COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.3.2013  
SWD(2013) 64 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 

{COM(2013) 133 final} 
{SWD(2013) 65 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

This Impact Assessment aims at assessing EU action towards integrated governance of coasts, 
seas  and  oceans,  moving  away  from  a  sectoral  approach  to  an  integrated  and  coherent 
decision-making process. The proposed action is not sector-specific, but deals with all policy 
areas  of  the  Treaty  affecting  human  activities  in  marine  regions  and  coastal  zones  and  the 
protection of the marine and coastal environment. 

Europe  is  going  through  a  financial  crisis  which  requires  focus  on  resource  efficiency  and 
growth-enabling initiatives. Human activities on European coasts and seas are increasing and 
have  significant  growth  potential.  However,  they  increasingly  run  into  limitations  due  to 
competition for space or environmental threats. A policy initiative to ensure coordinated and 
effective management of human uses in marine regions and coastal zones therefore needs to 
be implemented as soon as possible. 

Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) was identified as a tool to integrate human activities at sea 
in  the  2007  EU  Blue  Book  "An  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  for  the  European  Union". 
Similarly, Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) was established as a process to assist 
in EU policy implementation through Recommendation 2002/413/EC and the ICZM Protocol 
to the Barcelona Convention.  

The  Commission  is  now  proposing  to  develop  these  two  tools  together.  MSP  and  ICZM 
connect in their geographical coverage (transition area from land to sea) and in their overall 
objective  (to  manage  human  uses  in  their  respective  areas  of  application).  An  Impact 
Assessment on future action was carried out to ensure maximum efficiency and added value 
in the selected outcome. 

2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION AND OBJECTIVES 

• 

• 

The  identified  overarching  problem  relates  to  competition  for  maritime  and  coastal 
space and depletion of resources that can be broken down in six key problems:  

(1)  Conflicting  claims  on  space:  Increased  demand  for  limited  space  in  marine 
regions  causes  conflicts  between  sea  uses.  Traditional  activities  such  as  fisheries, 
shipping,  dredging  and  oil  exploitation  expand  while  new  uses  including  tourism, 
mineral extraction, and more recently wind energy and offshore marine aquaculture 
claim their own space.  

(2) Inefficient use of sea space: The lack of cross-sector co-ordination in granting 
sea space to uses has led dissipation of activities and occupation of larger areas than 
necessary. This also leads to higher costs.  

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
(3)  Unbalanced  use  of  coastal  space:  Human  impact  on  coastal  areas  is  growing.  Built-up 
areas  in  EU  coastal  regions  have  increased  by  more  than  20%  over  the  past  two 
decades.  Gaps  in  EU  legislation,  e.g.  on  coastal  erosion,  hamper  the  sustainable  and 
coherent management of this development.  

• 

• 

• 

(4)  Suboptimal  exploitation  of  economic  potentials:  The  lack  of  coherent  and 
transparent processes to manage human uses leads to unnecessary costs. Uncertainty 
and unpredictability of appropriate access to sea space cause a suboptimal business 
climate  for  investors.  The  consultation  process  confirmed  that  industry  needs 
transparency, stability and predictability.  

(5) Insufficient adaptation to climate risks: Climate change risks are significant in 
Europe's  coastal  areas,  but  there  is  no  coherent  framework  for  integrating  both 
mitigation  and  adaptation  measures  into  the  overall  planning  of  sea  or  coastal  use. 
The majority of EU coastal Member States do not have a climate change adaptation 
plan or strategy dedicated to their coastal zones.  

(6) Degradation of maritime and coastal environment: The intense and increased 
use  of  coastal  and  maritime  areas  and  the  close  interaction  between  land  and  sea 
based activities has led to increased environmental pressures and resources depletion. 
Legislation  to  protect  the  environment  is  in  place,  but  lacks  coordination  across 
sectors and across borders. 

The underlying causes for the problems relate to (1) lack of coherent and sustainable planning 
of maritime uses including lack of data sharing; (2) insufficient coherence or linkage between 
different EU policies and programmes affecting the sea and coasts; (3) lack of coherent and 
sustainable transboundary cooperation across marine regions and (4) inadequate involvement 
of stakeholders. 

The  general  objective  of  EU  action  is  to  ensure  the  sustainable  development  of  the  EU's 
coastal zones and maritime areas in accordance with the ecosystem approach. It also aims at 
supporting  the  achievement  of  various  other  EU  Treaty,  legislative  and  policy  objectives 
including  Europe  2020,  environment,  energy,  fisheries,  maritime  transport  and  cohesion 
policy. Any EU action in this context should limit itself to setting out tools for achieving the 
above-mentioned policy objectives. To this end, the operational objectives are of procedural 
nature:  the  development  and  implementation  of  processes  coherently  to  manage  and  plan 
human uses of maritime space (defined as MSP) and to coordinate coastal management policy 
instruments  in  all  coastal  Member  States  (defined  as  ICZM),  the  delivery  and  further 
development  of  common  principles  and  approaches  for  MSP  and  ICZM  processes  and  the 
development and implementation of appropriate cross border co-operation.  

3. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY AND EU ADDED VALUE 

MSP  and  ICZM  are  embedded  in  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,  have  accordingly  been  adopted  with  multiple  legal  bases,  representing  those 
sector policies which affect seas, coasts and oceans.  

The  same  rationale  applies  to  legislative  action  on  MSP.  The  sector  policies  affected 
encompass fisheries, energy, transport, territorial cohesion and environment.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
• 

The 2002 EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management was based 
on Article 192 (1) TFEU. However, ICZM (like MSP) is part of a cross-sector policy 
(IMP) aiming to ensure consistency between the different policy areas of the Treaty.  

Therefore, future action on MSP and ICZM should rely on a broader legal basis to ensure its 
scope covers the full range of EU policies relevant for the management of seas and coasts.  

Detailed  planning  should  be  undertaken  at  Member  States  level  in  accordance  with  their 
respective  governance  and  constitutional  structures.  It  is  not  intended  that  the  EU  tackle 
practical  planning  processes.  EU  action  is,  however,  relevant  to  the  extent  that  coastal  and 
maritime uses and ecosystems traverse national boundaries and would add value by ensuring 
coherence of measures addressing this. In particular, it would avoid divergent approaches and 
different levels of progress. Responses to the public consultation recognised the added-value 
of EU action.  

Objectives for future action on MSP and ICZM are broadly similar. Both foresee the adoption 
of  an  integrated  approach  to  oceans  management  through  enhanced  maritime  and  coastal 
governance. They also have other commonalities, such as data needs. Therefore, considerable 
synergies  can  be  achieved  through  a  joint  legislative  initiative.  Separate  initiatives  would 
increase the risk of inconsistencies, confusion and ultimately higher implementation costs. 

4. 

OPTIONS 

The  Impact  Assessment  identifies  and  discusses  several  (sub-)options  and  possible 
combinations, as well as the baseline scenario. The three options discussed are (1) guidance 
and elaboration of best practices, (2) non-binding measures and (3) legally binding measures 
including  "framework-type"  Directive,  Directive  and  Regulation.  For  a  more  detailed 
explanation of the options see Impact Assessment, paragraph 5 "Policy Options". 

5. 

ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS 

The studies supporting the Impact Assessment showed that all identified policy options will 
lead  to  similar  impacts  while  their  effectiveness  varies  in  timeliness,  magnitude  or  scale. 
Limitations  to  the  quantitative  analysis  of  impacts  apply  due  to  the  nature  of  the  subject 
(governance) and lack of available data for some aspects. 

5.1. 

Effectiveness  

The effectiveness of achieving the operational objectives generally increases from options 1 
to 3, in particular:  

• 

• 

• 

Providing guidance and elaboration of best practices (Option 1) is not expected to be 
very effective since it would mainly support action by those already committed to it. 
It would not, however, compensate the lack of legal or institutional mechanisms.  

Stimulating implementation of MSP/ICZM through non-binding measures (Option 2) 
is expected to provide a stronger status to MSP at EU level, but is unlikely to ensure 
a sufficient level of priority for its implementation. It may also lead to a "pick-and-
choose"  approach  among  Member  States.  For  ICZM,  the  non-binding  nature  of  a 
level  and  quality  of 
Recommendation  would  not 
implementation. This was confirmed by the public consultation.  

increasing 

lead 

the 

to 

Setting out a binding framework to implement MSP/ICZM (Option 3) would be the 
most effective way of achieving the operational objectives. However, there is some 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
difference in the nature and level of detail of a binding instrument and this has been 
assessed in three sub-options, a Framework Directive, a Directive and a Regulation.  

A  detailed  Directive  or  Regulation  would  be  more  prescriptive  than  a  "framework-type" 
Directive, decrease the flexibility for Member States and reduce possibilities of using already 
existing  processes,  leading  to  higher  administrative  costs.  In  contrast,  a  "framework-type" 
Directive  setting  general  obligations  and  providing  guidance  for  specific  implementation  by 
Member States would guarantee predictability, stability, transparency. Furthermore, it would 
be  timely  in  view  of  the  current  trend  of  development  of  new  activities.  It  would  allow 
Member  States  to  take  into  account  this  initiative  while  developing  their  national  policies. 
Finally, it safeguards proportionality and subsidiarity by not interfering with Member States’ 
planning processes and procedures per se. 

In  addition,  a  cross-cutting  option  of  improving  data  and  information  availability  would 
improve the effectiveness of all options analysed above. Complementary action which builds 
on  existing  information  systems  (in  particular  Marine  Knowledge  2020)  would  address  the 
needs at this stage, at least at EU level.  

5.2. 

Impacts 

The Impact Assessment identified a number of economic impacts as a consequence of MSP 
and ICZM implementation, in particular: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Reduced  transaction  costs  for  maritime  businesses,  through  faster,  streamlined 
decision-making and increased transparency. 

Increased  certainty  and  predictability  for  private  investments,  including  improved 
certainty to obtain financing for offshore investments. 

Improved  use  of  the  sea  space  and  the  best  possible  coexistence  of  uses  in  coastal 
zones and marine waters. 

Improved  attractiveness  of  coastal  regions  through  preservation  of  natural  and 
amenity values. 

Reduced  coordination  costs  for  public  authorities,  through  enhanced  efficiency  and 
transparency. 

Innovation  and  Research:  MSP  and  ICZM  data  needs  can  contribute  to  improved 
data collection, management analysis, as well as the knowledge base on interaction 
and complementarity between uses and marine environment. 

Enhanced and integrated data and information. 

Environmental impacts: 

• 

• 

• 

Reduction  of  pressure  on  environment  in  particular  through  an  improved  use  of 
coastal and maritime space and better management of human activities. 

Improved  biodiversity  conservation  and  environmental  quality  through  reduced 
fragmentation of natural areas, and use of renewable and non-renewable resources in 
phase with the ecosystem. 

Improved resilience to risks and/or mitigation of climate change. 

Social impacts: 

• 

Improved  engagement  of  population  and  stakeholders  and  improved  political 
cooperation climate. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Improved  amenity  and  cultural  heritage  through  inclusion  of  coastal  landscape  and 
urban environment of ports in MSP/ICZM processes. 

Increased  growth  and  jobs  through  enabling  growth  of  (in  particular  emerging) 
maritime sectors and contributing to employment in the maritime economy. 

Improvement in maritime safety. 

Improved political cooperation climate. 

Implementation  costs  for  full  ICZM  delivery  in  the  EU  are  estimated  at  200  M€ 
start-up  costs  and  20  M€  annua l  operational  costs.  Start-up  costs  are  uncertain  as 
they depend on the national and regional contexts in Member States. Quantifying the 
costs of implementing MSP is difficult due to a lack of EU-wide data. Irrespective of 
variations  in  total  costs,  the  overall  cost-benefit  ratio  is  positive.  A  compulsory 
approach is likely to lead to higher implementation costs in the short term. However, 
at  the  same  time,  it  is  the  only  one  which  guarantees  implementation  and  thus  the 
realisation of the economic benefits described above.  

6. 

COMPARISON OF THE OPTIONS AND CONCLUSION 

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 to the 
Impact Assessment as Annex 1. 

The  comparison  of  the  identified  options  demonstrated  that  the  optimal  action  to  fulfil  the 
objectives  would  be  option  3,  sub-option  1,  i.e.  a  EU  Framework  Directive  on  MSP  and 
ICZM  with  a  limited  set  of  obligations,  including  a  process  for  the  development  of  best 
practices. 

Voluntary  approaches,  including  guidance  and/or  recommendations  would  not  yield  the 
desired results. A more prescriptive (harmonisation) option through a detailed Directive or a 
Regulation would be disproportionate, not in line with subsidiarity and lead to higher costs. 

Finally,  decisive  but  proportionate  action  at  EU  level  in  times  of  a  financial  crisis  can 
significantly contribute to tapping the economic potential of the offshore maritime economy.  

EN 

6 

   EN