature this legal act is
unlikely to ensure that its implementation is given sufficient priority[117], and make it
more effective in increasing the level and quality of integrated ICZM and MSP
implementation compared to the Programme option. In fact, it would largely maintain
the “status quo”. The public consultation confirmed the weak expected
impact of a Recommendation[118]. In addition, it is worth noting that Recommendations, with the
entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, no longer form part of the ordinary
legislative procedure referred to in Article 289, but instead are adopted by
Council pursuant to Article 292 of the EU Treaty. Therefore, a Recommendation
is expected to achieve the operational objectives only partially and in an
inconsistent way. 

2) Stimulating a policy framework linked to funding
The feasibility of linking a policy framework to funding mechanisms
has to be assessed according to the on-going budget negotiations under the new
financial perspective 2014-2020. As regards direct support for the further implementation of
ICZM and as of 2007, the European Cohesion Policy will be a major contributor,
mainly through the Co-operation objective and the Regions for Economic Change
Initiative, which includes coastal management among its themes. Moreover, the
proposal for the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) includes actions dedicated to MSP
and ICZM[119].
However, these actions have been
assessed in the impact assessment[120] of the EMFF proposal and are
currently under discussion between institutions and is therefore not further
analysed. 
Option 3:
Setting out a binding framework to implement maritime planning and coastal management

A binding framework would address some of
most important shortcomings identified under the baseline scenario, such as the
need to set up maritime planning and coastal management processes and
cross-border mechanisms, and also assist sector integration, co-ordination and
establishment of a sound information basis to decision making. The legal
strength and policy ambition of this option allows overcoming these barriers
more effectively than the other options. In particular, it would lead to
increased and more streamlined implementation of the objectives in Member
States. In particular, this will enhance:
·     
Transparency of the process across the EU;
·     
Stakeholder involvement;
·     
Seamless planning of marine waters and
management of coastal zones, including land-sea interactions, across borders
which is in the interest both of economic operators and the implementation of
the eco-system approach;
·     
Timely implementation of EU objectives and
legislation that depend on sound cross-border planning and sea use management,
including the MSFD, Renewable Energy Directive, Natura 2000 legislation,  the
CFP.
The integration of MSP and ICZM into one
legal instrument allows to ensure the necessary coherence of the planning and
management processes in marine waters and coastal zones, as well as to create
synergies in implementation including the streamlining of administrative
aspects (public participation, reporting). 

1) 'Framework' Directive
A framework Directive is expected to
achieve the added value of a legislative approach as listed above, but at the
same time to limit the level of EU interference with Member State processes and competences to the minimum. It would in particular provide the necessary
legal weight to address some of the shortcoming of options 1 and 2. The
compulsory nature of this option would mean that it is the option which is the
closest to ensure achievement the operational objectives, ensuring
implementation of integrated maritime planning and coastal management across
marine regions, as follows: 
·                        
Application and integration of MSP and ICZM
processes by all MS, through the introduction of /minimum standards and the
establishment of an examination committee for the development of further best
practices for effective cross-border co-operation and co-ordination of land-sea
interactions.
·                        
Complement firm obligations with minimum
requirements to support practical implementation 
·                        
Guarantee predictability, stability,
transparency (as opposed to “voluntary” options)
·                        
Provides a necessary stable support mechanism
for the implementation of all legislation concerned by the distribution of sea
uses, including notably MSFD and the Renewable Energy Directive.
·                        
Provide a framework to minimise conflicts
between different maritime uses and facilitate the development of new
activities such as aquaculture and offshore grids. 
·                        
It is timely and constitutes a window of
opportunity in view of the current trend of developing MSP by providing a firm
immediate framework to support the implementation; whilst ensuring full
complementarity with existing national policies. A voluntary approach
(potentially followed later by legislation) would be more costly and difficult to
implement as the number of Member States introducing their own potentially
process would have increased thus raising the risk of divergences. 
The introduction of a compulsory integrated
maritime planning and coastal management policy does not amend the acquis
communautaire, but supports its implementation in some areas. 
A framework directive would also reduce or
eliminate the need for Member States that already have MSP and ICZM processes
in place to significantly adapt their regimes.
At the same time, it is important to note
that this framework option cannot in itself address all the shortcomings
identified under the baseline scenario. A framework Directive which will not
prescribe in detail how the planning processes will be implemented, but will
only set minimum requirements and will thus need to be supplemented with
additional guidance. For example, shortcomings such as lack of alignment of
national planning processes, or ensuring a level playing field between
operators etc. cannot be fully addressed under this option. In order to fully
address these issues, a framework Directive will have to include provisions
that allow for the elaboration of more detailed guidance which can then be
developed jointly with Member States.
The potential for regionally differentiated
impact will be substantial under this option. An obligation to introduce MSP
for marine waters under  jurisdiction of the Member States will lead to
different outcomes in marine regions where Member States have established
exclusive economic zones (e.g. the North Sea) or in to marine regions where
this is not the case (such as the Mediterranean Sea). 
Full MSP implementation can only be
expected in areas which are not subject to territorial disputes under
international law.
This option is expected to lead to full
ICZM implementation in all coastal Member States. Most progress in impacts will
therefore be achieved in Member States with lower estimated levels of
implementation in the baseline scenario (see 3.4.2).
 In conclusion, this option combined
with option 1 offers an appropriate mix of binding and guidance policy tools to
guarantee implementation of MSP and ICZM and integration of both tools, but
allowing wide flexibility to adapt to local conditions with guidance on
implementation of minimum requirements and best practices as a helping tool for
implementation. 

2) 'Detailed'/full harmonisation Directive
This sub-option would contribute
significantly in the achievement of the operational objective through the
obligation to implement integrated maritime planning and coastal management
and, through a higher level of prescriptive detail, lead to more harmonised
policies across the EU than sub-option 1. 
However, a detailed Directive would leave
Member States less flexibility regarding implementation. More detailed and
prescriptive provisions have the advantage that there is less leeway for
differences in interpretation, commitments and on how to implement and apply
these obligations across Member States. However, limited flexibility for
implementation may well result in less adaptability to specific local or
regional circumstances. They might also lead to modifications of existing
governance regimes in those Member States with existing MSP and ICZM processes.
This would raise subsidiarity concerns (see below). It would also be suboptimal
in a context of the reduction of administrative burden.
Stakeholder consultations and contacts with
Member States authorities have shown that support for this option is very
limited. Stakeholders confirm that Member States need flexibility to implement
the operational objectives and want to maintain control over the planning
processes themselves. 
In conclusion, this option would increase
the likelihood of a more harmonised uptake but at the expense of flexibility, an
increase in administrative burden, and a less than optimal approach to the
subsidiarity concerns. 

3) Regulation
Because of its direct effect a Regulation
would leave no scope for differentiated implementation, or maintaining existing
processes to Member States. 
Given the need to allow differentiation in
implementation between Member States, including at national and sub-national
levels, the firm opposition from stakeholders to a detailed, prescriptive
approach, and the difficulty of taking into account subsidiarity concerns
appropriately, this option does not seem realistic[121] . This conclusion is based on initial scoping discussions with the
EU ICZM Expert Group[122], the results of the public consultation and hearing on ICZM[123], the study on
policy options for MSP and on the consultation on MSP. Consequently, the option
of a Regulation is not considered appropriate.
Cross-cutting
option in improving data and information availability 
The guarantee to improve availability of
data and linking data sources would be most effective if included in a binding
policy option. However, as databases need to be very specific, there should be
left sufficiently flexibility for Member States to develop and adapt data
gathering according to local conditions. Therefore, the reference to
appropriate data gathering and management would be most effective under the
framework Directive option. 
6.3.        Economic Impacts
6.3.1.     Economic benefits 
Lower
transaction costs for maritime businesses: Preparatory
studies have shown that coherent and cross-cutting management and planning of
human uses of seas and coasts by means of MSP and ICZM processes can lead to
cost reductions for maritime businesses and industries: decision-making
processes at national and international level are more streamlined, and
transparency regarding sea area use is increased. This results in lower search,
transaction, administrative, legal, opportunity and operating costs[124], particularly
for SME's. For three scenarios, a reduction of 1% in transaction costs led to
positive economic effects ranging from € 170 million to € 1.3 billion in 2020. This
can increase further due to acceleration of investments in e.g. renewable
energy installations[125]. To be noted that implementation costs to be faced by authorities
are not expected for businesses for whom the main impact would be a de facto
reduction of regulatory burden.
Improved
certainty and predictability for private investments: Development of a (cross-border) maritime spatial plan at sea, or
integrated management through MSP and ICZM processes increases certainty for
investors, who will know sooner and better which and where activities will be
allowed or prohibited. Improved certainty can reduce or solve (existing and
potential) conflicts between uses. The expected acceleration of investments based
on enhanced certainty could lead to estimated benefits between € 155 million and
€ 1.6 billion in 2030[126] .
Improved
certainty to obtain financing for offshore investments: Increased certainty provided by integrated MSP and/or ICZM processes
within and between Member States may facilitate financing of offshore
investments, including through lower interest rates linked to reduced risks of
failed investment.
Improved
use of the sea space and the best possible coexistence of uses in coastal zones
and marine waters: MSP and ICZM are needed within
marine regions and sub-regions and at Member State level to avoid and solve
conflicts between uses and co-ordinate land-sea interactions of activities.
Handling claims for space through a single process for integrated Maritime
planning and coastal management developed and implemented within and between
Member States will better ensure an effective balance between maritime
activities. This also helps to enhance potential synergies between activities that
might not otherwise be explored[127] and to increase efficiency by co-ordination of land-sea
interactions of human activities, e.g. design for cruise ship ports and
connection to touristic facilities and connection of wind farm energy to the
electricity grid on land.
Improved
attractiveness of coastal regions: better maritime
planning includes improved preservation of natural and amenity values. This is
crucial for some added-value economic activities, e.g. in the field of tourism.
Reduced
co-ordination costs for public authorities: Reduced
costs resulting from integrated MSP and ICZM processes are also achievable for
public authorities[128] (i.e. lower administrative burden because of more
transparent and effective co-ordination mechanisms, better and more streamlined
information on space use, more anticipatory and coherent planning). But implementation
requires investments by public authorities in the short term. 
Development
of innovation and research: The application of
(cross-border) maritime planning and coastal management processes requires
reliable and valid data, information and knowledge. This can make them a driver
for initiatives to gather and make available new information on existing and
future sea uses, and new analysis methods to support all aspects of integrated
MSP and ICZM processes. 
Enhanced
and integrated data and information: the
compilation and integration of coastal and marine data is essential for the
preparation of the plans and essential for informed decision-making that helps
increased economic performance of business activities[129]. According to the impact assessment supporting the 2010
Communication on Marine knowledge 2020, European companies would save at least
300 million € per year if they had better access to relevant data.
              6.3.2.
Implementation and administrative costs
The methodology to assess implementation
and administrative costs is mainly based on general estimates due to lack of
empirical evidence of costs. Both MSP and ICZM are relatively new concepts and
relate to cross sector decision making processes, which makes it very difficult
to make exact cost quantification. The data considered come from case-studies,
projects and questionnaire responses[130]:

 Option 1 and 2: costs necessary for the
     functioning of a coastal platform/expert network and supportive activities
     such as best practice guidance development, common projects, etc. The
     emphasis of option 1 and 2 is mainly exchange of information and promote
     MSP/ICZM but ultimately it should lead to additional implementation of
     ICZM for which the involved additional costs are also considered.
 Option 3: costs necessary for the
     required institutional set up, co-ordination mechanisms, decision making
     procedures, methods and tools for stakeholder involvement, etc. 

The exercise resulted in wide cost estimate
ranges due to limited available data and large differences across Member States
in terms of initial set-up, foundations for information systems, mechanisms and
culture for national and regional co-operation. 
Implementation costs for full ICZM delivery
are estimated to average around 200 M€ start-up costs and some 20 M€ annual
operational costs. [131]However, Member States in the baseline scenario have already
achieved a certain level of ICZM. The assessment is therefore linked only to
the additional implementation expected under the different policy options. A
large degree of uncertainty is associated with the start-up costs which depend
on national and regional contexts in Member States. By contrast, the
operational costs of ICZM once established are relatively modest. Operational costs
for maintenance of information systems could be a more significant recurrent
cost.
The reasoning in the previous paragraph
applies to a large extent also to MSP. The study on the policy options for
future action on MSP concluded that it was not possible in any reliable way to
quantify the implementation costs due to a lack of EU-wide data. Reference can
however be made to the impact assessment of the maritime planning system in the
UK which made an attempt to quantify the costs for public institutions,
maritime businesses and local authorities to develop and implement marine plans
in their waters. The total discounted costs over 20 years were estimated to be
around 95.5 million GBP (around 108.9 million €), including the costs
for setting up the Marine Management Organisation. The average annual costs of
the Maritime Planning System were estimated to be about 4.3 million GBP (4.9
million €), annual costs for running the Marine Management Authority included. 
These costs were then compared with the
estimated benefits of having an MSP system in place. The best estimate of the
total discounted benefits over 20 years were about 487 million GBP (555 million
€) and the average annual benefits about 46.8 million GBP (53.4 million €).[132] In contrast to this very ambitious example, lighter and more
cost-effective approaches may be found in other Member States. In Germany, for
example, the whole process of developing and adopting a federal level maritime
spatial plan was done with a limited number of statutory staff (less than ten)
in an existing agency (the Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie, BSH).
However, a full-scale Impact Assessment of the same planning process was not
carried out.
Option 1: Providing
guidance and elaboration of best practices
It is not expected that the first
sub-option of elaborating best practices would have any particular impacts on
administrative costs since they would be elaborated under existing structures,
such as the Member State expert groups under the Integrated Maritime Policy.
Costs would therefore in all essentials be limited to travel costs for
participants to these meetings. 
The implementation costs for a policy
programme on ICZM are estimated to range from 1 to 2 M€ for specific projects
mostly carried out by Member States authorities and experts to feed into the
Programme (5 to 10 projects/year of 200K€ each) and less than 10000 €
additional administrative costs for the Commission to support the functioning
of an expert group or coastal stakeholders platform to drive the Programme. The
costs associated with the moderate increase in ICZM implementation within the
22 coastal Member States are evaluated to range from some 2 to 22 M€ start-up
cost[133] and around 1 M€ operational costs[134]. 
For MSP, the overall costs in budget terms
could range from 1 to 3 M€ per year for the range of actions, depending on
uptake by Member States. 
These figures are however highly uncertain
given the difficulty to calculate the effect on an EU wide basis due to the
lack of data. These figures will also depend on the outcome of the negotiations
on the future EMFF fund; indeed, the actions proposed under the EMFF fund
include proposals for financial support of the development of MSP practices[135].
Option 2:
Stimulating implementation of integrated maritime planning and coastal management
through non-binding measures
The Recommendation option does not in
itself lead to administrative costs for authorities or businesses, as it is by
nature a voluntary instrument. No additional reporting efforts are expected
compared to the voluntary reports delivered by the majority of Member States
under the 2002 Recommendation. 
The costs associated with the moderate
increase in ICZM implementation within the 22 coastal Member States are
evaluated to be in the same range as above. Additional costs would also be
associated with the upgrading of data and information systems. 
The administrative costs for MSP under this
option could be relatively similar to those estimated for option 1.
Option 3:
Setting out a binding framework to implement integrated maritime planning and
coastal management
An obligation to introduce compulsory maritime
planning and coastal management among Member States will mean that Member
States which have not yet taken any steps to implement MSP and/or ICZM
processes will have to restructure their respective national governance regime.
Similarly to options 1 and 2, there is no EU wide data available which would
make it possible to make any form of reliable calculation on what the financial
consequences would be. However, as mentioned above, when a MSP framework was
introduced in the United Kingdom in 2010, the estimated administrative costs
over 20 years amount around 95.5 million GBP.
The costs could be further reduced by
allowing Member States having already national policies in place to fully build
on the national work 
Additional administrative costs in the short
term are likely to be compensated by cost savings in the medium and long terms
through efficiency gains. In the case of the UK, the overall economic gains
over 20 years were estimated to be around 455.million GBP, i.e. 4-5 times
higher than the estimated costs. These figures should however be treated with
extreme care since extrapolation of the UK example to other Member States is
extremely difficult. Also, significantly less costly approaches can also be
envisaged. The feasibility of either of these approaches, or indeed variations
on them is highly dependent on the administrative structures in individual
Member States. Full investigation of this is beyond the scope of the current
Impact Assessment.
Costs associated with the increase to full
ICZM implementation within the 22 coastal Member States are evaluated to range
from some 15 to 150 M€ start-up cost and around 5 to 10 M€ operational costs. The
huge difference in the range of start-up and operational costs is due to the
fact that each Member State exhibit large differences in institutional set-up,
foundations for information systems, mechanisms and culture for national and
regional collaboration, which are bound to influence the costs of implementing
ICZM. Upgrading of national coastal information systems may lead to additional
costs (estimated in case of maximum implementation at national level and in all
coastal NUTS 3 regions: 13.3-20 M€ one-off development cost, and 26-38.9M€
yearly maintenance costs)[136].
The framework Directive option will include
a reporting requirement on Member States, but the costs are assessed to be
relatively minor for ICZM. The majority of Member States already reported under
the 2002 Recommendation so that reporting would not lead to additional
costs for those Member States since no additional reporting is envisaged. The
measures under the Directive are not in themselves expected to lead to
additional information requirements and thus administrative burden on
businesses. 
It is equally more or less impossible to
estimate the administrative costs for a detailed/harmonisation type Directive
and for a Regulation since no EU wide data are available for these options
either. Because in this case administrative costs would be incurred also by those
Member States who have functioning MSP and ICZM processes, it is estimated that
the overall administrative costs will be considerably higher than in the case
of the option of a framework Directive. In the case of a Regulation, which is
immediately enforceable as law in all Member States, implementation costs are
expected to be higher. A Regulation sets out binding obligations regarding
institutional co-ordination causing a rigid administrative implementation
process. Possible 'mismatches' and incompatibilities between ICZM/MSP policy
requirements and existing sectoral arrangements at the national and regional
level cannot be catered for and may trigger extremely high start-up costs. Operational
costs linked to the compliance with detailed measures and instruments such as monitoring
and observation mechanisms and networks for ICZM are expected to be higher too.
Overall
Economic assessment
It has proven to be difficult to make any
reliable estimations of what the administrative costs of the different policy
options would be due to the limited availability of EU wide data. Figures
presented in this section should therefore be treated with care, even if they
do provide a reasonable indication of impacts that can be expected under
certain conditions.
In the short term, the option of a
Directive would lead to significant implementation and administrative costs as
compared to the baseline scenario and other options. This consideration must be
weighed against the potential economic benefits of each option, and must be
assessed bearing in mind that considerable variation is possible depending on
the administrative setup and approach of individual Member States. In the case
of UK, prudent estimations have shown that the overall economic benefits are
around 4-5 times higher than the administrative costs. 
When the economic benefit study on MSP was
presented during the European Maritime day in 2010, several stakeholders stated
that the estimations are prudent and economic benefits are much higher. No
quantitative figures were however given by those who intervened in this debate.
              On ICZM experience with
numerous projects suggests that in general ICZM implementation pays off and the
benefits exceed by far the incurred administrative costs. For instance the
comparison of the EU demonstration program has shown that the benefits
generated by ICZM initiatives had a vastly positive benefit-cost ratio, the
economic benefits being 8 to 13 times higher than the related costs.
6.4.        Environmental impacts:
The environmental
impacts are only beneficial as they relate to a more sustainable use of coastal
and maritime resources and the existing legal obligations will ensure the
envisaged level of protection for the environment. The main additional impacts
can be broadly summarized as follows:
–                        
Reduction of pressure on environment in
particular through an improved use of coastal and maritime space: Due to
the comprehensive approach of integrated MSP/ICZM processes, impacts among uses
and opportunities for multiple use of space can be better identified and
translated into more efficient spatial planning, as well as a more balanced
spatial development. In the public consultation, stakeholders stressed "the
more efficient use of coastal resources" as an important benefit. A study
conducted by the JRC[137]on policy alternatives' impacts on European coastal zones pointed
out that sustainable coastal zone management can reduce the increase in
built-up areas by one third compared to the baseline scenario and minimize
landscape fragmentation, and environmental impacts. At sea MSP can help to
reduce environmentally damaging activities in protected areas (e.g.
reallocation of shipping lanes reduce the risk of ship accidents in marine
protected areas, location of a windfarm established on the basis of
cross-border MSP leads to greater efficiency and less environmental impacts
than locating the same windfarm in two separate and more vulnerable spots
because cross-border planning was not an option).
–                        
Improved biodiversity conservation and
environmental quality: MSP will specify in more
detail the tools foreseen already in environmental legislation (e.g. Annex VI
of MSFD). ICZM integrates ecosystems into spatial planning and thus contributes
to reduced fragmentation of natural areas. More opportunities for green
infrastructure are created, including in coastal risks management. The use of
renewable and non-renewable resources (e.g. fish stocks) can be better
managed with the help of development and implementation of MSP resulting in
better conditions of the marine environment.
–                        
Improved resilience to risks: ICZM stimulates better knowledge about coastal processes (e.g.
recognition of sediment dynamics) and long-term effects such as through climate
change. Together with more participation in planning and design this leads to
improved solutions for coastal erosion and mitigation of adverse impacts on
sediment balances. In the maritime areas MSP action is likely to leverage all
relevant action to mitigate and adapt to climate change risks, as its prime
objective is the optimisation of use of maritime space – for example, it would
optimise the designation of sand and gravel extraction areas, necessary to
support coastal protection (adaptation). Also the impacts of climate change on
for instance the current location of shipping lanes can be taken into account
in existing and future MSP projects at Member State and EU level. Finally,
the joint implementation of MSP and ICZM into an integrated maritime planning
and coastal management process will create synergies and help to avoid that
decisions are made on land that have negative environmental impacts on the sea
and vice versa. 
Option 1: Providing
guidance and elaboration of best practices
It is
not expected that this option will lead to significant sustained beneficial
environmental impacts across marine regions. The fact that this option would
not significantly contribute to achievement of the operational objectives and
the guidance would be used as a pick and choose list will make that beneficial
effects are expected to be limited to very local effects and rather focused on
one issue topics such as marine litter or protection of a specific nature site.
Integration of local environmental protection initiatives into a wider regional
planning and management policy would be limited or non-existing.
Integration
of a best practice guidance into a policy programme would provide potential for
a more coherent approach. However, given the fact that a policy programme most
probably will be considered 'low priority' and supportive actions are limited
to workshops, exchange platforms and research, the beneficial environmental
effect would be limited to mainly awareness raising and local, non-coherent beneficial
effects.
Option 2: Stimulating
maritime planning and coastal management through non-binding measures
A
recommendation would provide for an EU dimension for maritime planning and
coastal management, but as its main added value relates to awareness-raising
and most likely is insufficient to guarantee effective implementation of
MSP/ICZM processes, it is expected to barely lead to more environmental
benefits than under option 1. 
Linking
a policy framework to funding may trigger increased MSP/ICZM implementation,
but as funded projects would most probably limited to specific smaller areas,
the overall increased environmental beneficial impacts may be higher for these
specific areas but is expected to be not significantly higher than a
recommendation without funding for larger areas.
Option 3: Setting out a
binding framework for maritime planning and coastal management
Obligatory
implementation of MSP/ICZM processes would provide the best guarantee for
significant beneficial environmental impacts throughout a sea basin. This
option would provide for a strong support mechanism ensuring that environmental
objectives under different legislation (Bird and Habitats, MSFD, WFD, CFP,
etc.) and protection of areas against climate change risks have better chance to
be achieved through its obligatory integration into the overall maritime
planning and coastal management policy across marine regions. A 'framework
directive' would be the most appropriate instrument as it allows sufficient
flexibility to regions to adapt policies to very local conditions, which in the
environmental context can be very specific. More prescriptive instruments -
such as a detailed Directive or Regulation - risk being too prescriptive which
could lead to redundant or non-effective measures. 
6.5.        Social impacts: 
Concrete
social impacts are difficult to assess since it is very difficult to assess the
exact economic impacts (see section 6.3), because much of them would be in
terms of gains or losses in employment. However, following general impacts can
be given. 
–                        
Improved engagement of population and
stakeholders: by actively pursuing information
provision and participation, MSP and ICZM integrated implementation increase
awareness about maritime and coastal values, risk and opportunities; they
stimulate a better sense participation of the coastal population with their
environment. Enterprises and organisations take greater responsibility for social
matters (e.g. ports activities on societal integration). Improved
participation of population and stakeholders leads to better understanding
between stakeholders and authorities and to more transparent planning and
management, as well as improving stakeholder buy-in. In the public
consultation, these two aspects have been pointed out as beneficial and
confirmed by relevant ICZM actors.
–                        
Improved amenity and cultural heritage: Preservation of maritime cultural heritage due to better planning
is considered a benefit (e.g. historical wrecks, artefacts and sunken
buildings). Better integration of natural and cultural heritage in planning and
management allows preservation of the coastal landscape, or improved urban
environment in the case of ports and urbanised coastal zones.
–                        
Increased business opportunities and jobs: Integrated maritime planning and coastal management can enhance the
economic growth of emerging maritime sectors and increase employment within
Member States and at EU level. The emergence of new industries and technologies
such as wind energy will provide a significant increase in jobs, also in areas
that are currently faced with above average unemployment rates. [138], Systematic
implementation will bring employment to sectors whose development needs
transparent, predictable, and stable planning processes. Co-ordination of
land-sea interactions will contribute to innovation and research opportunities
and related job creation (e.g. innovative coastal risk management, green
infrastructure provision, information management; or eco-tourism).
–                        
Improvement in maritime safety: MSP on a Member State and EU level can
improve the level of maritime safety (e.g. by avoiding the installation
of a wind farm on a busy maritime traffic lane or altering existing flight
paths of helicopters to and from offshore platforms). 
–                        
Improved political co-operation climate: the approach of ICZM to address issues in a holistic way based on
minimum requirements, sharing of information, inclusiveness and transparency in
processes allows establishing a better dialogue in cross-border situations and
enhances co-operation with 3rd countries. 
Option 1: Providing
guidance and elaboration of best practices
Social
impacts are expected to be weak and limited to very local spots. Following the
likely 'pick and choose' approach, some stakeholder engagement may be triggered
around local initiatives or projects that are most likely focused on particular
issues, such as for instance construction of a dike for erosion prevention,
construction of a wind farm or planning of a new touristic attraction or
facility. Cross sector and wide stakeholder involvement on overall maritime
planning and coastal management throughout a sea basin would be most likely
non-existing. 
Improved
amenity and cultural heritage may also occur very local for specific local
projects, but lack of integration or coherent overall policy would make that
impacts on sea basin level would be limited. 
Impacts
on business opportunities and jobs, maritime safety and political co-operation
to address issues in a holistic way would be negligible as these would require
integrated action on regional scale that would not be triggered by means of a
guidance document.
Option 2: Stimulating maritime
planning and coastal management through non-binding measures
The
main added value for this option would be awareness-raising, which might incite
stakeholders to become more actively involved than under option 1. However,
given the non-binding nature, sustained overall stakeholder involvement across
marine regions is expected to be limited.
 Other
positive social impacts are expected not to be significantly higher than under
option 1, as this option gives no strong guarantees for more effective MSP/ICZM
implementation than under option 1. 
Linking
a policy framework to funding may lead to positive social impacts in specific
project areas but are expected not to be significantly higher for larger areas.
Option 3: Setting out a
binding framework for maritime planning and coastal management
Obligatory
implementation of MSP/ICZM processes would provide the best guarantee for
significant beneficial social impacts throughout a sea basin. Formal mechanisms
would be created for wide stakeholder involvement and obligatory cross sector
integrated planning and management processes would give the best guarantees for
improved amenity and cultural heritage, economic development and job growth,
improvement in overall maritime safety and political co-operation to address
issues in a holistic way, across marine regions. A 'framework directive' would
be the most appropriate instrument as it allows sufficient flexibility to
regions to adapt policies to local conditions. A detailed directive or
regulation would be too descriptive to adapt policies to specific economic and
social conditions that require tailor-made solutions. 
7.           Comparing
the options 
7.1.        Overview
policy options 
Table
   ||   || Achievement of operational objectives || Economic benefits || Implementation Costs* || Environmental benefits || Social benefits 
 Option 1 || Guidance || + || + || 0 || 0 to + || 0 
 Policy programme || + || + || 0 || + || 0 
 Option 2 || Recommendation || + || + || + || + || + 
 Recommendation + funding || ++ || ++ || + || ++ || + 
 Option 3 || Framework Directive || ++++ || +++ || + || +++ || +++ 
 Directive || +++ || +++ || ++ || ++ || ++ 
 Regulation || +++ || +++ || +++ || ++ || ++ 
0: no change
compared to baseline scenario; +: limited increase compared to baseline
scenario ++ : moderate increase compared to the baseline scenario +++: high
increase compared to the baseline scenario
7.2.        Joint policy options for integrated maritime planning and coastal management processes 
The non-binding  options would be helpful
to address some of the shortcomings identified under the baseline scenario but
only moderately achieve progress towards the objectives set out in chapter 4 or
may lead to no significant progress over the baseline scenario. Joint
non-binding options are not likely to improve these results significantly to a
level similar to the Directive option. In particular, they are not likely to
fully address the need to achieve, within reasonable timeframes, comparable
fully documented processes in all coastal Member States, and to achieve, as
quickly as possible, coherent and prospective co-ordination of planning in
relevant sea areas. The Directive option is assessed to be most effective and
to deliver optimal results. However, the Directive option should be combined
with the first option, which envisages the elaboration of best practices for
maritime and coastal planning to be developed in close collaboration between
the Commission and Member State Experts.
The public consultation stressed the need
for strong co-ordination of MSP and ICZM, despite the fact that authorities or
issues may differ between the coast and offshore areas[139]. Progress towards a coherent development of land and the sea parts
of the coastal zone can be better stimulated by EU action if a closer link-up
of ICZM and MSP is ensured. 
The envisaged EU action aims to improve the
effective use of planning and management mechanisms, without prescribing
specific land-use or zoning plans[140]. A joint Directive could improve synergies between maritime
planning and coastal management, and ensure better consistency between measures
(e.g. co-ordination mechanisms, participation,). Cost effectiveness may
be improved, notably in information management and administrative streamlining.

Coherence with existing EU legislation and
effective support to EU policies in marine waters and coastal zones can be more
efficient through a single, instead of two separate Directives. Finally, the
ICZM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention covers the land- and sea parts of the
coastal zone, up to the territorial sea. Separate initiatives at the EU level,
on ICZM and in addition one on MSP, risks being a source of inconsistency and
confusion for Member States concerned by the Protocol. 
7.3.        Conclusions and preferred
option
The implementation of maritime planning and
coastal management at national level would lead to significant economic,
environmental and social benefits and resource efficiency gains both for
stakeholders and national administrations. Enhanced transnational co-operation
would contribute to these benefits and gains and help eliminating barriers and
bottlenecks in order to enhance sustainable economic growth while respecting
the ecological boundaries of the ecosystem. Ensuring smart data infrastructures
which would link existing data sources and make all these data available in a
compatible form will not only enable public authorities to take more informed
decisions on the planning of their sea space (such as placement of offshore
wind farms), but also lead to considerable cost savings for European Companies
(estimated to be around 300 million € per year).
The challenges/problems identified in
chapter 3 need to be tackled through instruments that allow the coherent and
cross-cutting management of human uses of seas and coasts, in a sea basin
context. The problems can be tackled through achieving a series of operational
objectives as per chapter 4, and proposes a combination of binding and
non-binding options (chapter 5.).
A comparison of the identified options
demonstrates that the optimal action to fulfil the objectives identified in
chapter 4 of the impact assessment would be to combine the option for a
framework Directive on maritime planning and coastal management with the first
option to establish best practices. This would mean in practice a framework
Directive which establishes a limited set of obligations and a process for the
development of best practices.
A detailed Directive or Regulation would be
disproportionate since it would require a move towards harmonisation of
governance structures in EU Member States, which is not necessary to attain the
objectives of this initiative. It would also interfere unnecessarily with the
internal administrative processes of the Member States. It would disregard the
subsidiarity principle as examined in section 3.5.2. Stakeholder consultations
have shown that Member States are firmly opposed to any measures which would
transfer planning and management competence on MSP and ICZM from national level
to EU level. The above Impact Assessment shows that EU action would have most
added value by providing a framework that ensures the implementation of
management and planning processes by and between the Member States.
It is important to distinguish between the
non-binding options on the one hand, and the legally binding option, on the
other. The assessment in chapter 5 and supporting studies of the policy options
for this impact assessment show that both MSP and ICZM have the potential to
tackle the problems identified in chapter 3, and to lead to considerable
environmental, economic and social benefits. These benefits can only fully be
achieved if integrated MSP and ICZM are implemented on the basis of a framework
that sets out a number of binding minimum standards. The same considerations
have also been made in impact assessments at national level, such as the 2010
impact assessment for the introduction of the Marine Bill of the UK. 
Even though non-binding options offer some
advantages compared to the baseline, experience shows that a legally binding
approach has the best potential of action and sends a sufficiently strong
political message on the urgency of it. 
This has been shown inter alia by the 2002
Recommendation on ICZM where implementation by Member States has been variable
and the political ambition to implement non-binding legislation is visibly low.
Some Member States authorities have during the consultation process pointed out
that a legally binding instrument is crucial to bring together different
national and regional authorities to implement integrated policies such as MSP
and ICZM. It would seem that the implementation of such cross sector policies
would require a broad political consensus of a way forward by both European
legislative bodies. A Directive is the only legislative instrument among the
options considered which can achieve that objective, given also that
Recommendations no longer form part of the ordinary legislative procedure in
the EU Treaty.
Without ignoring the differences between
the two instruments (geographical scope, content of action), this impact
assessment has also demonstrated (see inter alia section 6.3) that there
are considerable similarities between the objectives for action on MSP and
ICZM. Both tools target the application of an integrated approach to oceans
management through enhanced maritime and coastal governance. MSP and ICZM share
similar data needs. Considerable synergies can be achieved through a joint
legislative initiative for MSP and ICZM that would ensure full coherence
between these policy areas and their implementation in marine regions across EU
Member States. The consultation process highlighted the need for a strong
co-ordination between the two policies.
It can also be noted that the stakeholder
consultation demonstrated considerable support (72 %) for upgrading the current
ICZM Recommendation to binding legislation. The operational timeline of the
ICZM Recommendation ended in 2006. Although some have called for legislative or
binding action by the EU on MSP[141], there have also been negative reactions linked in most cases to
subsidiarity and legislative fatigue concerns, and those will need to be
addressed by the proposed action. 
The initiative must be timed and designed
so that it can support the achievement of objectives in the context of EU
initiatives such as the MSFD, the Renewable Energy Directive and other resource
efficiency initiatives such as the Agenda 2020. It should therefore be in place
as soon as possible but not later than in 2-3 years. At the same time, this
relative urgency in achieving the objectives of the proposed action supports
the case for a legislative approach as this has significantly better chances of
achieving measurable outcomes within a short timeframe.
It will also have to take into account
differences in implementation levels and administrative structures between
Member States, and propose how to take this into account, for instance through
differentiated timing of implementation and the possibility for Member States
to build on their national policies.
This work at EU level can also be further
complemented through further work at regional and international level (e.g. the
regional sea conventions) to strengthen collaboration with neighbouring third
countries sharing the same marine regions as EU member States
A proposal for a joint Directive
integrating MSP and ICZM will furthermore have to fully comply with the
subsidiarity principle. EU action will also have to be proportionate and
respect the particularities of each sea region. Full coherence with existing
legislative instruments such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, the
Strategic Environment Assessment Directive, and other relevant legislation will
have to be ensured. A proposal will have to be limited to the establishment of
general obligations which can be accompanied by guidelines destined to support
Member States in this work. Such guidelines will need to be elaborated in close
collaboration with Member States through a formalised process. 
Finally, moving towards a more integrated
approach will be particularly important during these times of financial crisis.
The marine and maritime sectors represent a source of untapped economic
potential that is vital for Europe's future and will have an important role to
play in the economic recovery of Europe. The on-going blue growth initiative
will provide a comprehensive and robust analysis of what can be done further to
unlock the unexploited sustainable potential in maritime sectors. The study
will be building a picture of where Europe's marine and maritime economic
sectors will be in 5-15 years to come and trace the most credible growth
scenarios for the most promising maritime economic activities in terms of
economic growth and employment. The Commission is preparing a Communication on
blue growth to the European Parliament and Council which is foreseen for
September 2010 on the basis of the conclusions of this study. 
8.           Monitoring
and evaluation
The monitoring
should focus on implementation and compliance level at Member State level. These should however be "light" and limited to reporting progress of
implementation of the various obligations adopted. Stakeholder consultations
have shown very clearly that there is little support for massive monitoring
regimes, which would put additional pressure on national administrations in
times of financial crisis. It is also doubtful that detailed reporting and
monitoring obligations have significant added value with regard to the
objectives of the action.
For ICZM the
monitoring and evaluation can be based on previous experience from Member
States national reporting in 2006 and 2010 respectively. The monitoring should
be able to show expected progress both in terms of the governance systems being
implemented on ICZM as well as the actual state of the coasts. Already
available progress indicators of ICZM implementation can be used to monitor the
specific policy options and ICZM process phases. These indicators rank from (1)
planning and management are taking place in the coastal zone; (2.) a framework
exists for taking ICZM forward; (3) most aspects of an ICZM approach are in
place and function reasonably well; (4) an efficient, adaptive and integrative
process is embedded at all levels of governance and is delivering greater
sustainable use of the coast[142]. 
For MSP a similar approach can be taken,
based on the recommendations for indicators to measure progress on MSP[143]. Indicators
should cover issues such as progress in establishing the legal framework within
Member States to govern MSP, information management, permitting and licensing;
consultation; sector conflict management; cross-border co-operation;
Implementation of MSP. Indicatively, the indicators could concern for the
preferred policy option:
·                        
Output indicators (linked to the operational
objectives): e.g. the (increased) number of approved national strategies
and maritime plans adopted, (increased) number of cross-border co-operation
actions and/or plans established. In qualitative terms these outputs should be
evaluated in terms of incorporation of the MSP/ICZM minimum requirements
(number of plans, programmes set-up in line with these requirements). 
·                        
Result indicators (linked to the specific
objectives): (reduced) time and/or costs of planning and licensing operations
in Member States, reduction of conflicts and litigation regarding
infrastructure development, (improved) spatial development patterns, (less)
diffuse sprawl or (reduced) fragmentation of landscapes, (reduced) pressures on
coastal and marine resources, (reduced) vulnerability to risks assets,
population and biodiversity, co-ordinated cross-border plans.
·                        
Impact indicators (linked to general objective):
maintained/restored biodiversity (or ecosystem services potential) in coastal and maritime areas, (increased) added
value and (reduced) seasonality in coastal and maritime economy, (improved)
resilience to climate change, growth in key economic sectors, coexistence of
economic activities. 
·                        
Evaluation of the consequences of the
application of the proposed Directive could take place in due time considering
the timing set in the objectives in the form of a Commission report to the
Council and the European Parliament.
              Annexes
Annex 1:     Link between the possible
solutions, the underlying problem causes and the policy options  61
Annex 2:     Illustrations of Sea uses and
conflicts, and MSP, based on the Baltic Sea. 63
Annex 3:     Stakeholder
consultation, studies and preparatory actions. 64
Annex 4:     Figures on
maritime economy in the EU and compatibility table. 67
Annex 5:     Assessing
potential ICZM impacts and risks of not developing and implementing MSP in the
EU   70
Annex 6:     Implementation
cost and administrative burden. 73
Annex 7:     Information
sources. 77
Annex 8:     Relevant EU
legislation with implications for ICZM and MSP. 79
Annex 9:     Public
consultation report 84
Annex 10:   Stakeholder
consultation summary results. 112
Annex 11:   Glossary of
technical terms – list of abbreviations. 118
 Annex 1:   Link between the possible solutions, the underlying problem causes and the policy options 
 Options[144] Measure || Option 1 Guidance policies || Option 2 Recommendation || Option 3 Legally binding framework || Problem[145] resolution scale 1 (low) -5 (high) || Strength (+) / weakness (-) 
 a || b || a || b || a || b || c || a || b || c || d 
 Guidelines detailing common principles for integrated maritime planning and coastal management || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes || no || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || +: uniform guidelines available -: not obligatory => risk for no coherent and overall implementation 
 Guidelines on common principles and best practices for integrated maritime planning and coastal management || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes || yes || no || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || +: uniform guidelines available, exchange of best practices stimulated - : not obligatory, risk for no coherent and overall implementation through pick and choose practices 
 supportive actions (exchange platform, workshops, research programme, technical assistance) || no || yes || no || no || no || no || no || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || +: awareness raising, filling knowledge gaps, exchange platform for best practices -: stand-alone actions, little linkages to different initiatives, no guarantee for MSP/ICZM implementation 
 limited set of common standards for ICZM/MSP (governance structure, stakeholder involvement, cross-border co-operation, data management) and promoted by and EU level working group or committee || No || No || Yes || Yes || yes || no || no || 2 || 2 || 2 || 2 || +: EU co-ordinated and wide promotion of common standards;  -: Although action will be triggered no guarantee for effective implementation of MSP/ICZM 
 Financial instruments to promote and support MSP and ICZM based on limited set of common standards || No || No || No || Yes || No || No || No || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || +: Provides strong incentive for action -: Setting indicators + follow up of cross compliance will create administrative burden Availability of funding not guaranteed 
 Obligation to establish and implement integrated maritime planning and coastal management based on general principles relating to policy integration, stakeholder involvement, data management, consideration of type of activities, etc. but without further specifics on minimum requirements for implementation || No || No || No || No || Yes || No || No || 5 || 5 || 5 || 5 || + : Guaranteed implementation of MSP/ICZM Respect of general principles but flexibility to consider local specifics; no or little action required in regions where MSP/ICZM is already in place -: No full harmonisation on EU level   
 Obligation to establish integrated maritime planning and coastal management based on fixed common standards and minimum requirements for implementation (how to set up governance structure, data management structure, stakeholder involvement etc.) || No || No || No || No || No || Yes || No || 4 || 4 || 4 || 4 || +: Guaranteed implementation of MSP/ICZM that respect general principles and fulfils minimum requirements -: Less flexibility to take account of local conditions; existing MSP/ICZM schemes might need to be amended with no or little added value 
 Detailed and uniform rules on establishment of integrated maritime planning and coastal management, little to no flexibility || No || No || No || No || No || No || Yes || 3 || 3 || 3 || 3 || +: guaranteed implementation of MSP/ICZM -: no flexibility as regards the way of implementation to take account of local conditions, existing MSP/ICZM schemes will need to be revised to meet requirements with no or little added value 
 Obligation to establish transboundary co-operation without further specification || No || No || No || No || Yes || No || No || - || - || 5 || - || +: Guaranteed transboundary co-operation; Flexibility on how co-operation is organised, no requirement to set up additional bodies -: non specified co-operation mechanisms could lead to difficulties in setting up such structures (e.g. difficult negotiations, defining responsibilities of parties, etc.) 
 Obligation to establish transboundary co-operation by means of specified co-ordination mechanisms between existing bodies across different policy domains || No || No || No || No || No || Yes || No ||   ||   || 4 ||   || +: Guaranteed transboundary co-operation according to specified co-ordination mechanisms -: little flexibility on how to establish co-operation mechanisms 
 Obligation to establish transboundary co-operation by means of an established EU body/committee representing MS and operating according fixed rules || No || No || No || No || No || No || Yes ||   ||   || 3 ||   || +: Guaranteed transboundary co-operation according to fixed rules -: no flexibility, creation of an additional administrative body leads to additional administrative burden 
 Facilitate the set-up of shared data[146] information systems || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || Yes || 5 || 4 || 4 || 3 || Shared information systems will help mainly the lack of coherent planning and allocation of space which requires well founded knowledge decision making. To some extent it will also give support to the other problem drivers 
 Conclusion: The implementation of instruments to resolve the underlying drivers of the defined problems in chapter 3 can be most effectively achieved by a framework directive that guarantees implementation of MSP/ICZM but allows wide flexibility to adapt to local conditions while referring to further guidance on best practices as a helping tool for implementation. (this table does not consider economic/environmental/social impacts) 
Annex 2:  
Illustrations of Sea uses and conflicts, and
MSP, based on the Baltic Sea
Annex
2a: Map of competition and conflicts in the Baltic Sea
Annex
2b: Map of MSP based on the Baltic Sea
Annex 3:  
Stakeholder consultation, studies and
preparatory actions
A. Consultations
The results of the web-based consultation
on MSP and ICZM are summarised in section 2.3.1 of this impact assessment
report. A more detailed account of the stakeholder consultation is available in
the consultation and the hearing reports[147]. 
In addition to the web-based consultation
on MSP and ICZM, and public hearing, other consultations have been used to
inform the impact assessment:
·                        
Four workshops on MSP in 2009. The main
purpose of these workshops was to discuss the MSP key principles established in
the Commission Roadmap Communication of 2008 among Member States, regions and
stakeholders from industry as well as NGOs. The overall result of these four
workshops was a general acknowledgement that the key principles of the Roadmap
were considered to be appropriate, comprehensive and an important basis for
further development of MSP at EU level, which as such was broadly welcomed.
·                        
Regular discussions with Member States experts
within the context of the Member States expert group on the Integrated
Maritime Policy. While these discussions have revealed a general support
for the concept of MSP as such, certain Member States have also voiced
subsidiarity concerns vis-à-vis EU action and that EU action could lead to an
additional administrative burden difficult to bear in times of on-going
financial crisis. A meeting of Member State Marine Directors, responsible
for the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, expressed
caution on the need for possible legislation on MSP[148].
·                        
Regular discussions on ICZM, the impact
assessment and its related studies, have taken place with Member States experts
and coastal interest network in the context of the EU ICZM expert group[149]. The discussions
have generally supported the continued need for ICZM support at EU level.
However as regards the possible form which future action may take, differences
between Member States have been voiced. Key concerns are respect for
subsidiarity, consistency and continuity to existing efforts of ICZM
implementation (e.g. requirements of the ICZM Protocol of the Barcelona
Convention, existing national ICZM strategies and Member State structures). The
participants have stressed the need for coherence and co-ordination with
initiatives on MSP. 
·                        
Regular discussions with the European
Parliament in the context of the progress of the integrated maritime
policy. In 2010, the Parliament requested the Commission to submit in 2011 a
proposal for a Directive on MSP or to propose the type of instrument most
suitable for ensuring coherence between MSP and the other existing initiatives
(ICZM; Natura 2000, Marine strategy Framework Directive)[150].
B. Studies and preparatory actions
The Commission has launched a number of
separate studies and preparatory actions with the aim to explore the potential
for further action on MSP and ICZM in the EU. These initiatives can be
summarised as follows:
As regards MSP[151]:
·                        
A 2008 study on the legal aspects of MSP;
the main conclusion was that Coastal States can put in place an MSP process for
waters under their national jurisdiction as long as they ensure that their
obligations under international law are respected (such as to ensure right of
free passage under Law of the Sea);
·                        
A 2010 study on the economic benefits of MSP;
the main conclusion was that MSP can lead to significant economic benefits in
terms of lower co-ordination and transaction costs as well as better investment
climate. For three scenarios, a reduction of 1% in transaction costs led to
positive economic effects ranging from € 170 million to € 1.3 billion in 2020,
a figure which can increase further due to acceleration of emerging activities
such as renewable energy installations.
·                        
A 2011 study on the potential for MSP in the
Mediterranean; the main conclusion was that there is potential for
implementing MSP in the Mediterranean sea but that the scope for coastal states
to apply MSP in most cases is limited to their territorial sea since up until
now, very few exclusive economic zones have been established in this sea basin.
·                        
A 2011 study on the impacts of policy options
on MSP; the main purpose of this study was to evaluate the different policy
options identified in this impact assessment. The main conclusions of this
study are therefore dealt with in chapter 5 of the impact assessment. 
·                        
Two MSP 18 month pilot projects launched
in 2010 on cross-border co-operation, one for the Baltic Sea[152] and one for the North Sea[153]. The main objective of these pilot projects is to obtain practical
experience with cross-border maritime spatial planning[154]. 
As regards ICZM:
·                        
In 2009 the Working group report on the
follow-up to the EU ICZM Recommendation[155] identified policy options for detailed examination as being a
programme, a revised recommendation and a directive. Regarding contents of the
options, the report signals that more focussed objectives and deliverables
would need to be defined compared to the 2002 Recommendation contents. 
·                        
In 2011 the Comparative analysis of OURCOAST
cases[156] concluded that significant experience is available in ICZM practice
in Europe, leading to improved coastal planning and management. The report
provides insights in success factors and barrier to ICZM. 
·                        
In 2011, reports were received from 16 EU
coastal Member States (out of 22)[157] reporting on a voluntary basis concerning the period 2006-2010. The
study Analysis of Member State progress reports on ICZM[158] provides an
overview of these Member State reports. The study shows that some Member States
have advanced in terms of delivering a national ICZM strategy, but large
variations in scope and contents are observed, as well as progress on the ICZM
principles. 
·                        
In 2011 the study Options for coastal
information systems[159] provided an analysis of a selection of
coastal information systems and subsequently identified and assessed three
policy options, with increasing degree of ambition, to improve such coastal
information systems to support ICZM implementation. As part of this study a
stakeholder workshop was held on 6 May 2011. 
·                        
In 2011 the JRC study on Coastal Zones-Policy
alternatives impacts on European Coastal Zones 2000-2050[160] . The land-use
modelling results in this study indicate that the more intense trends towards
built-up and fragmentation in Europe's coastal zones compared to inland areas,
also hold true under future scenario's. 
·                        
In 2011, the Support study for an impact
assessment for a follow-up to the EU ICZM Recommendation[161] evaluated the different policy options identified in this impact
assessment. 
Moreover,
EUROSTAT statistical analysis of coastal zones and EEA reports on the state of
the coast, coastal biodiversity and climate change impact inform the impact
assessment[162]. Use has been made of selected reports and surveys from ICZM
projects supported through the Cohesion policy (Interreg), RTD and LIFE
programmes[163].
Annex 4:  
Figures on maritime economy in the EU and compatibility table 
Indicative size of sub-functions
(Source: ECORYS/DELTARES/Oceanic Development (2011) "Blue Growth:
Scenarios and Drivers for Sustainable Growth from the Oceans, Seas and
Coasts". First/Second Interim Report (On behalf of the European
Commission, DG MARE). All figures refer to the total impact of the
sub-functions (all included within the value chain).
 Function / sub-function || Cross-border relevance? || Value added (€ bn) || Recent Annual Growth || Employm. (*1000) || Demand for sea-space ?   
 1. Maritime transport and shipbuilding ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 1.1 Deep sea shipping || YES || 106 || +8.5% || 1 400 || YES 
 1.2 Short sea shipping (incl. RoRo) || YES || 63 || +6.1% || 820 || YES 
 1.3 Passenger ferry services || YES || 20 || 0/+ || 200-300 || YES 
 1.4 Inland waterway transport || NO || 6 || 0 || 43 || NO 
 2. Food, nutrition, health and ecosystem services ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 2.1 Commercial fisheries (for human consumpt.) || YES || 7.9 || +4.0% || 200-240 || YES 
 2.2 Commercial fisheries (for animal feeding) || YES || 0.2 || -5.8% || 5.7 || YES 
 2.3 Aquaculture (growing aquatic products) || YES || N/a || N/A || N/A || YES 
 2.4 High value use of marine resources (health, cosmetics, well-being, etc.) || YES || 0.6 || + || <0.5 || YES 
 2.5 Agriculture on saline soils || NO || <0.25 || + || <0.5 || NO 
 3. Energy and raw materials ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 3.1 Oil, gas and methane hydrates || YES || 107-133 || -4.8% || 25-50 || YES 
 3.2 Offshore wind energy (including offshore grids) || YES || 1.3 || +21.7% || 7-40 || YES 
 3.3 Other renewables (wave, tidal, OTEC, thermal, biofuels, etc.) || YES? || <0.25 || + || <0.5 || YES 
 3.4 Carbon capture and storage || YES? || <0.25 || + || <0.5 || YES 
 3.5 Aggregates mining (sand, gravel, etc.) || YES? || 0.7 || +5.9% || 4.3 || YES 
 3.6 Other raw materials and marine mineral resources || YES? || <0.25 || 0/+ || <0.5 || YES 
 3.7 Securing fresh water supply (desalination) || NO || 0.7 || +12.3% || 7 || NO 
 4. Leisure, working and living ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 4.1 Coastline tourism || YES || 121 || +2.8% || 2350 || YES 
 4.2 Yachting and marinas || YES || 23.4 || +5.0% || 253 || YES 
 4.3 Cruise industry (including port cities) || YES? || 14.1 || +12.3% || 143 || YES 
 4.4 Working (e.g. in maritime industries/trades/government) || NO || 4.1 || +4.5% || 75 000 || MAYBE 
 4.5 Living (in coastal areas) || NO || n/a || 0.1% || 177 000 || MAYBE 
 5. Coastal protection ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 5.1 Protection against flooding and erosion || YES? || 1.0-5.4 || +4.0% || 10-50 || MAYBE 
 5.2 Preventing salt water intrusion || YES? || <0.25 || + || <0.5 || MAYBE 
 5.3 Protection of habitats (goal set by UN is 10%, now <1%) || YES || <0.25 || + || <0.5 || YES 
 6. Maritime monitoring and surveillance ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   
 6.1 Traceability and security of goods supply chains || YES || 0.6-1 || + || 5-10 || NO 
 6.2 Prevent and protect against illegal movement of people and goods || YES || 1.1 || + || 10 || NO 
 6.3 Environmental monitoring || YES || 0.1-0.2 || + || 1-1.5 || MAYBE 
Table 1: Conflict matrix
for maritime activities[164]
   (?) potential synergies apply
Source: Policy Research Corporation based on
multiple sources[165]
Annex 5:  
Assessing potential ICZM impacts and risks of
not developing and implementing MSP in the EU
A: Assessing
potential economic social and environmental impacts of ICZM
The results of the public web-based
consultation show that respondents rate the benefits of ICZM invariably as
significant[166]. Confirming literature and study results, the most important
benefits deriving from ICZM implementation concern improved governance,
in particular by achieving: 
·                        
Better understanding between stakeholders and
authorities in the coastal zone 
Public participation, engagement of
stakeholders in coastal zone management and co-operation between authorities
are core principles of ICZM. Participation allows for improved information
exchange, better understanding of issues and avoidance of misperceptions.
Systematic pursuit of participation and co-operation improves the understanding
of roles, responsibilities and activities among coastal zone actors. For
economic investors this also implies a clearer understanding of opportunities
and constrains arising from regulatory practice. 
·                        
More transparent planning and management of
the coastal zone
Planning and management activities based on
a participatory approach, using a broader information basis, lead to a clearer
pathway of plan development. The decision-making process will be more
transparent and results more stable. The resulting coastal plans or programmes
are likely to relate better to the coastal issues at play, and make their
acceptance by the public and stakeholders easier. 
·                        
More efficient use of coastal space and
resources, reduction of conflicting claims on space
and/or resources 
The pursuit of coherence between coastal
plans and programmes is stimulated by the ICZM principles. Planning and
management processes using on broad information basis and early-stage
participation make it possible to identify opportunities for synergetic
development and support multi-functional use of space. Potential conflicts and
alternative solutions can be identified so that adverse impacts among uses can
be avoided or minimised. 
In turn, this leads to improvements to
the coastal environment and enhances the attractiveness of coastal
regions for the coastal communities and activities depending on a coastal
location. Impacts associated with ICZM implementation are noted especially in
the sphere of spatial management and the environment (less uncontrolled urban
sprawl, including in areas exposed to risks, better spatial use with less
adverse impacts among adjacent uses, safeguarding of landscape, amenity and
cultural values, access to the shore). Coastal uses depending on good
environmental and amenity values will benefit. The result of land-use modelling
study carried out for this impact assessment[167], show that a sustainable policy scenario, applying inter alia
land-use restrictions, leads to less increase in built-up in the coastal zone,
compared to an uncontrolled policy scenario. In the uncontrolled scenario, a
higher proportion of built-up areas was found to be exposed to coastal erosion
and coastal flooding, having as a consequence more potential assets at risk (i.e.
social and economic losses). Moreover the uncontrolled alternative resulted in
a considerably more scattered spatial development pattern, thus potentially
increasing landscape fragmentation and habitat loss, contributing to a decrease
in biodiversity. 
ICZM implementation can support fundamental
structural changes in coastal areas to provide for more sustainable development
(more varied, less seasonally dependent economy and employment basis, balanced
social fabric), but these are necessarily longer term issues. 
Impacts deriving from ICZM implementation
are difficult to quantify at EU level. Ultimately impacts are achieved at local
level implementation. Both the precise nature and scope of measures taken as
part of an ICZM initiative, and the coastal context in which ICZM is
implemented will vary. Effects achieved cannot simply be used for
extrapolations beyond the area concerned. Moreover, a major constraint is the
lack of systematic monitoring data. Nonetheless, the 2007 evaluation study of
the ICZM Recommendation, and, in 2000, a comprehensive study on socio-economic
benefits of ICZM concluded on a significant positive ratio of benefit over
costs, based on an evaluation of ICZM demonstration projects[168]. The
net-positive contribution of ICZM at local implementation level has
subsequently been confirmed also in international research[169]. Recent studies
point to the significant values of ecosystems and their services to society and
the high value of coastal assets likely to be impacted by climate change[170]. Although the
valuation of such non-market values is not yet common place, the integration of
natural processes and ecosystems into planning and management processes allows
taking better account of these values. 
In strict terms the impacts of ICZM relate
to the added-value of integration over an (alternative) sectoral approach.
However, insufficient data and analyses are available to inform the impact
assessment more precisely on cost-benefit ratios of the integration component
of ICZM[171], so that a more global approach is followed. 
The benefits of ICZM are potentially
highest is coastal zones where most pressures and multiple claims on space and
resources occur. This is the case in the majority of Member States (high and
medium benefits potential)[172], without clear marked differences in regional seas. 
B: Potential risks of not developing and
implementing (cross-border) MSP in the EU
The lack of
an integrated, comprehensive and cross-border approach towards MSP can lead to
specific negative consequences for companies/businesses. Existing literature[173] sums up some of
these negative consequences when a cross-border spatial planning approach is
lacking:
–                        
A spatial and temporal overlap of human
activities and their objectives, causing conflicts in the coastal and marine
environment;
–                        
A lack of co-ordination between the various
authorities responsible for individual activities or the protection and
management of the environment as a whole;
–                        
A lack of connection between offshore activities
and their resource use, and onshore communities that are dependent on them;
–                        
A lack of conservation of biologically sensitive
marine areas;
–                        
A lack of investment certainty and higher
co-ordination and transaction costs for marine developers and users of ocean
resources, notably in a cross-border context;
–                        
A lack of co-ordination and simplification in
decision processes, and associated higher administrative costs in terms of both
time and resources;
–                        
A lack of legal certainty for all stakeholders in
the marine arena;
–                        
A lack of coherence with other planning systems
(e.g. on shore, or across borders).
Annex 6:  
Implementation cost and administrative burden 
A. ICZM
Implementation costs of the ICZM options have been estimated on the following basis:
The costs taken into account are those
necessary for the implementation of the options: 
For Option 1: Programme – the costs
necessary for the functioning of a coastal platform/expert network and
activities in the Programme (best-practice, guidance development, common
projects, etc.). Although the Programme emphasises co-operation and collective
learning at EU level, ultimately it should lead to improved and additional
implementation of ICZM within the EU coastal Member States. Costs associated
with this additional implementation are therefore also taken into account. 
For Options 2 and 3: Recommendation and
Directive – the costs necessary to the delivery of a national strategy
(institutional set-up, co-ordination mechanisms, decision-making procedures,
methods and tools for stakeholder involvement, provision of information basis,
pilot projects to develop and/or support the strategy). 
Administrative burden in the strict sense
relates to information requirements contained in proposals. In this impact
assessment, only option 3 Directive would lead to a mandatory reporting
requirement on Member States. 
The implementation of ICZM is primarily a
matter for public authorities. The implementation costs fall on Member State authorities, and some costs on the EU budget/Commission. The options do not
include implementation measures that place a direct obligation on businesses,
civil society or other stakeholders. 
In summary the costs estimated for additional
ICZM implementation in the Member States under the main policy options are
as follows[174]:
From case-studies, projects and
questionnaire responses[175], a cost range has been derived, for start-up and operational costs,
to represent the total cost of ICZM implementation. Different cost ranges are
due to the fact that each Member State exhibit large differences in terms of
initial institutional set-up, foundations for information systems, mechanisms
and culture for national regional collaboration, which are bound to influence
the cost of implementing ICZM. The information provided by Member States by
means of a questionnaire survey and interview questions have been used to
estimate start up and operational costs. Different Member States with diverging
levels of ICZM implementation such as Germany, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and the Netherlands have been asked to give cost estimates on past and
current ICZM implementation experiences[176]. As an upper estimate of the costs, German costs have been applied[177]. The data
provided by the countries above and case studies from the OURCOAST or Interreg
project have been analysed and been related to the key components of ICZM
implementation, namely: the establishment of a national strategy,
regional/local establishment of the strategy with “action plans”, or adaptation
of existing plans and the setting up of pilot projects to establish information
bases, increase stakeholder involvement, explore benefits of ICZM etc. However,
it was pointed out that the provided cost data could not be linked to the ICZM
components in any clear and transparent way, meaning that only rough
indications can be drawn and large uncertainties associated with assessing the
costs for each individual country s exist. In the following, the main cost
estimates obtained from the COWI study are presented. In start-up costs typical
costs considered are development of a national strategy (100-500K€), at least 2
implementation of regional strategies/programmes (each 100-500K€), a number of
support, research or pilot projects (100-750K€, at minimum 3; to an upper range
of 10M€)[178]. In operational costs the costs for co-ordination and
administrative structures and the costs related to the update of national plans
and information (ranging from 300-600K€/year) were taken into account. 
On the basis of the above obtained values,
total start-up costs in the EU are estimated to range from 40M€ in a low
estimate to 420 M€ in high range estimate (average 230 M€). Operational costs
range from 15 M€ in lower boundary to 30 M€ in high boundary (average 23 M€). 
However, the actual implementation cost
will in reality vary substantially from one Member State to another depending
on a range of factors such as the extent to which ICZM concepts can easily be
integrated into existing administrative and institutional cultures, whether
well-functioning approaches for stakeholder involvement already exist, whether
there is a high degree of decentralisation or centralisation in government
structures and so forth. Costs are also likely to be larger in Member States
which have a long coastlines, large coastal areas, large populations, and/or
heavy economic activity. Also the cost of reaching 100 % ICZM implementation
level depends on how far the country has already come and thus on the current
baseline scenario of ICZM implementation in the respective Member State. From these estimated total costs (as presented above), the additional
costs to the baseline scenario for each option have been calculated. Firstly,
the costs are adjusted for each Member State to reflect coastal characteristics
(such as coastline length, density of use and pressures)[179]. Secondly, the
level of ICZM implementation achieved in the baseline is taken into account,
with varying levels for each Member State. Thirdly, progress in ICZM
implementation in addition to the baseline and thus related additional costs
are different in each option (varying for each Member State between 1% to 20%
additional ICZM implementation under Options 1 and 2, and between 10 to 70 %
additional ICZM implementation under Option 3)[180]. The specific ICZM cost component for each country has been
calculated by relating the cost basis (see footnote 6) to the specific
country’s baseline ICZM level, and then this was uses as the basis for
estimating the costs of the additional ICZM implementation level which the
option would lead to for that particular country. Based on this methodology the
total estimated start-up costs for ICZM implementation in coastal Member States
have been calculated (see Table below).
Table: Costs of additional ICZM
implementation compared to the baseline scenario[181]
   || ICZM Implementation in coastal Member States || Specific costs related to the options 
 Start-up costs || Operational costs 
 Option 1 - Programme || 2.1 - 21.4 M€ || 0.7 - 1.4 M€ || Functioning of the Programme: joint projects and input Member States 1-2 M€ (5-10 projects/year @ 200K€) Commission: meetings and network support <1M€ limited change to current situation 
 Option 2 - Recommendation || 1.8 - 18.2 M€ || 0.6 - 1.2 M€ || Implementation support by Commission similar to 2002 Recommendation – no specific additional costs. 
 Option 3 - Directive || 14.8 - 148.3 M€ || 4.8 – 9.7 M€ || Administrative burden: limited reporting costs Implementation support similar to 2002 Recommendation. 
Due to the related difficulties of
estimating the ICZM implementation costs and limited costs information
underpinning the estimates, the costs are subject to significant uncertainty.
This is in particular the case for the start-up costs, which depend on the
number and nature of support research and pilot projects necessary in each Member State. 
B. MSP
Administrative costs/burden for MSP
includes the following elements:
·                        
The costs of introducing an MSP system
·                        
The costs of maintaining and MSP system
(1)                   
In the event of the introduction of an
EU-level instrument, costs to comply with this instrument and its requirements.
The Commission has contracted a series of
studies that have looked at the costs and benefits of Maritime Spatial Planning
in an EU context[182]. As a rule, the quantitative result of these studies has been
limited due to the lack of empirical evidence of actual MSP costs and benefits
at this time. There is only one Member State where such costs and benefits have
been extrapolated or projected[183], and even in this case, the conclusions are based on projections
rather than existing evidence. The conclusions below are therefore based on a
combination of a limited amount of quantitative information available,
qualitative information gained through the above studies, and assumptions based
on how an ideal MSP system would work. The latter is derived from extensive
research and on-the-ground experience documented in a number of academic
studies and projects.[184]
The outcome of this work is as follows:
·                        
It is clear that an MSP process under certain
conditions[185] will lead to reduced costs for businesses and administrations
alike.
·                        
These cost reductions can be substantial,
resulting in overall figures of between several hundred million to several
billion EUR[186].
·                        
The benefits are created by reduced
co-ordination costs, reduced transaction costs, increased transparency, and
greater predictability.
·                        
The benefits in the mid-to long term, both in
terms of overall economic benefits, and in the context of administrative
efficiency gains, are expected outweigh any short terms costs incurred upon
introduction of the system.
·                        
The additional costs for introducing compliance
with an EU instrument do not need to be significant and should be linked mainly
to strengthened cross-border co-operation processes.
·                        
The main costs linked to the introduction of MSP
including in a context of an EU instrument would be borne by those Member
States where no such system is yet in place, but, again, the mid- to long-term
benefits should exceed the short term cost.
·                        
The main benefits (both qualitative and
quantitative) expected by stakeholders in some Member States are:
–              
Reducing duplication and complexity in
legislation
–              
Information and data sharing
–              
Reducing the number of licenses required
–              
Earlier identification of potential conflicts
–              
Improved objective setting
–              
Reducing the costs of SEA and other assessment
processes due to less duplication[187]
Annex 7:  
Information sources
Studies commissioned by the Commission
and used for the impact assessment
DG
Environment commissioned studies, ICZM: Available on: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/ia_studies.htm 
–                        
A study to examine the Member States reports
(July 2011)
–                        
Study on Options for Coastal Information
Systems; August 2011. Including a stakeholder workshop report.
–                        
Support study for the impact assessment towards
the follow-up of the EU ICZM Recommendation (September 2011).
–                        
Coastal assessment JRC Scenario-driven land-use
modelling: Application to coasts JRC (February 2011)
DG MARE
commissioned studies are available on http://ec.europa.eu//maritimeaffairs/policy/maritime_spatial_planning/index_en.htm. List of studies include:
–                        
The impacts of future Maritime Spatial Planning
options in the European Union (in support of this impact assessment).
–                        
Economic effects of Maritime Spatial Planning.
–                        
Exploring the potential of Maritime Spatial
Planning in the Mediterranean Sea.
–                        
Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning.
List of EU Projects linked to ICZM and
MSP
–                        
ANCORIM. Atlantic Network for Coastal Risks
Management. Available at: <http://ancorim.aquitaine.fr/>
–                        
BALTCICA. Climate Change: Impacts, Costs and
Adaptation in the Baltic Sea Region. Available at:
<http://www.baltcica.org/>
–                        
BALTSEAPLAN. Introducing Maritime Spatial
Planning in the Baltic Sea. Available at: <http://www.baltseaplan.eu/>
–                        
BAR. Beaches at Risk. Available at:
<http://www.sussex.ac.uk/geography/researchprojects/BAR/>
–                        
BEACHMED-3. Strategic resources for the
adaptations of Mediterranean littorals to climate change. Available at:
<http://www.beachmed.it/Beachmed3/tabid/130/Default.aspx>
–                        
BLAST. Bringing Land and Sea Together. Available
at: < http://www.blast-project.eu/
–                        
COASTANCE. Regional Common Action Strategy
against Coastal Erosion in the Mediterranean basin. Available at:
<http://www.coastance.eu/>
–                        
COEXIST. Interaction in coastal waters: A
roadmap to sustainable integration of aquaculture and fisheries. Available
at:<http://www.coexistproject.eu/
–                        
CONSCIENCE. Concepts and Science for Coastal
Erosion Management. Available at: <http://www.conscience-eu.net>
–                        
COREPOINT. Creating a Sustainable Framework for
ICZM. Available at: <http://corepoint.ucc.ie/index.php>
–                        
C-SCOPE. Combining Sea and Coastal Planning in Europe. Available at: <http://www.cscope.eu/en/>
–                        
DEDUCE. Développement durable des Côtes
Européennes. Available at:
<http://www.deduce.eu/>
–                        
FRES-MOS. Franco-Spanish Motorways of the Sea
project. Available at:
–                        
IMCORE. Innovative Management for Europe’s Changing Coastal Resource. Available at: <http://www.imcore.eu/>
–                        
LITUSGO. •  Training Mediterranean Local
Authorities and Civil Organisations on Integrated Coastal Zone Management and
Reaction to the Impacts of Climate Changes. Available at:
<http://www.litusgo.eu/>
–                        
MAREMED <http://www.maremed.eu> 
–                        
MASPNOSE
<https://www.surfgroepen.nl/sites/CMP/maspnose/default.aspx> 
–                        
MICORE. Morphological impacts and coastal risks
induced by extreme storm events. Available at: <https://www.micore.eu/>
–                        
MESMA. Monitoring and Evaluation of Spatially
Managed Areas. Available at: <http://www.mesma.org> 
–                        
PLAN BOTHNIA [online] Available at:
<http://planbothnia.org/> [Accessed July 2011];
–                        
PEGASO. People for
Ecosystem-based Governance in Assessing Sustainable development of Ocean and
coast. Available at: <http://www.pegasoproject.eu/> 
–                        
RADOST. Regional Adaptation Strategy for the German Baltic Sea Coast. Available at: <http://klimzug-radost.de/en>
–                        
SPICOSA (2008-2011). Science and Policy
Integration for Coastal System Assessment. Available at: <http://www.spicosa.eu/index.htm>
–                        
SUSCOD (2009 - 2013). Sustainable Coastal
Development Available at:
<http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Projecten/Suscod.htm>
–                        
SUSTAIN. Assessing Sustainability and
Strengthening Operational Policy. Available at: <http://cmrc.ie/projects/sustain-assessing-sustainability-and-strengthening-operational-policy.html>
–                        
THESEUS. Innovative technologies for safer
European coasts in a changing climate. Available at:
<http://www.theseusproject.eu/>
–                        
Wind Barriers. Available at: http://www.windbarriers.eu/
–                        
WINDSPEED. Available at: http://www.windspeed.eu
Annex 8:  
Relevant EU legislation with implications for
ICZM and MSP
This annex gives an overview of the
existing EU legislation and policies which are of particular importance for
Coastal Management (ICZM) and Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP). It outlines the
policy context and examines how far a new joint legislative proposal could help
to foster an EU wide more coherent governance framework for the integrated
management of European coastal zones, ensuring the most effective achievement
of the environmental objectives set out in these pieces of legislation.
NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF EU LEGISLATION
AND POLICIES[188][189]
Several pieces of EU legislation and
policies are already in place affecting the governance and management of
coastal zones; most notably, in the area of nature conservation, environmental
protection, maritime environment, development planning and information management.
However, the majority of existing legislation, being either of sectoral or
horizontal nature, do not specifically address or aim at the integrated
management of the coastal zone. ICZM and MSP as a governance tools do not aim
at the duplication of existing legislation but rather intends to establish an
integrative policy platform serving a superordinate function to assure the long-term sustainable development of the
coast and the sea. ICZM is designed to create synergies between these pieces of
legislation and complements the, with other aspects which are not regulated by
the EU (e.g. erosion).
EU legislation 
The Water Framework Directive (WFD) sets
out a legal framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional
waters, groundwater and coastal waters (up to 1 nautical mile). It aims at
preventing and reducing pollution, promoting sustainable water usage,
environmental protection, improving aquatic ecosystems and mitigating the
effects of floods and droughts. Its ultimate objective is to achieve "good
ecological and chemical status for all Community waters by 2015”[190]. 
In the context of ICZM the Water Framework
Directive provides opportunities for coupling coastal zone management with
catchment basin management. The linking between freshwater and maritime systems
has a good prospect of resulting in lower pollutant loads and improved
conditions in estuaries. 
The aim of the Flood Risk Directive[191] is to assess and manage flood risk and
thereby reduce and
manage the risks that floods pose to human health, the environment,
cultural heritage and economic activity. The Directive requires Member States
to first carry out a preliminary assessment by 2011 to identify the river
basins and associated coastal areas at risk of flooding. For such zones they
would then need to draw up flood and hazard risk maps by 2013 and establish
flood risk management plans focused on prevention, protection and preparedness
by 2015. These plans shall address all aspect of flood
risk management, with a focus on prevention, protection and preparedness,
including early warning systems and flood forecasting. The plans shall also
take into account spatial planning, land use, nature conservation, navigation
and port infrastructure. Climate change shall also be taken into account in
different stages of the implementation process, which can include addressing
increased vulnerability of coastal areas due to floods when sea levels have
risen, and the adaptation/development of coastal flood defence infrastructure
and land use policies accordingly.
ICZM as an integrative coastal governance
tool can help to set up co-ordinated and common action programmes on flood
prevention, protection and mitigation.
The Nitrates Directive[192] aims to protect waters, including
coastal, maritime and transitional waters, against nitrate pollution from
agriculture. The biggest share of nutrient pollution in coastal areas comes
from agriculture, mostly drained from inland catchments through
rivers/groundwater. The Directive requires MS to identify polluted/at risk
waters, to designate the land that drains into these waters and to establish
action programmes that contain measures to reduce nitrate pressures. 
The Birds and Habitats Directives[193]
The Birds Directive
establishes a comprehensive scheme of protection for all wild birds' species
naturally occurring in Europe. It obliges Member States to set up a coherent
network of Special Protection Areas (SPA) comprising the most suitable
territories for the species. 
The Habitats Directive requires Member
States to design Special Areas of Conservation (SAC). The Birds and Habitats
Directives in conjunction ultimately aim at the establishment of a coherent
Natura 2000 network of protected areas. 
Together they constitute a major instrument
for the protection and conservation of coastal and maritime ecosystems. ICZM
will support the sound management of conservation areas under these Directives
by providing a participatory and integrative platform pro-actively bringing
together stakeholders along the respective coastal areas. The MSP will promote
the strategic planning in the marine areas, hence allowing for the integration
of the Natura 2000 network needs and requirements, at an early stage, with the
other uses of marine areas. 
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD)[194] intends to protect the marine
environment across Europe and aims to achieve good environmental status of EU's
marine waters by 2020. Under the directive Member States have to identify the
measures which need to be taken in order to secure the protection of their
marine waters including spatial protection measures, contributing to coherent
and representative networks of marine protected areas. 
MSP as a tool will implement in more detail
measures related to spatial and distributional controls (Annex VI(3) of the
Directive).
In the context of ICZM, the directive gives
guidance and sets standards for the preservation of the coastal zone at
national and regional level. MSFD like ICZM focuses on the sustainable
development of the marine environment based on the ecosystem-based approach. It
intends to ensure that biological life is self-sustaining while at the same
time exploiting the seas to feed populations and economic activity. 
The Inspire Directive[195] aims to facilitate access to GIS based-distributed information
systems. It ensures that the spatial data infrastructure is compatible among
Members States and usable in a Community and transboundary context.
By setting up a consistent and
well-established spatial data infrastructure, the Inspire Directive constitutes
an important support for maritime and coastal zone spatial planning. ICZM,
which addresses areas of activities like coastal land planning, habitat
management and pollution control, is dependent on common information systems
providing detailed and consistent spatial data for indicator sets. The INSPIRE
data system contributes to such information and strengthens the knowledge base
needed for ICZM.
The Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) Directive[196] and the Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) Directive[197] are both legal instruments of high relevance for coastal zone
planning. The EIA Directive requires an assessment of the environmental
consequences of certain public or private projects which are likely to have
significant effects on the environment. For those projects which fall under
Annex I of the Directive a mandatory EIA procedure has to be carried out, which
comprises also the information and consultation of the public. For any other
projects which fall under Annex II, national authorities have to decide whether
an EIA is needed. The SEA Directive aims to provide for a high level of
environmental protection. It prescribes the integration of environmental
considerations into the preparation and adoption phase of certain plans and
programs. The SEA requires an assessment of reasonable alternatives and obliges
Member States to monitor the significant environmental effects of the
implementation of plans/programs in order to identify unforeseen adverse
effects and undertake appropriate remedial action. 
The EIA and the SEA are important
procedures, which intent to ensure that projects like for instance the
construction of harbors or renewable energy installations do not undermine
sustainable development in the coastal zone. It is assumed that ICZM may place
projects considered under the EIA Directive into a wider coastal planning
and management context. Particular the principles of a holistic approach, long
term perspective, local specifity and stakeholder participation will be
strengthened. Furthermore, it is pointed out that the SEA Directive is
crucial for addressing conflicts in the long term development of the coastal
zone and for creating synergies with ICZM. The Directive provides good
grounds for integrated spatial planning and risk management with a view to
increase the sustainability of coastal zones. In this way SEA will contribute
to a better planning process as it also envisaged by ICZM (adaptive management,
stakeholder participation, involvement of relevant administrative bodies). 
The Directive on the Promotion of
Renewable Energy[198] establishes a common framework for the production and promotion of
energy from renewable sources. It sets mandatory national targets for the
overall share of energy from renewable sources in gross final consumption of
energy and for the share of energy from renewable sources in transport. At the
coastal zone several renewable energy resources are available like wind and
wave energy which will further be exploited putting pressure on the development
of the coastal zone. The installation of renewable energy technologies like for
instance offshore wind parks have to be carefully planned taking into
consideration also their ecological implications. ICZM will help to place such
renewable energy projects into a wider planning and management context.
EU policy frameworks
Resource Efficiency
The Roadmap of EU
2020 flagship initiative for a Resource-efficient Europe[199] recognises the
need for EU action on management and coastal planning in coastal and marine
areas, in order to safeguard natural coastal and marine capital"
sustainable use of resources. Within this context, the issue of land use
and land as a resource has come to the fore as a crucial element in tackling
unsustainable resource trends. The roadmap contains a section on land use,
including a commitment to publish guidelines on best practice to limit,
mitigate or compensate soil sealing (2012) and a Communication on land use
(2014).
The EU Cohesion
Policy[200] is built on the assumption that a
redistribution of wealth should happen between richer and poorer regions in Europe so that a more balanced economic integration and overall development can be
achieved. The Community Strategic Guidelines for Cohesion (SGC 2007-2013) aims
to strengthen the synergies between environmental protection and growth.
Emphasis is placed on the investment in infrastructure and the compliance with
environmental legislation in the fields of water, waste, air and nature.
The Integrated Maritime Policy aims to enhance the optimal and sustainable development of all
sea-related activities. It intends to foster the integration of maritime
governance and envisages putting permanent structures for cross-sectoral
collaboration and stakeholder consultation into place. Furthermore, it supports
the development of cross-cutting policy tools. The EU Maritime policy has many
synergies with ICZM. Both strategies put high emphasis on a holistic and
cross-sectoral maritime governance approach and aim to strengthen
knowledge-based methods.
The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) aims
at the responsible and sustainable management of EU fisheries. It contains
measures on conservation, structures, markets and relations with States outside
the European Union. The CFP aims at socio-economic stability and social
cohesion within different fisheries regions and intends to foster the long term
sustainable development of fisheries dependent communities. MSP and ICZM
processes are relevant for the CFP since it permits these policy areas to
interact in the strategic planning of the use of the sea space with other
sectoral policies.
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
sets the rules for EU farming and financial support. It becomes relevant for
the coastal zones characterised by intensive/extensive agriculture but it has
also an impact on coastal pressures coming from inland. CAP measures that
relate to environmental protection, including water, refer to both pillar 1 and
2. Under pillar 1 cross compliance requires farmers to respect good
agricultural and environmental conditions and to comply with statutory
management requirements linked to EU legislation relating to the protection of
environment; public, animal and plant health; animal welfare. Under pillar 2,
particularly agri-environmental measures in rural development plans become relevant.
Under the CAP and leader programmes there are support measures for green
infrastructure and landscape features that can be relevant for coastal
protection, however targeted to agricultural land and not to common land.
The Forest Policy includes relevant
policy papers such as the green paper on forests[201], the EU forest strategy[202] and the EU forest action programme[203]. Forest functions include environmental protection and ecosystem
services particularly relevant nearby coasts: soil protection, regulation of
water supplies, water quantity buffering, flood protection, biodiversity
conservation, and regulation of local and regional weather patterns. Forest policy is mainly a MS competence, some support measures exist under rural
development programmes of the CAP. 
The Commission adopted a Soil Thematic Strategy (COM (2006) 231) and a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive
(COM (2006) 232) on 22 September 2006 with the objective to protect soils
across the EU. The legislative proposal contains a provision according to which
Member States should limit soil sealing and, where not possible, mitigate its
consequences on soil functions. In addition, the proposal aims at curbing soil
degradation processes such as erosion.
Particularly for coastal zones soil sealing is relevant for densely populated
areas as well as erosion of coastlines by the sea. The latter is not the focus
of the draft Soil Framework Directive and could thus constitute a potential
policy gap. 
EU White Paper on Adaptation to Climate
Change[204] sets out a framework to reduce the EU's vulnerability to climate
change, focusing on integrated adaption into EU key policy areas. It requires a
coherent and integrated approach to maritime planning and management.
The European Spatial Development
Perspective (ESDP)/EU Territorial Agenda[205] provides policy objectives and general
principles for spatial development to ensure the sustainable and balanced
development of the European territory, whilst respecting social and economic,
cultural and environmental diversity. It has been designed to provide a
framework for spatial planning that has a long-term strategic perspective. The
Territorial Agenda of the EU is a common policy paper aiming at mobilising the
potentials of European regions and cities and at utilizing its territorial
diversity for sustainable economic growth and jobs through integrated spatial
development.
With the Trans-European Networks (TEN) the
Community aims to contribute to the establishment of the trans-European systems
related to the transport, telecommunications and energy supply sectors. The
trans-European transport network (TEN-T) envisages the optimisation of traffic
infrastructures like for instance waterways and ports. The European Commission
has on 19 October adopted a proposal for a Regulation on TEN-T with the
objective of updating and improving the implementation of the Trans European
network for transport.[206] 
The 6th Environmental Action
Programme[207] identifies seven thematic strategies. These seven key environmental
issues require a holistic approach because of their complexity, the diversity
of actors concerned and the need to find multiple and innovative solutions. One
of the strategies specifically relates to the protection and conservation of
the marine environment.
Annex 9:  
Public consultation report
 || EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT   ENV.D.2 - Marine Environment & Water Industry   
Brussels, 10.06.2011
ENV.D2 (2011) 
 Public Consultation "Possible way forward for
Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the
EU"
ICZM component - provisional results of the web-based
consultation 
23/3 – 20/5 2011
1.                 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 85
2.                 Identification of the respondent.......................................................................... 85
3.                 Coastal Management.......................................................................................... 88
a)     Familiarity
with the principles of ICZM............................................................................................................ 89
b)     The
benefits of ICZM.............................................................................................................................................. 89
c)     Information.............................................................................................................................................................. 90
d)     The
integrated approach of ICZM....................................................................................................................... 91
e)     The
objectives of ICZM and relevance for action on EU level....................................................................... 93
f)      Measures,
specific instruments and tools........................................................................................................... 95
g)     Future
EU action.................................................................................................................................................... 98
Annex: Data Questionnaire:................................................................................................. 101
 

1.                 
Introduction

Building upon a European Parliament and Council
Recommendation on the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(ICZM) of 30 May 2002, (2002/413/EC) an Impact Assessment (IA) to evaluate
further EU-policy options on ICZM was launched in 2010. Given the need for
coherent spatial planning of coastal and maritime areas, the IA was done
jointly with the assessment of possible future actions on Maritime Spatial
Planning (MSP). To elicit relevant opinions from stakeholders and practitioners
on the main challenges and opportunities for ICZM and MSP, an internet-based
public consultation was launched. 
The on-line consultation took place from 23
March to 20 May 2011. During the eight weeks, a total of 225 respondents
replied to the questionnaire. In addition, by the closing date of the on-line
consultation on 20 May, also 5 general statements or reactions were received,
not using the questionnaire[208]. These statements all emanated from respondents that also provided
a response using the questionnaire.
The
questionnaire was composed of 5 parts
1. Identification of the respondent (compulsory questions);
2. Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP);
3. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM);
4. Linking MSP and ICZM;
5. EU publications and sharing information about MSP and ICZM.

This document provides the provisional evaluation
of the ICZM-part of the on-line consultation, and covers parts 1 and 3 of the
questionnaire.
The ICZM questions were mostly multiple choice
ones. In some questions the participants were asked to rank given statements on
a scale between 1 and 5, where 1 represented always the most negative (e.g. low
importance) and 5 the most positive assessment (e.g. very important). 2 general
open questions were included, in addition to the opportunity for respondents to
provide suggestions under an item 'other' in closed questions. However the
number of contributions received as 'other' was rather limited.

2.                 
Identification of the respondent

The first section of the questionnaire
consisted of compulsory questions; for the first questions only one answer per
question could be given.
52 % of the respondents replied in their
personal capacity, 48 % replied on behalf of an organisation. 
Respondents from twenty countries out of the
twenty-two coastal Member States participated in the online consultation.
Although 20% of the replies originated from participants from the United Kingdom, the spread was generally very good (UK based respondents include several respondents
from international organisations). In total respondents from twenty-eight
different countries submitted replies (non-EU based respondents included
participants from the United States, New Zealand, Turkey, Georgia, Norway, Brazil and Canada). 
31% of the respondents represent or work for
research institutions (universities or public or private research institutions).
29% of the respondents represent national or local governments. 17% responses
came from NGO, civil society or environmental group or charity, 18% from
industrial interest groups, enterprises (all sizes) and self-employed.
With regard to geographical areas the
respondents are mostly interested in coastal waters (209 respondents), coastal
land (140 respondents) and estuaries (112 respondents). The participants had
the opportunity to choose more than one answer. 
Most of the respondents are mainly involved
into the following maritime activities or policies: Environment and nature
conservation (68 respondents), spatial planning, regional development (54
respondents) and marine research (32 respondents). 'Other' (25 respondents)
include respondents that state to be active in several activities/policies.
 Nearly half of the respondents with an
interest in environmental activities belong to the group "NGO, civil
society, environmental group, charity" (26 respondents). With regard to
spatial planning, it is mainly national governments (14 respondents) and
universities (13 respondents) interested in this topic. 
The results presented in this report provide
the results of all respondents, without distinction between these groups. For
some questions a slight difference in appreciation was noted in relative
ranking of some possible objectives, measures or instruments for ICZM. Where
appropriate, the text accompanying the graphs indicates such differences.
However, in all cases the overall pattern of the total responses was confirmed
for all groups of respondents. 
While the total responses show a good spread
across coastal Member States, the number of responses from individual countries
is too low to affirm response patterns by Member State. 

3.                 
Coastal Management

While the questions in the section
"Identification of the respondent" were compulsory, the
ICZM-questions were optional ones. Out of 225 respondents, an average of 163
participants replied to the questions on ICZM (72%). 

a)      Familiarity with the principles of ICZM

Out of 190 respondents 110 (58%) are fully, 59
(31%) are somewhat familiar with the principles of ICZM. Out of 187 respondents
68 (37%) are regularly, 47 (25%) sometimes involved in the implementation of
ICZM. 

b)      The benefits of ICZM

The questionnaire asked what benefits ICZM
delivered, with a scale of appreciation 1 insignificant to 5 very significant.
Given that the question was geared towards appreciation of benefits based on
actual experience in implementation, this question shows a lower number of
respondents than the other ICZM questions. The results show that respondents
rate benefits overall in a positive way (upper range scores predominate).
Respondents considered "Better understanding between stakeholders and
authorities in the coastal zone" (109 respondents chose 4 or 5),
"improved governance of the coastal zone" (107 respondents chose 4 or
5), "more efficient use of coastal resources" (105 respondents chose
4 or 5) and "more transparent planning and management of the coastal
zone" to be the most important benefits deriving from ICZM implementation.
These benefits are closely followed by "improvements to the coastal
environment".

c)      Information

As for transparent planning and management of
the coast the availability of sufficient information to authorities,
stakeholders and concerned citizens is required, the participants were asked to
rank to what extent they feel "well informed" about different topics.

131 participants feel well informed about
"the state of the environment" in their country / region (62 fully
agree, 69 agree), followed by 123 participants who feel well informed about
"the risks that may affect the coast" in their country / region (64
fully agree, 59 agree). 121 participants somewhat disagree or disagree about a
good level of information with regard to "development plans and actions
undertaken in neighbouring coastal countries / regions" (55 somewhat
disagree, 66 disagree). 

d)      The integrated approach of ICZM

To address the integrated approach of ICZM
(e.g. integration of all sectors and uses of the coast, preservation of the
coastal environment and cross-border integration) the participants were asked
to state to which extent they thought given statements were valid in their
country / region. The responses to the statements are an indication to which
extent ICZM principles are thought to be implemented and achieved. 
The results show that most of the participants
disagreed or somewhat disagreed to the given statements. 112 respondents
"somewhat disagreed" or "disagreed" on the statement
"The long-term needs of coastal businesses and local communities are well
taken into account in the planning and management of the coastal zones in my
country/region" (68 somewhat disagree, 43 disagree), followed by "The
impacts of new developments in the coastal zone are well analysed and a balance
is sought between the needs of businesses, industry, coastal residents and the
environment" (64 somewhat disagree, 44 agree). 
The statement most of the respondents agreed on
is "There are adequate procedures in my country/region to be involved and
express my views and needs as regards coastal planning and management" (19
fully agree, 52 agree). 
Most "disagree" responses are noted
for the statements related to cross-border issues (66 disagree to "There are adequate procedures to be involved and express views as
regards coastal planning and management in neighbouring countries/regions";
69 disagree to "The planning and management of neighbouring
countries/regions is/are well co-ordinated in my country/region and impacts
across the administrative boundaries are adequately analysed and addressed").

e)      The objectives of ICZM and relevance for action on EU level

With a view to exploring options for possible
future EU action on ICZM, respondents were asked to evaluate which in their
opinion are the most important objectives to be addressed by ICZM (1=low
importance, 5=very important). 
154 respondents assessed the "promotion of
sustainable coastal development in regional marine regions" to be most
important (scores 4 or 5). 
The next in rank attract very equal top range
scores ("Ensuring a sustainable future for local coastal communities"
(133 chose 4 or 5), "Protecting the coastal environmental and natural
resources" (132 chose 4 or 5), "Ensuring a balance between coastal
development and the need to protect the coastal environment and its natural
resources" (131 chose 4 or 5) and "Ensuring a balanced spatial
development in the land and sea parts of the coastal zone (128 chose 4 or 5)). 
"Ensuring a balance between coastal
development and the need to protect the coastal environment and its natural
resources" and "Protecting the coastal environmental and natural
resources" attract the highest number of the top score 5. 
While the overall appreciation of the 5 most
important objectives among the ones proposed in the questionnaire is a general
pattern, some variation in relative appreciation is observed among groups of
respondents. Respondents mainly involved in Spatial planning/Regional
development rate higher the objective "Improving the resilience of coastal
zones to climate change", participants mainly involved in Marine research consider
the objective "Enhancing the prevention of natural and technological risks
in coastal zones" to be important.
For all groups, the objective "Stimulating
economic growth in coastal areas" is rated relatively lower as an
important objective. 
In an open question the participants had
the opportunity to express their views on the most challenging issues that the
EU should acknowledge when considering further actions to support ICZM
implementation. 82 respondents replied to that question. Most of the answers
addressed several challenges. One challenge addressed very often was the lack
of a binding but flexible framework for the implementation of ICZM. The absence
of co-operation and integration amongst different sectors and hierarchies, the
need for land-sea interaction and the difficulty to find a balance between
environmental protection and the economic development of coastal zones were
also addressed. Respondents to that open question also asked for better
participation and integration of stakeholders.
To evaluate the relevance for action on EU
level, the participants had the opportunity to assess different justifications.
The justification were rated in general positively (responses "very
relevant" and "relevant" predominate). In particular the
justification "Coastal zones are of strategic
importance to the EU economy and they constitute a common natural and cultural
resource; a common EU framework for ICZM facilitates development opportunities
and improves effectiveness of preservation measures" was rated most
positively with 91 respondents considering it
"very relevant".

f)       Measures, specific instruments and tools

The EU Recommendation on integrated coastal
zone management invites Member States to set up national strategies, indicating
a broad range of possible measures for such national strategies. With a view to
future EU action on ICZM, respondents were asked to indicate the importance
(1=low importance, to 5 very important) to be given to certain measures, as
well as some specific instruments as tools. 
Participants assessed as measures most
importance should be given to "institutional co-ordination between
competent authorities" (136 chose 4 or 5), "coherent planning of land
and sea parts of the coastal zone" (134 chose 4 or 5) and the
"integration of interests (social, economic, environmental) in coastal
planning and management" (132 chose 4 or 5). 
The next measures in the ranking attract
slightly less top range scores ("Co-operation in regional marine
regions", "Cross-border co-ordination", "Integration of
risk prevention" and "Public participation"). "Data
gathering" has been evaluated as least important.
Respondents mainly involved in environment and
nature conservation rank "Cross-border co-ordination between competent
authorities" slightly higher. 
In addition to the general measures, the
questionnaire invited respondents to evaluate some specific instruments and
tools with regard to their importance for the effective implementation of
ICZM by Member States. 
145 participants evaluated "Spatial
planning, setting out a vision for coastal development and a strategic plan to
orientate the use of coastal resources and space" with 4 or 5. 144 gave a
4 or 5 to "Information systems that facilitate the sharing and use of data
and information between competent authorities, stakeholders and the public".

The appreciation of the next instruments/tools
is relatively equal and ranges from 131 participants choosing 4 or 5 for
"Indicators to guide the development of the coastal zone and the use
of coastal resources", over 128 for "Zoning plans, including setback
zones in the near shore area where no construction is allowed" to 126
"Coastal climate change strategies, providing an assessment of the impacts
of climate change in the coastal zone and guiding adaptation measures".
More detailed tools (sediment management plans, land policy instruments)
attract relatively less top range scores (4, 5).
While for respondents mainly involved in marine
research "Zoning plans" range only in fifth place, respondents mainly
involved in environment and nature conservation and spatial planning rank it
more important (second and third place). Respondents mainly involved in marine
research consider "Indicators to guide the development of coastal
zones" to be more important. 

g)      Future EU action 

Currently, the European Parliament and Council
Recommendation on ICZM (2002/413/EC) is the main instrument by which the EU
promotes the implementation of ICZM. For the Mediterranean coastal zones an
additional step was set in 2010 by the EU ratification of the ICZM Protocol to
the Barcelona Convention (Council Decision 2010/631/EU). 
With regard to future EU action on ICZM
respondents were asked their degree of agreement to 3 statements, appreciating
the form which future EU action could take. 
42 participants express agreement to "the
EU Recommendation on ICZM is a sufficient basis to achieve the objectives of
ICZM in the EU" (9 fully agree, 33 agree; 26% of responses to the
statement). This statement attracts relatively most
disagreement. 102 participants somewhat disagreed or disagreed to the statement
(52 somewhat disagree, 50 disagree). 
117 participants express agreement to the
statement "An EU binding legislative framework would provide a better
basis for ICZM implementation in the long-term and in cross-border
contexts" (67 fully agree, 50 agree; 72% of responses to the statement). 
112 participants express agreement with
"the most effective way for the EU to support ICZM is through financial
support to projects, research and studies" (52 fully agree, 60 agree; 68%
of responses to the statement). 
Breaking down the whole of respondents into the
main different groups (covering c.94% of all respondents) the outcome shows
some variation in relative results, while confirming the overall pattern of
appreciation of the statements. 
Respondents from universities and research
institutes give more often a 'fully agree'/'agree' appreciation to the
effectiveness of EU financial support to support ICZM. By contrast, respondents
from industry groups and enterprises respond less often to fully agree or agree
on this point, although over half still expresses agreement. 
Respondents from NGO, civil society,
environmental groups and charities give more often 'fully agree'/'agree'
appreciation to the statement that "EU binding legislative framework that
would provide a better basis for ICZM implementation the long-term and in cross-border
contexts". By contrast, respondents from industry groups and enterprises
respond less often to fully agree or agree with the same statement, although
over half still expresses agreement. 
   || Fully agree/Agree " The EU Recommendation on ICZM is a sufficient basis to achieve the objectives of ICZM in the EU" || Fully agree/Agree "EU binding legislative framework that would provide a better basis for ICZM implementation in the long-term and in cross-border contexts" || Fully agree/Agree "The most effective way for the EU to support ICZM is through financial support to projects, research and studies " 
 All respondents || 26% (N=164) || 72% (N=162) || 68% (N=164) 
 Respondents from national or local government ||  31% (N=48) || 70% (N=46) || 68% (N=47) 
 Respondents university, public or private research || 24% (N= 51) || 75% (N=51) || 82% (N=51) 
 Respondents NGO, civil society, environmental group, charity ||  26% (N=27) || 85% (N=26) || 63% (N=27) 
 Respondents from industrial interest groups/enterprises and self-employed || 21% (n=28) || 57% (N=28) || 54% (N=28)   
When grouping respondents according to activity
or policy in which they are involved, also some variations in relative
responses can be found: respondents predominantly involved in marine research
more often fully agree or agree to the effectiveness of financial support to
projects, research and studies. Respondents mainly involved in environment and
nature protection and respondents mainly involved in marine research more often
reply to fully agree or agree to "an EU binding legislative framework
would provide a better basis for ICZM implementation", (89% and 84% respectively,
compared to the overall result 72%). On this point, with 60% respondents mainly
involved in spatial planning or regional development agree less on a binding
legislative framework than the total. 
Finally at the end of the ICZM part of the
questionnaire, in an open question the respondents had the opportunity
to specify what in their opinion the EU should do or propose concerning ICZM. 59
participants responded to that question. Nearly half of the respondents to this
question suggested a legally binding instrument for the further implementation
of ICZM. Participants not explicitly referring to a binding instrument often
asked for a common general scheme or common rules for the implementation of
ICZM. Analogue to the answers given to the first open question the respondents
mention that the instrument would have to be flexible enough to be applicable
in different coastal and governance contexts. Funding opportunities to support projects
implementing ICZM and a co-ordinated or joint ICZM-MSP-approach were also
suggested as answers to both open questions. 
* * *

Annex: Data Questionnaire:

Parts I (Identification respondent) and III (ICZM related
questions)
·      Part I Identification of the respondent (compulsory questions)
 Who are you? (Single choice reply) ||   
 I am replying in my personal capacity || 116 
 I am replying on behalf of an organisation || 109 
 For whom do you work or who do you represent? (Single choice reply) ||   
 national government || 44 
 university || 39 
 NGO, civil society, environmental group, charity || 39 
 public research institution || 20 
 local government || 19 
 industrial interest group || 14 
 international body (other than EU institution) || 11 
 self-employed || 10 
 private research institution || 7 
 large enterprise (more than 250 employees) || 6 
 small enterprise (between 10 and 50 employees) || 5 
 EU project || 4 
 micro enterprise ( less than 10 employees) || 4 
 medium enterprise (between 50 and 250 employees) || 2 
 EU institution || 1 
 Where are you based? (Single choice reply) ||   
 Belgium || 15 
 Bulgaria || 6 
 Cyprus || 3 
 Denmark || 6 
 Estonia || 3 
 Finland || 14 
 France || 13 
 Germany || 13 
 Greece || 4 
 Ireland || 13 
 Italy || 9 
 Latvia || 9 
 Lithuania || 1 
 Netherlands || 8 
 Poland || 7 
 Portugal || 11 
 Romania || 2 
 Spain || 20 
 Sweden || 9 
 United Kingdom || 46 
 Other || 13 
 In which area are you mostly interested (you may choose more than one alternative)? ||   
 coastal waters || 209 
 coastal land || 140 
 estuaries || 112 
 continental shelf || 111 
 open ocean || 86 
 islands || 81 
 In which maritime activity or policy are you mainly involved? (Single choice reply) ||   
 Environment & nature conservation || 68 
 Spatial planning, regional development || 54 
 Marine research || 32 
 Other || 25 
 Maritime traffic & transport || 8 
 Renewable energy || 8 
 Coastal defence engineering || 5 
 Maritime or cultural heritage || 4 
 Mineral extraction & dredging || 4 
 Commercial fishing || 4 
 Tourism, recreation (including boating and cruise tourism) || 4 
 Aquaculture || 3 
 Recreational fishing || 2 
 Military || 2 
 Non-renewable energy || 1 
 Marine surveillance || 1 
·     
Part III ICZM questions (optional
questions)
 Are you familiar with the principles of integrated coastal zone management? ||   
 Yes, fully || 110 
 Yes, somewhat || 59 
 Not really || 15 
 Not at all || 6 
 N/A || - 
 Have you been involved in the implementation of integrated coastal zone management? ||   
 Yes, regularly || 68 
 Yes, sometimes || 47 
 Not very often || 34 
 Not at all || 38 
 N/A || - 
 If you have been involved in ICZM, what do you consider to be the benefits that integrated coastal zone management delivers? From 1=insignificant to 5=very significant || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 
 Better understanding between stakeholders and authorities in the coastal zone (N=145) || 7 || 11 || 13 || 46 
 Improved governance of the coastal zone (N=140) || 12 || 6 || 10 || 44 
 More efficient use of coastal space and resources, reduction of conflicting claims on space and/or resources (N=139) || 13 || 5 || 12 || 34 
 More transparent planning and management of the coastal zone (N=144) || 11 || 7 || 18 || 36 
 Improvements to the coastal environment (N=141) || 9 || 9 || 21 || 30 
 Increased resilience to coastal risks and impacts of climate change, better coastal defence solutions (N=139) || 11 || 9 || 29 || 32 
 More opportunities for sustainable economic growth (N=137) || 13 || 10 || 28 || 42 
 Improved quality of life for coastal communities (N=140) || 7 || 10 || 36 || 33 
 Other (N=26) || 3 || 0 || 0 || 0 
Planning and managing the coast well implies
that sufficient information is available to the authorities, stakeholders and
concerned citizens. 
 To what extent do you agree with the following statements? ||   ||   ||   
 I am well informed about || Fully agree || Agree || Somewhat disagree || Disagree || No opinion 
 the risks that may affect the coast in my country/region, such as by the impacts of climate change (N=173) || 64 || 59 || 38 || 11 || 1 
 the state of the coastal environment in my country/region (N=173) || 62 || 69 || 30 || 11 || 1 
 the trends in population growth and economic activities in the coastal zone of my country/region (N=173) || 42 || 61 || 50 || 17 || 3 
 the development plans in the coastal zone in my country/region, such as for new buildings or ports or energy infrastructure (N=173) || 39 || 68 || 46 || 19 || 1 
 actions the authorities undertake in my country/region to support sustainable coastal development (N=173) || 36 || 58 || 54 || 24 || 1 
 developments plans and actions in neighbouring coastal countries/regions (N=171) || 18 || 24 || 55 || 66 || 8 
The implementation of integrated coastal
zone management implies that the planning and management of coastal zones is
based on a long-term perspective covering all sectors and uses of the coast,
preservation of the coastal environment, robust information and analysis, co-ordinated
action by relevant authorities, including across borders, and due involvement of
stakeholders. 
 To what extent do you agree that the following statements are valid for your country/region? || Fully agree || Agree || Somewhat disagree || Disagree || No opinion 
 The long-term needs of coastal businesses and local communities are well taken into account in the planning and management of the coastal zones in my country/region (N=169) || 16 || 39 || 68 || 43 || 3 
 The impacts of new developments in the coastal zone are well analysed and a balance is sought between the needs of businesses, industry, coastal residents and the environment (N=170) || 15 || 44 || 64 || 44 || 3 
 The development plans in the coastal zone in my country/region, such as for new buildings or ports or energy infrastructure are co-ordinated (N=162) || 12 || 35 || 61 || 47 || 7 
 The coastal environment in my country/region is well protected and the preservation of the environment is safeguarded for the long-term (N=168) || 19 || 48 || 56 || 42 || 3 
 The impacts of climate change on the coastal zone in my country/region are well analysed and the planning and management takes future climatic conditions and sea-level rise well into account (N=168) || 18 || 46 || 54 || 47 || 3 
 There are adequate procedures in my country/region to be involved and express my views and needs as regards coastal planning and management (N=167) || 19 || 52 || 56 || 36 || 4 
 There are adequate procedures to be involved and express views as regards coastal planning and management in neighbouring countries/regions (N=166) || 6 || 22 || 50 || 66 || 22 
 The planning and management of neighbouring countries/regions is/are well co-ordinated in my country/region and impacts across the administrative boundaries are adequately analysed and addressed (N=162) || 6 || 18 || 45 || 69 || 24 
 Considering possible future EU action on ICZM, what are the most important objectives that integrated coastal zone management should address? 1=low importance – 5 = very important || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 
 Promoting sustainable coastal development in regional seas basins (N=165) || 11 || 7 || 23 || 77 || 77 
 Ensuring a sustainable future for local coastal communities (N=169) || 13 || 8 || 14 || 48 || 85 
 Protecting the coastal environmental and natural resources (N=168) || 18 || 5 || 11 || 30 || 102 
 Ensuring a balance between coastal development and the need to protect the coastal environment and its natural resources (N=169) || 16 || 7 || 12 || 28 || 103 
 Ensuring a balanced spatial development in the land and sea parts of the coastal zone (N=169) || 16 || 5 || 19 || 49 || 79 
 Improving the resilience of coastal zones to climate changes (N=169) || 16 || 8 || 18 || 51 || 73 
 Improving the governance of coastal zones (N=162) || 15 || 8 || 16 || 39 || 81 
 Enhancing the prevention of natural and technological risks in coastal zones (N=165) || 10 || 10 || 24 || 48 || 66 
 Stimulating sustainable economic growth in coastal areas (N=160) || 9 || 22 || 32 || 40 || 56 
 Other (N=24) || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2 || 17 
Open Question: What is / are the most
challenging issue(s) that the EU should acknowledge when considering further
actions to support ICZM implementation? 82
respondents
The EU Recommendation on integrated coastal
zone management sets a common framework for implementation in EU coastal Member
States. However, coastal zones are very diverse and the coastal planning and
management arrangements between national, regional and/or local authorities
differ significantly from one Member State to the other.
 To what extent are the following justifications relevant for action at EU level on integrated coastal zone management? || Very relevant || Relevant || Not very relevant || Not relevant at all || I don´t know 
 Coastal zones are of strategic importance to the EU economy and they constitute a common natural and cultural resource. A common EU framework for ICZM facilitates development opportunities and improves effectiveness of preservation measures. (N=163) || 91 || 56 || 11 || 2 || 3 
 Coastal environmental processes are trans-boundary in nature and can be better managed in the context of a common EU framework for ICZM (N=166) || 77 || 63 || 20 || 2 || 4 
 Coastal planning and management systems are very complex and are in some cases based on EU legislation e.g. nature conservation. A common EU framework for ICZM would provide more clarity and a better level-playing field for businesses and citizens who invest and work in coastal zones. (N=163) || 73 || 60 || 21 || 2 || 7 
 Coastal planning decisions often have consequences for coasts in neighbouring countries. A common EU framework for ICZM facilitates the cross-border co-ordination of such planning. (N=162) || 61 || 80 || 17 || 1 || 3 
 Coastal zones are vulnerable to the impacts of climate changes, which can be better addressed in the context of a common EU framework for ICZM. (N=159) || 59 || 72 || 19 || 3 || 6 
 Other (N=26) || 16 || 1 || 1 || 0 || 8 
The EU Recommendation on integrated coastal
zone management invites Member States to set up national strategies, indicating
a broad range of possible measures for such national strategies. The
implementation of integrated coastal zone management strategies in coastal
Member States constitutes the major way to implement and deliver ICZM in the EU.
 What importance should be given to the following measures as part of future EU action on integrated coastal zone management? From 1= low importance, to 5=very important || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || No opinion 
 Institutional co-ordination between competent authorities (national, regional, local) (N=162) || 7 || 8 || 10 || 40 || 96 || 1 
 Coherent planning of land and sea parts of the coastal zone (N=164) || 9 || 7 || 12 || 40 || 94 || 2 
 Integration of interests (social, economic, environmental) in integrated coastal zone planning and management (N=164) || 8 || 6 || 18 || 36 || 96 || 0 
 Co-operation in marine regions (N=160) || 4 || 8 || 21 || 62 || 63 || 2 
 Cross-border co-ordination between competent authorities (N=162) || 6 || 7 || 23 || 57 || 66 || 3 
 Integration of risk prevention and climate change into the integrated coastal zone planning and management of coastal zones (=158) || 6 || 9 || 20 || 50 || 72 || 1 
 Public participation in coastal zone planning and management (N=163) || 7 || 10 || 29 || 48 || 69 || 0 
 Data gathering and information management to underpin coastal planning and management (N=129) || 6 || 7 || 8 || 38 || 70 || 0 
 Other || 1 || 0 || 1 || 1 || 13 || 3 
 Which of the following instruments and tools are important for effective implementation of integrated coastal zone management by Member States? From 1= low importance, to 5=very important || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || 5 || No opinion 
 Spatial planning, setting out a vision for coastal development and a strategic plan to orientate the use of coastal resources and space (N=168) || 9 || 4 || 10 || 32 || 113 || 0 
 Information systems that facilitate the sharing and use of data and information between competent authorities, stakeholders and the public (N=168) || 6 || 5 || 12 || 44 || 100 || 1 
 Indicators to guide the development of the coastal zone and the use of coastal resources (N=167) || 9 || 4 || 22 || 54 || 77 || 1 
 Zoning plans, including set-back zones in the near shore area where no construction is allowed (N=168) || 8 || 10 || 18 || 53 || 75 || 4 
 Coastal climate change strategies, providing an assessment of the impacts of climate change in the coastal zone and guiding adaptation measures (N=168) || 6 || 9 || 27 || 63 || 63 || 0 
 Economic (including fiscal measures) to stimulate sustainable development options and innovative approaches to coastal management (N=163) || 5 || 10 || 28 || 53 || 65 || 2 
 Sediment management plans, providing an assessment of sediments and sediment systems, delimiting coastal sediment cells and guiding coastal defence choices (N=165) || 4 || 12 || 40 || 59 || 44 || 6 
 Land policy instruments (such as land purchase mechanisms, easements, transferable development rights) (N=153) || 6 || 7 || 51 || 49 || 40 || 12 
 Other (N=23) || 1 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 9 || 2 
The main instrument by which the EU
promotes implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management is currently the
European Parliament and Council Recommendation on ICZM (2002/413/EC). For the
Mediterranean coastal zones, an additional step has been set by the EU
conclusion of the Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Council
Decision 2010/631/EU).
 Considering future EU action on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, to what extent do you agree with the following statements? || Fully agree || Agree || Somewhat disagree || Disagree || No opinion 
 The EU Recommendation on ICZM is a sufficient basis to achieve the objectives of ICZM in the EU. (N=164) || 9 || 33 || 52 || 50 || 20 
 An EU binding legislative framework would provide a better basis for ICZM implementation in the long-term and in cross-border contexts. (N=162) || 67 || 50 || 18 || 15 || 12 
 The most effective way for the EU to support ICZM is through financial support to projects, research and studies. (N=164) || 52 || 60 || 35 || 10 || 7 
Open Question: What would you suggest
that the EU should do or propose concerning ICZM i.e. how to go forward with
ICZM within the EU? 59 respondents
Annex 10:                      
Stakeholder consultation summary results
Participation 
A total of 225 responses had been
registered when the consultation closed on 20 May 2011. This should be regarded
as a good return, since the topic requires expertise on the subjects MSP and
ICZM, or at least a basic knowledge on these issues. Roughly half of the
participants (109) responded on behalf of an organisation, which shows that a
good number of the responses are the result of a collective reflection. 
Most of the responses come from the public
sector such as research institutions, national and local authorities (20%),
universities but also from NGOs. Very few of the respondents come from the
private sector.
An overwhelming majority of the respondents
are based in EU Member States. Relatively limited participation (13 responses)
came from third countries. These 13 responses include USA, Canada, Brazil,  Turkey, Georgia, Norway, Mauritius, and New Zeeland. Participation is
relatively evenly spread out among the coastal Member States with reasonably
good balance between north-south and east-west responses, respectively, despite
the high number of contributions from one MS (UK, 46 responses, 20% of the
total). No contribution at all was received from: two coastal MS (Slovenia and Malta), and from the five land-locked Member States (Austria, Check republic, Slovakia, Luxembourg and Hungary). 
A clear majority of respondents' main
interest is either environment and nature conservation (68 respondents, 30%) or
marine regions and regional development (54 respondents, 24%) and marine
research (32 respondents, 14%). It is noticeable that relatively limited
participation was registered from other marine sectors than those referred to
above. Participants are in general well informed of what MSP is about and have
often participated in such a process already. 
Conflict in the
use of sea space
A clear majority of the participants have
encountered either many (97 responses, 43%) or some (86 responses, 38%)
conflicts of space between or within sectors and an equally clear majority also
foresees that spatial claims will either increase significantly (124 responses,
55%) or moderately (64 responses 28%) in the future.
This confirms our perception that many
sectors at present experience conflicts between sectors regarding the use of sea-space
and that the competition for maritime space will further increase in the
future. Among the examples provided we find in particular conflicts between
traditional users (such as shipping, oil exploration and fishing) and emerging
activities (such as tourism/recreational uses, aquaculture and, in particular,
offshore renewable energy sector) as well as marine environment protection
(including marine protected areas, in addition to the already existing marine
and coastal Natura2000 sites).
General applicability
and benefits of MSP
Only 4 respondents (<2%) either somewhat
disagree or disagree with the statement that MSP is a useful process/set of
tools for European marine regions.
A majority of participants feel that MSP
would be an important contributor on a wide range of issues, including the
following. 
·                    
economic growth,
·                    
environmental
protection,
·                    
maintenance and
restoration of ecosystems/ecosystem services[209]
·                    
climate change
adaption,
·                    
sustainable use of
resources
·                    
regional and social
development,
·                    
improved governance,
·                    
the creation of a
level playing field,
·                    
transparency,
·                    
competitiveness,
·                    
innovation,
·                    
preservation of
cultural heritage
·                    
improved stakeholder
involvement and
·                    
improved maritime
safety.
FIG ABOVE: The
figure above show the relative importance of the specific benefits. The thicker
the connector the more important the relationship between the MSP and the
benefit is. The benefits specifically related to the MSFD goals are marked with
bold.
Respondents are also very supportive of the
main concepts of MSP developed in the EU and elsewhere. This includes the definition
of MSP as a process and tool (or set of tools), as well as the 10 key
principles identified in the 2008 Communication on MSP (the need for
transparency, predictability, stability, stakeholder participation, proper data
collection, cross-border co-operation, legally binding plans etc.).
Several responses indicate the further need
to further develop MSP within the EU. They particularly emphasise improvements that
can be made in relation to cross-border co-operation and they also stress the need
to apply a regional sea-basin approach to MSP. The need of a common framework
for MSP was referred to by many respondents and the present lack of co-ordination
and harmonisation was seen as a problem. 
On stakeholder involvement, there is general agreement that MSP should be based on a co-ordinated,
transparent and pragmatic stakeholder consultation; involvement of regional and
local level is necessary. However, the degree to which respondents wish to see stakeholders
involved at different stages in the process varies. 
Monitoring
and Data issues – relation with MSFD
Monitoring
and evaluation of the effectiveness of the plan makes
it possible to check whether the goals and objectives of the plan can be/are
achieved, or not. This makes it possible to change the plan if necessary. This
is often referred to as adaptive planning and management and it is fundamental
for successful MSP. Cross-border areas and cross-border activities deserve a
special focus since there is an apparent risk of failure of adaptive planning
and management in these types of areas if the data-sets from MS are too
different. Many stakeholders have emphasised the importance of being able to
compile and compare information and having a common system for evaluation
across EU or at least at sea-basin level. Indicators and objectives that are clearly
defined across sectors and countries are important.
The relevance of MSP in the context of the implementation
of the MSFD is commonly accepted among the respondents. 146 respondents (65%)
agree and only 16 disagree (7%) with the statement that the implementation of
the MSFD should provide data and information that are useful for MSP. Many
respondents (147 respondents, 65%) also believe that MSP would provide added
value specifically to the implementation of the MSFD by complementing its
overarching goal to achieve good environmental status (GES).
Several participants have highlighted the
need for co-operation at European level towards common standards for data
collection and made references to other data sources which could be used for
MSP implementation (in particular collected by Regional sea conventions).
Cross-border
co-operation
Cross-border co-operation is considered a
very important issue for an overwhelming majority of the participants. It is also
considered either moderately difficult (72 participants) or difficult (82
participants) and an area where considerable improvements can be made. Many
suggest a focus on a transnational approach and a common framework and point
out that the planning at regional level is not satisfactory at present even if individual
states are carrying our MSP. This is very important as the number of broad
scale infrastructure projects is increasing, e.g. the North Sea Offshore Energy
Grid along with the wind energy plans that are necessary to achieve the EU's
goal to produce 20% of its energy by renewable sources by 2020.There are also
other reasons for cross-border planning such as maritime traffic, IT cables,
pipelines, fishing and conservation of fish stocks, mineral extraction and
non-economic uses such as nature conservation networks.
Cross-border activities are common in a
number of sectors, including shipping, fishing, cabling, wind parks, data
gathering, climate change adaptation and coastal defence, and for environmental
purposes, such as designation and management of MPAs and prevention of
pollution. Challenges highlighted by participants to improve cross-border
co-operation include: that no cross-border planning is done in the first place,
incompatibility of data sets in different countries, or no agreed framework and
procedures for cross-border MSP. Other cross-border challenges include differences
between national legal systems, difference in understanding of MSP concept,
difference in timing (different stages of development of MSP), etc. The main
identified challenge is differences in political priorities.
Respondents mention a large number of
planning issues that MS can't deal with in isolation. According to many
participants this means that even if some co-operation taking place, it is
often difficult and in many cases takes place on an Ad Hoc basis only
and/or at technical level. Such approach is slow and makes it difficult for all
involved to obtain an overall understanding for how to plan across borders. At
present, difficulties in co-operation seem to relate mostly to co-operation
between Member States, or within a single sector. Only few participants signal
problems in cross-border co-operation with third countries.
Despite these indications of a relatively
poor cross-border co-operation on MSP issues between EU Member States, many respondents
are in favour of MSP being carried out in co-operation with neighbouring states
(77 respondents, 34%) and that cross-border co-operation should take place with
neighbours from the beginning for cross-border areas (106 respondents, 47%).
Only 7 respondents (3%) considered that MS should carry out MSP independently
from each other. A relatively high number of respondents (107 respondents, 48%)
supported the installation of a MSP platform for MSP co-operation in each sea
basin.
 The conclusion is that cross-border
aspects are a central element in the future MSP work done within the EU.
What should the
EU do?
The responses on what role the EU should
play are diverse and range from suggesting new EU legislation to firm opinions
that no new legislation is needed. However, among the responses one of the most
repeated suggestion is that a common framework is needed, that the EU must have
a coherent direction and common goals and objectives for MSP. It difficult to
draw any firm conclusions to how many respondents are in support of a binding
legislative instrument since relatively few of the participants express a firm
opinion on that issue. 
Suggestions for EU action often repeated
in the written comments by respondents include:

 To ensure that EU give a coherent direction and
     clear goals for the Member States to implement MSP 
 Offer a common binding legal framework and
     methodology for MSP within the EU 
 Focus on cross-border co-operation issues
     between MS by providing a framework for such co-operation.
 The existing directives, recommendations and
     policies such as the MSFD, CFP, Habitats- and Bird Directives, WFD, and
     agriculture (CAP) must be acknowledged when developing MSP further to
     ensure that the provided co-ordination and guidance is in good agreement
     with these. 
 Apply the Ecosystem Based Approach to MSP
 Support best practice measures, 
 The need to further develop the common
     principles of MSP in order to provide further guidance to MS on how to
     implement MSP.

Some of the
moderate/"do-nothing" comments provided
by the respondents include:

 Additional regulation is not necessary. MS have
     already a lot on their hands with the implementation of the existing EU
     legislation.
 MSP should be mainly left to Member States
     (safeguarding the subsidiarity principle) and the EU should not get
     involved in detailed planning
 Apply "soft law" such as guidelines,
     recommendation, communications
 Integrate MSP with existing policies

Participants have also proposed number of
ideas on how the EU should deal with various challenges and problems in order to
develop MSP. In general, respondents representing a single sector or interest
group tend to emphasise the interests they represent. For example, a number of
respondents state that the main aim of the MSP process should be to protect the
environment, putting other interests, such as economic prosperity, innovations,
creating new jobs, or renewable energy goals, in second place. 
International
co-operation on the high seas (Areas beyond national jurisdiction) 
Participants generally consider
international co-operation to be a rather difficult issue, but also tend to
point out that it needs to be reflected upon since MSP could also be relevant
for high seas areas. The need for collaboration is therefore highlighted by
many participants (in particular from the marine research sector). Several
participants highlight the need for a more structured dialogue on MSP in
existing international fora such as the UN and its various organisations e.g.
FAO, CBD, Regional Sea Conventions (OSPAR, HELCOM, Barcelona Convention,
Bucharest Convention), RFMO:s, ISA, IMO, for addressing MSP in high seas areas.

Respondents, in their written comments,
regard enforceability as a problem for high seas measures. In conclusion, a
more active debate in international fora should be promoted by the EU. 
Link MSP - ICZM

Respondents recognise the need for a close
link between MSP and IZCM initiatives. A majority of the respondents (98
respondents, 43%) say that they would like to see co-ordination of MSP and ICZM
but that the processes themselves should be kept separate. 
52 respondents (23%) are in favour of a full
linkage between ICZM and MSP. The separate question whether MSP and ICZM should
be addressed through separate (legal) instruments yields 68% (115 respondents)
against a separation of the two, with 38% (70 respondents) are in favour of
separating the two tools .
36% of the respondents (82 out of 225) have
experience in applying a combination of MSP and ICZM. 
Annex 11:                      
Glossary of technical terms – list of
abbreviations
Aquaculture - farming of aquatic organisms such as fish, crustaceans, molluscs and
aquatic plants under controlled conditions.
Coastal zone - the part of the land affected by its proximity to the sea, and that
part of the sea affected by its proximity to the land as the extent to which
man's land-based activities have a measurable influence on water chemistry and
marine ecology. 
Ecosystem - any
unit that includes all of the organisms in a given area interacting with the
physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined 
trophic structure, biotic diversity, and material cycles.
Ecosystem approach - strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living
resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.
Ecosystem health - concept which is closely linked to the idea of sustainability. It
integrates environmental conditions with the impacts of anthropogenic
activities in order to give information for a sustainable use and management of
natural resources.
Ecosystem services - benefits human beings obtain from their natural ecosystems,
including provisioning services, such as the production of food and
water; regulating services, such as the control of climate and disease; supporting
services, such as nutrient cycles and crop pollination; and cultural
services, such as spiritual and recreational benefits
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) - sea zone over which a state has special rights over the exploration
and use of marine resources, including production of energy from water and
wind. It stretches from the seaward edge of the state's territorial sea out to
200 nautical miles from its coast.
(Ecological) footprint - measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems, which represents
the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the
resources a human population consumes, and to mitigate associated waste.
Green Infrastructure - concept that highlights the importance of the natural environment
in decisions about land use planning. It places emphasis on the "life
support" functions provided by a network of natural ecosystems and on
their interconnectivity to support long-term sustainability.
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
(ICZM) - dynamic, multidisciplinary and iterative
process to promote sustainable management of coastal zones; which seeks, to
balance environmental, economic, social objectives, all within the limits set
by natural dynamics.
Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) - public process for analysing and allocating spatial and temporal
distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological,
economic and social objectives
Resource efficiency - sustainable management and use of resources throughout their life
cycle - from extraction, transport, transformation, consumption to the disposal
of waste
Resilience -
capacity of an ecosystem to respond to a perturbation or disturbance by
resisting damage and recovering quickly
Sustainable development - development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
List of abbreviations
 CFP || Common Fisheries Policy 
 CIS || Coastal Information Systems 
 DEDUCE || Développement Durable des Côtes Européennes 
 EEA || European Environment Agency 
 EMFF || European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
 ESPO || European Sea Ports Organisation 
 EWEA || European Wind Energy Association 
 HELCOM || Helsinki Commission (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission) 
 ICZM || Integrated Coastal Zone Management 
 MMA || Marine Management Authority 
 MSFD || Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
 MS || Member States 
 MSP || Maritime Spatial Planning 
 NUTS || Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques (Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics) 
 OSPAR || OSPAR Commission for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic 
 TEN-E || Trans-European-Energy Networks 
 SEA || Strategic Environmental Assessment 
 TEN-T || Trans-European-Transport Networks 
 VASAB || Vision and Strategies Around the Baltic 
[1]               COM (2010) 2020, final, 3.3.2010.
[2]               Directive (2008/56/EC), OJ L164, 25.6.2008, pp. 19-40.
[3]               Directive (2009/28/EC), OJ L14, 5.6.2009, pp. 16-62.
[4]               Decision No. 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament
and the Council, OJ L167, 30.4.2004, pp. 1-38.
[5]               COM (2010) 771 final
[6]               See for example: Douvere, F. (2008). The importance
of marine spatial planning in advancing ecosystem-based sea use management. Marine
Policy 32(5), pp. 762-771; Taussik, J. (2007). The opportunities of spatial
planning for integrated coastal zone management. Marine Policy 31(5),
pp. 611-618.
[7]               Regional Sea Conventions are regional
intergovernmental bodies which seek to protect the marine environment. Four
Regional Sea Conventions are relevant for European waters, namely the Bucharest
Convention (Black Sea), the Barcelona Convention (the Mediterranean Sea), OSPAR
(the North-East Atlantic Ocean) and HELCOM (the Baltic Sea). The EU is party to
OSPAR and HELCOM and the Barcelona Convention. 
[8]               For example Germany, the UK, France and the Netherlands.
[9]               E.g. in Belgium, Sweden, Latvia and Poland.
[10]             See Executive Order of President Obama of 19 July 2010
which introduces mechanisms for MSP at Federal level.
[11]             COM (2007) 575.
[12]             COM (2008) 791 final of 25.11.2008.
[13]             For further details see Annex 1.
[14]             COM (2010) 771 final of 17.12.2010.
[15]             Illustration originates from the WWF brochure
"Become a Maritime Spatialist within 10 Minutes, and was developed within
the BaltSeaPlan project, see www.baltseaplan.eu.
[16]             FAO (1994) Corporate Document Repository, 'integrated
management of coastal zones', ID 59975. 
[17]             E.g., the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)
introduces a holistic water management for inland, transitional and coastal
waters. However, no considerations of sediment management or coastal erosion
are included which are amongst the most dynamic processes in this land water
interactions. 
[18]             http://www.coastalcooperation.net/part-I/I-2-2-f.pdf.
[19]             http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/index.cfm?menuID=6&articleID=200.
[20]             E.g. 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act of the US, 2003 National Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Australia
etc.
[21]             Recommendation (2002/413/EC), OJ 148, 6.6.2002, p.24.
[22]             Council (2009/89/EC), OJ L344 2 2009; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/barcelona.htm;
the Protocol covers the coastal zone up to the external limits of the
territorial sea of the Parties.
[23]             For MSP, this Impact Assessment only concerns processes
carried out in marine waters which are actually under the jurisdiction and
sovereignty of EU Member States. 
[24]             Ares (2011)1372659 of 16 December 2011.
[25]             72% fully agree or agree to the statement that an EU
binding legislative framework would provide a better basis for ICZM
implementation in the long-term and in cross-border contexts.
[26]             EC (2011). Public Hearing on Integrated Coastal Zone
Management 30 May 2011 – Hearing Report. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM_Hearing_Report_20110530.pdf
.
[27]          Report of
the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Global
Sustainability. 'Resilient              People, Resilient
Planet: A Future Worth Choosing', 30 January 2012; www.un.org/gsp;
[28]             "Recommendation 18: Governments should commit to
the establishment of regional oceans and coastal management frameworks in major
marine ecosystems, including through: (a) Enhanced co-operation in oceans and
coastal management involving relevant stakeholders; (b) Marine and coastal
planning by countries in regional areas, taking into account the specific
needs, ecosystems and users in their area and supported by solid funding
mechanisms to develop and implement these plans; (c) Building the capacity of
marine managers, policymakers and scientists in developing countries,
especially small island developing countries and other coastal States; (d)
Enhanced monitoring and surveillance systems."
[29]             See table on potential conflicts in Annex 4.
[30]             Policy Research Corporation (2010). Study on the
economic effects of Maritime Spatial Planning.
[31]             Douvere, E., Ehler, C. (2007). The Need for a Common
Vocabulary for Marine Spatial Planning in Ecosystem-Based Management.
[32]             Directive 2009/29EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 2003/87//EC so as to improve
and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the
Community, OJ, L 140, 5.6 2009, pp. 63-87.
[33]             EWEA (n.d.) Maritime Spatial Planning: supporting
offshore wind and grid development.
[34]             In its 2008 Communication on offshore wind energy, the
Commission anticipated that offshore wind can and must make a substantial
contribution to meeting the EU's energy policy objectives through a very
significant increase. This increase was expected to be in the order of 30-40
times by 2020 and 100 times by 2030 compared to the installed capacity in 2008.
The European Wind Energy Association expects a ten-fold increase by 2020 of
offshore wind energy capacity across the EU and calls for a binding framework
to manage the use of sea space. A significant proportion of this can be
expected to be at sea; Scotland expects growth in employment figures in the
offshore wind sector to be 4000% between 2010 and 2020. EWEA (2009). Pure
Power – Wind energy targets for 2020 and 2030. http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/reports/Pure_Power_Full_Report.pdf.
[35]             BIMCO refers to the impact on shipping of the
development of wind farms in the vicinity of busy shipping lanes or on
traditional shipping routes (BIMCO contribution to the consultation on MSP and
ICZM, sent on 19 May 2011), para. 55.
[36]             Maritime transport has been growing at an average of
8.5% per year. The cruise sector is growing despite the economic crisis: the
ECC reports a trebling of EU cruise passenger numbers between 1999 and 2009.
[37]             The European Dredging Association (EUDA) reports a 150%
increase in EU turnover in the period 2000-2008[37]. See further www.european-dredging.eu.
[38]             Produktschap Vis (2004). Fishing on a postage stamp, See
further http://www.pvis.nl/fileadmin/user_upload/pvis/Documenten/Fishing_on_a_square_inch.pdf. 
[39]             Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020 –
informal meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial
Development, 19/5/2011.
[40]             Study
on economic benefits of Maritime Spatial Planning, April 2010.
[41]             Final report from January 2012 can be found at
www.baltseaplan.eu.
[42]             See chapter 2.
[43]             EC (2011). Public Consultation "Possible Way
Forward for MSP and ICZM in the EU". http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report_online_consultation.pdf
.
[44]             EC (2007). Sustainable Use of Water Resources in
Coastal Areas, DG Environment News Alert Service.
[45]             EEA (2006). The Changing Faces of Europe's Coastal
Areas, Report no. 10/2006.
[46]             JRC (2011) Report. 
[47]             UNEP/MAP -Plan Bleu (2009). State of the Environment
and Development in the Mediterranean – 2009. http://www.planbleu.org/publications/SoED2009_EN.pdf.
[48]             The proposed TEN-T guidelines[48] further promote the strategic importance of ports. This will
further stimulate maritime transport and short sea shipping, which are able to
offer alternatives to road-transport and alleviate congestion and pollution in
coastal zones[48]. See further COM (2011)650/2 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/connecting/revision-t_en.htm
and the White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area, COM (2011)
144 final; Staff working document SEC (2011) 391 final,
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strategies/2011_white_paper_en.htm.
[49]             See ECO-Ports initiative http://www.ecoports.com/about,
Societal Integration Award by the European Sea Ports Organisation (ESPO). http://www.espo.be/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77&Itemid=81;
innovative projects such as TIDE (Interreg) http://www.tide-project.eu/, SuPorts. http://www.seinemaritime.net/suports/,
DredgeDikes http://www.dredgdikes.eu/; Sedi-Port (LIFE-programme) http://www.lifesediportsil.eu/. 
[50]             See for example reports on stakeholder consultations on
maritime spatial planning at www.ec.europa.eu.

[51]             See further Annex 4.
[52]             The 2010 economic benefits study concluded that MSP
unnecessary (opportunity) costs related to inefficiencies or lack of
predictability can range between €170 million and € 1.3 billion by 2020. The
study on the impacts of EU action on MSP concluded that in sectors such as
dredging and aquaculture, the introduction of an MSP system alone could lead to
reduction of such costs by around 10%. Studies carried out under the Windspeed
project estimate costs of wind energy expansion under various scenarios and
point to the cost of licensing and planning as a significant factor in this
context. Moreover, they conclude that "MSP efforts to date have generally
been nationally oriented. While some cross-border consultation takes place, it
is often ad-hoc or sector based. There is currently no official transnational
forum for MSP in the North Sea. Furthermore, different Member States have
undertaken MSP activities at different times. Without streamlining of the
development of MSP and trying to co-ordinate activities, it is difficult to
effectively cooperate on planning decisions. "
[53]             http://www.euroregionbaltic.eu.
[54]             SOER (2010). Thematic Assessment: Land Use, p.
28.
[55]             http://www.eurosion.org.
[56]             EC (2008). The economics of climate change
adaptation in EU coastal areas http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/climate_change/report_en.pdf;
EEA (2008), Impacts of Europe's changing climate,
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2008_4/pp161-192CC2008Ch6_7Adaptation_Consequences.pdf.
[57]             http://ancorim.aquitaine.fr/IMG/pdf/ANCORIM_Survey_global_report_EN.pdf.

[58]             In order to maintain the Dutch coastline in the context
of climate change, sand needs are estimated to rise from 12 million m³/year now
to 20 million m³/year in the short term. These needs could rise further to 30
million m³/year by 2040 and up to 60 million m³/year in 2100, depending on the
climate and development scenario applied (ref. Probleemanalyse deelprogramma
kust, Deltaprogramma, 2011). Locally and regionally sediment needs and costs
can be important: e.g. Regione Lazio (Italy) estimated that for the recharging
of its most important beaches, 8 to 10 million m³ would be needed at a cost of
80 M€, and 300.000 m³ per year for maintenance (2.4 M€/year). Beach-erosion
often affects important economic resources. Cartographic analysis has shown
that Tuscany suffered a net loss of 214 000m² beach areal in 20 years. (ref.:
Beachmed-e, 1er cahier technique phase A, 2007).
[59]             E.g. re-use of dredged material, such as implemented in
the projects DredgeDikes. http://www.dredgdikes.eu/
(Interreg), Sedi-Port http://www.lifesediportsil.eu/
(LIFE-programme); reducing obstacles in natural sediment transport in river
basins, see e.g. Interreg project BEACHMED – sub-project GESA, Gestion des
stocks sableux interceptés par les ouvrages côtiers et fluviaux, récuperation
du transport solide, Rapport technique phase C, 2008 http://www.beachmed.it/. 
Stakeholders also refer to the case of displacement of aggregate extraction
activities due to a national-level decision, from marine waters to inland areas
in another country (Dutch North Sea to Norway) with questionable overall
sustainability outcomes.
[60]             COM (2005)504 final-Thematic Strategy on the Protection
and Conservation of the Marine Environment.
[61]             Blue Carbon
is the carbon stored by coastal and ocean ecosystems. In particular, coastal
ecosystems such as tidal marshes, mangroves, and sea grasses remove carbon from
the atmosphere and ocean, storing it in plants and depositing it in the
sediment below them by natural processes.
[62]             EEA (2010). Marine and coastal environment –SOER 2010
thematic assessment.
[63]             EEA (2010). 10 messages for 2010 – Coastal
ecosystems.
[64]             In particular the Marine Strategy Framework Directive,
the Habitats and Birds Directive and others (see Annex 8). The SEA Directive
ensures overall environmental protection of plans and programmes and the EIA
Directive for particular projects that are planned in coastal and marine areas.
[65]             The Commission guidance on estuaries and the EU
Biodiversity Strategy recognise that more integrated spatial planning is needed
to address these issues and maintain valuable ecosystem services.
[66]             E.g. aggregate dredging for the construction industry,
agricultural use of floodplains, dredging for navigation purposes, drinking
water supply, hydropower generation, flood protection and nature conservation
necessitate appropriate management of sediments in coastal zones and estuaries.
[67]             http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/download.cfm?fileID=1709.

[68]             SQW Consulting (2009)."Who decides?" A
study of governance processes across three coastal areas, report to East England Coastal Initiative.
[69]             BALTCICA, Governance of Climate Change Adaptation:
Policy Review, March 2010; EEA 2010, 2008.
[70]             COREPOINT, Report on Spatial Planning and ICZM in NW Europe, 2008.
[71]             This conclusion is, inter alia, confirmed by the
interim assessment report of the ongoing pilot project for cross-border
co-operation on MSP in the North Sea, the so called MASPNOSE project, which
confirms that barriers to an effective cross-border co-operation are important
and that opportunities for improvement are considerable. https://www.surfgroepen.nl/sites/CMP/maspnose/default.aspx.

[72]             See for example legal systems in the UK, Germany, NL, and others; see also table summarising state of play on MSP in EU Member States in
section 3.4.1.
[73]             See section 1.2.1.
[74]             Preparatory action sponsored within the framework of
the Integrated Maritime Policy to test cross-border MSP co-operation between Finland and Sweden in the Bothnian Sea, see further www.planbothnia.org.
[75]             European Marine Observation and Data Network -another
cross cutting tool identified within the integrated maritime policy.
[76]             Global Monitoring for Environment and Security.
[77]             COM (2010) 461.
[78]             See MSFD impact assessment report: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/pdf/2005_10_impactassess_en.pdf.
[79]             The reporting period formally covered by the
Recommendation ended in 2006.
[80]             http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/Final%20Report_progress.pdf.

[81]             COWI (2011)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf.
[82]             See table 1 of MSP implementation in section 3.4., See
also study on the implementation of MSP in the Mediterranean Sea referred to in
Annex 7.
[83]             See further study on economic benefits: costs of non-co-ordination,
recommendations, i.e. Windspeed, EWEA, fishing on a postage stamp referred to
above
[84]             North Sea Offshore Grid Initiative, MoU, Annex 4,
Planning and authorisation procedures
[85]             Examples of gas and oil extraction vs. tourism in the
Adriatic, Natura 2000 vs. gravel extraction in the North Sea, PRC, Impacts of
MSP study, p. 53
[86]             See for example:
http://www.windspeed.eu/media/publications/WINDSPEED_Roadmap_110719_final.pdf
[87]             43% disagreed and a further 28% somewhat disagreed that
“planning and management of neighbouring countries/regions are well co-ordinated
and impacts across administrative boundaries are adequately analysed”.
[88]             See the initial assessment report of the so called
MASPNOSE project referred to in footnote 63, EWEA briefing on MSP, September
2011, PRC, Economic Benefits of MSP in the EU, Recommendations p. 45 all referred
to above.
[89]             See compatibility matrix in Annex 6 of the Economic
Benefits Study p. 9, referred to in Annex 7.
[90]             COWI (2011).
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report_online_consultation.pdf
; Williams, E., Mcglashan, D., Firn, J. (2006). Assessing Socioeconomic Costs
and Benefits of ICZM in the European Union. Coastal Management 34(1), pp.65-86;
See also results of the BaltSeaPlan project on MSP.
[91]             PRC IA Study, p. 85.
[92]             See economic benefit study referred to in Annex 7.
[93]             See studies on policy options and economic benefits of
MSP, referred to in Annex 7. See also position papers of WWF and EWEA referred
to above.
[94]             COM (2008)768 final.
[95]             On the concept of spatial efficiency, see further the
2011 report of the INTERREG project BaltSeaPlan 2030, towards the sustainable
planning of Baltic Sea space, wwwbaltseaplan.eu. The main idea is to create
synergies and stimulate co-uses in order to concentrate uses as much as
possible in order to keep other areas free.
[96]             See further PRC report on policy options referred to
under section 2.3.3.
[97]             NSOGI, WWF Position Paper, Call for EU Leadership on
Integrated Sea Use Management referred to above.
[98]             Europe 2020, MSFD, White Paper on Transport, Blue Belt
Initiative, NSOGI MoU.
[99]             See further the economic benefits study referred to in
Annex 7.
[100]            JRC
(2011). Coastal Zones- Policy alternatives impacts on European Coastal Zones
2000-2050.http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/impact_studies/pdf/land_use_modelling%20adaptation_activities_coastal.pdf
.
[101]            JRC (2011). Impacts of climate change in coastal
systems in Europe. PESETA-Coastal Systems study.
[102]            COWI
(2011), pp. 42-46. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf

[103]            France, Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Malta, Slovenia, Spain. 
[104] Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 30 November 2011 establishing a Programme to support the further
development of an Integrated Maritime Policy, L 321 5.12.2011 p 1.
[106]            The principle of spatial subsidiarity has for example
been developed within the framework of the Interreg project BaltSeaPlan 2030,
which develops a vision for how MSP should be organised in the Baltic Sea by 2030. See further www.baltseaplan.eu.
[107]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report_online_consultation.pdf.
[108]            COM (2011)571, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/resource_efficiency/index_en.htm. 
[109]            Working group on data and indicators supported by and
continued through EU co-funded projects such as DEDUCE, SEB4SD, SAIL and
currently on-going PEGASO.
[110]            http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/index.cfm?menuID=3.

[111] E.g. Research, Cohesion, LIFE, Fisheries and Maritime Fund.
[112]            Directive 2007/2/EC.
[113]            COWI (2011). Support study for an impact assessment
for a follow-up to the EU ICZM Recommendation (2002/413/EC) -Final Report; 
[114]            The results of the public consultation show that
although a Programme is valued as an option for future EU action on ICZM, it
should not remain merely a set of projects and it may fail to bring about
systematic progress of ICZM in Member States.
[115]            Estimated
at 10% to 20% reduction of the implementation gap, with variation among Member
States, leading to a broad estimate of 67% implementation level, compared to
62% in the baseline; see COWI(2011), pp.69-70. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf.

[116]            However, Recommendations no longer form part of the
ordinary legislative procedure as defined in Article 289 of the Treaty on the
Functioning of the EU, but are instead adopted by the Council only under
Article 292 of the same Treaty. 
[117]            Estimated
at 10 to 20% reduction of the implementation gap with variation among Member
States, leading to a broad estimate of 67% implementation level, compared to
62% in baseline: COWI (2011) page 83, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf.

[118]            See public consultation report, only 26% agree that the
EU Recommendation on ICZM is a sufficient basis to achieve the objectives of
ICZM in the EU (Annex 9).
[119]            See COM 2011/804 final.
[120]            http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/docs/ia_2011/sec_2011_1416_en.pdf.
[121]            See further section 3.5.2. on subsidiarity issues.
[122]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/Report%20Earlyreflection.pdf.

[123]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report_online_consultation.pdf.

[124]            See Introduction and chapter 3: economic benefits, PRC:
Study on economic benefits of MSP.
[125]            Policy Research Corporation (2010). Study on the
economic effects of Maritime Spatial Planning, p. 41-42 . For reference to
this study, see Annex 7.
[126]            Policy Research Corporation (2010). Study on the
economic effects of Maritime Spatial Planning, p. 41-42. 
[127]                  Several
existing studies have examined and mapped the possibilities of co-existence or
risk of conflicts between sea uses including nature conservation e.g.
Schultz-Zehden, A., Gee, K., Scibior, K. (2008), Handbook on Integrated
Maritime Spatial Planning, s.Pro sustainable projects: Berlin; Cieslak, A.
et al. (2009), Compendium on Maritime Spatial Planning Systems in the Baltic
Sea Region Countries; van der Wal, J.T. et al. (2009), Identification
and analysis of interactions between sea use functions; Ehler, C., Douvere,
F. (2009), Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward
eco-system-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and
Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No.
6. Paris: UNESCO; European Commission (2010), The economic benefits of
Maritime Spatial Planning.
[128]            Can refer to government, public authorities at national,
regional and local level, depending on which level is affected by and
responsible for developing and implementing MSP.
[129]            See also chapter 6.2, option on improving data and
information availability.
[130]            See annex 3 for details on methodology.
[131] COWI study.
[132] For further details, see Annex 5 of the study on policy options
(referred to in Annex 7) and DEFRA study (2011) the maritime planning system in
the UK: Impact assessment. (See Annex 5 in the study on policy options).
[133] Estimate for start-up costs are characterised by a high degree of
uncertainty, varying from 0.1M€ to 3 M€ by Member State.
 [134]COWI (2011).
[135] COM 2011 804 final.
[136] COWI (2011). 
[137]            JRC (2011). Coastal Zones – Policy
alternatives impacts on European Coastal zones 2000 – 2050.
[138]            See Study on economic benefits of MSP, The  Maritime planning
System: Impact Assessment, DEFRA (See Annex 5 of the study on policy options
referred to in Annex 7).
[139]            59% of respondents disagree/somewhat disagree that
differences in competent authorities, stakeholders or issues is a reason to
address land and sea planning through different instruments.
[140]            See also section 3.5.2. on subsidiarity. The public
consultation showed 52% of respondents to favour strong co-ordination of
spatial planning processes in coast and marine areas, and only 27% favouring a
fully linked up process from coast to the EEZ. The areas where specific plans
or programmes are needed and in which existing plans may be used or built on is
a matter of subsidiarity. The different scales of plans (more detailed near the
coast and on-shore, broader scale further offshore) needs to be recognised.
[141]            European Parliament Report on the Integrated Maritime
Policy 2010/2040(INI), para. 28, WWF position paper on the Impact Assessment on
MSP and ICZM, September 2011, EWEA briefing on MSP September 2011).
[142]            For
more details of specific progress indicators under each phase please consult p.
6 ff.: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/iczm_guidance_notes.pdf.

[143]            http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs.

[144] 1a:
guidance; 1b: policy programme; 2a: Recommendation; 2b: Recommendation +
funding; 3a: Framework Directive; 3b: Directive; 3c: Regulation 
[145] These columns indicate to
which extent the underlying causes of the problems will be resolved (causes
identified in chapter 3.2: a) Lack of coherent planning
and allocation of space to uses b) Insufficient coherence or linkage between
different EU policies and programmes affecting the sea and coasts c) lack of
coherent and sustainable transboundary co-operation across complete marine
regions d) inadequate involvement of stakeholders 
[146] Considered in each policy option, only the level of prescriptive
detail and binding character differs
[147]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report_online_consultation.pdf
, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM_Hearing_Report_20110530.pdf

[148]            Informal
meeting Marine and Water Directors, Spa, Belgium, 2-3 December 2010.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/marine/pdf/syntesis_spa_dec2010.pdf 
[149]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/expert_group.htm

[150]            See para. 28 of the EP report on the Integrated Maritime
policy – evolution of progress made and new challenges (2010/2040(INI)).
[151]            These studies can be found at
http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/index_en.html
[152]            http://planbothnia.org/
[153]            https://www.surfgroepen.nl/sites/CMP/maspnose/default.aspx
[154]            Additional pilot projects are planned as part of the
Commission proposal for a funding Regulation to support the Integrated Maritime
Policy (COD (2010/0257)).
[155]            http://www.acceptance.ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/Report%20Earlyreflection.pdf;
The working group responded to the need identified in the evaluation of the EU
ICZM Recommendation (COM(2007)308, that for the medium- and long term 
[156]            http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/download.cfm?fileID=1709

[157]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/ia_reports.htm

[158]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/Final%20Report_progress.pdf

[159]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/21807-REL-T006.2_Final_Report.pdf
[160]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/impact_studies/pdf/land_use_modelling%20adaptation_activities_coastal.pdf

[161]            COWI (2011)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf 
[162]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/state_coast.htm 
[163]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20-%20Information%20sources%20-%20overview.pdf 
[164]            Although military use is an important maritime activity,
it is not included in this study as it is not an economic activity.
[165]            Cieslak Andrzej et al. (2009), Compendium on Maritime
Spatial Planning Systems in the Baltic Sea Region Countries; UNESCO
(2009), Maritime Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach toward
ecosystem-based Management; expert interviews, survey and conference calls.

[166]            Page 8, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/report_online_consultation.pdf

[167]            The
modelling covered a period from 2000 up to 2050, JRC(2011) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/impact_studies/pdf/land_use_modelling%20adaptation_activities_coastal.pdf

[168]            http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/evaluation_iczm_report.pdf
; http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/socec_en.pdf

[169]            A perspective on the Environmental and socioeconomic
benefits and costs of ICM: the case of Xiamen, PR China, PEMSEA (GEF/UNDP/IMO),
2006.
[170]            The Economics of Eco-systems and Biodiversity (TEEB),
2010; Impacts of climate change in coastal systems in Europe; PESETA-Coastal
Systems study, JRC, December 2009.
[171]            Ruijgrok, E., De baten van de integrale aanpak: zijn de
hoge verwachtingen terecht? (to be published, 2011);
OURCOAST Comparative Analysis of cases (2011).
[172]            See
section 6.1.3., COWI (2011) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf

[173]            Douvere, F. (2008), The importance of marine spatial
planning in advancing eco-system-based sea use management, Marine Policy,
32(5), pp.762-771; European Commission (2010), The economic benefits of
Maritime Spatial Planning.
[174]            COWI
(2011), section 6.1.4 and Annex B
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/pdf/ICZM%20IA%20study_Final_report.pdf
[175]            Questionnaire survey and interviews questions asked
about the past and current cost experience considering Germany, Spain, Greece and the Netherlands
[176]            See COWI (2011), pp. 120-121.
[177]            Ibid., p. 121
[178]            It is important to note that the start-up costs also can
vary depending on the specific number of years a country would be in the
start-up phase.
[179]            To calculate the specific ICZM cost component for each Member State, the estimated cost per coastline km, coastal area (km2), coastal population
and coastal GDP was applied to each country’s own characteristic and then
multiplied with the country’s baseline ICZM level to arrive at a cost basis for
each characteristic.
[180]            See also COWI (2011), Tables 6-4, 6-9, 6-13
[181]            Source: Ibid, p. 178
[182]            Studies referred to in Annex 7.
[183]            See Annex 5 of the study on policy options for MSP in
the EU, referred to in Annex 7.
[184]            Douvere/Ehlers, others – see PRC References
[185]            Such as the 10 key principles introduced in the MSP
Roadmap Communication of 2008
[186]            Study on the economic effects of Maritime Spatial
Planning, EC (2011); http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/documentation/studies/documents/economic_effects_maritime_spatial_planning_en.pdf
[187]            PRC, MSP Impact Study, pp. 85, 86
[188]            Marine Law and Ocean Policy Centre (2007). EU
legislation and policies with implications for coastal management.
[189]            Ruprecht Consult (2006). Evaluation of Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe – Final Report.
[190]            Directive 2000/60/EC
[191]            Directive 2007/60 EC
[192]            Directive 91/676/EEC
[193]            Directive (79/409/EEC) and Directive (92/43/EEC)
[194]            Directive (2008/56/EC)
[195]            Directive (2007/2/EC)
[196]            Directive (85/337/EEC)
[197]            Directive (2001/42/EC)
[198]            2009/28/EC
[199]            COM(2011)571
[200]            COM(2008)876
[201]            SEC(2010)163 final
[202]            Council Resolution (1999/C 56/01)
[203]            SEC(2006) 748
[204]            COM(2009)147 Final
[205]            See http://www.eu-territorial-agenda.eu/Pages/Default.aspx
[206]            See further http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/connecting/proposal-ten-t_en.htm.

[207]            COM(2002) 539 Final
[208] From CRPM, EUCC, EUDA, group of NGOs, Region Västra Götaland.