REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL outlining the progress made in implementing Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning
Date: 2022-05-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, application of EU law, area management, coastal protection, conservation of resources, cross-border cooperation, integrated maritime policy, maritime area, maritime economy, resources of the sea

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.5.2022  COM(2022) 185 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL outlining the progress made in implementing Directive 2014/89/EU establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 2 

2.  MSP directive .................................................................................................. 2 

3.  Transposition and designation of competent authorities ................................. 3 

3.1.  Transposition into national law ............................................................. 3 

3.2.  Competent authorities ............................................................................ 4 

4. 

Implementation ................................................................................................ 4 

4.1.  Commission implementation support .................................................... 4 

4.2.  Establishing maritime spatial plans: overview of progress ................... 5 

4.3. 

Implementation  of  the  Directive’s  requirements  for  maritime  spatial 
plans ....................................................................................................... 7 

4.3.1.  Ecosystem-based approach ...................................................... 7 

4.3.2.  Consideration  of  environmental,  economic,  social  and  safety 
aspects ...................................................................................... 7 

4.3.3.  Promote coherence .................................................................. 8 

4.3.4.  Land-sea interactions ............................................................... 8 

4.3.5. 

Identification  of  the  spatial  and  temporal  distribution  of 
activities and uses .................................................................... 9 

4.3.6.  Stakeholder involvement and public participation ................ 10 

4.3.7.  Use of best available data and data sharing ........................... 11 

4.3.8.  Cooperation among Member States and at sea basin level ... 12 

4.3.9.  Cooperation with non-EU countries ...................................... 14 

4.4. 

Implementation challenges .................................................................. 15 

5.  Conclusions ................................................................................................... 15 

5.1.  MSP as an enabler of the European Green Deal ................................. 15 

5.2.  The way forward .................................................................................. 17 

 
 
 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

There is increasing demand for maritime space for various purposes, such as ecosystem 
and biodiversity conservation, renewable energy production, maritime transport, fishing, 
aquaculture  and  tourism.  This  requires  an  integrated  approach  to  planning  and 
management. Maritime spatial planning is commonly understood as a public process for 
analysing  and  planning  the  spatial  and  temporal  distribution  of  human  activities  in  sea 
areas to achieve economic, environmental and social objectives.  

In  2014,  the  EU  adopted  Directive  2014/89/EU  on  maritime  spatial  planning  (MSP) 
(hereafter  the  “Directive”  or  the  “MSP  Directive”)  to  achieve  effective  management  of 
marine  activities  and  sustainable  use  of  marine  and  coastal  resources,  based  on  an 
ecosystem approach. The MSP Directive creates a framework for consistent, transparent, 
sustainable and evidence-based decisions. It lays down certain obligations, including the 
obligation for Member States to set up a maritime spatial plan or plans by 31 March 2021 
at the latest and to review these plans at least every 10 years.  

Under Article 14(2) of the MSP Directive, the Commission must submit a report to the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council  outlining  progress  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive by 31 March 2022, and every 4 years after that. This report gives an overview of 
that progress, as required under the Directive, and assesses transposition and conformity. 
It  also  looks  at  developments  that  have  had  a  bearing  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive since its adoption in 2014, notably the European Green Deal. 

This report is primarily based on transposition measures, maritime spatial plans and other 
information submitted by Member States, information on the European MSP Platform, and 
other  publicly  available  sources.  The  analysis  in  this  report  covers  the  period  from  the 
adoption  of  the  MSP  Directive  on  23 July  2014  to  15 February  2022.  Although  the 
Directive  entered  into  force  on  17 September  2014  and  the  transposition  deadline  was 
18 September 2016, Member States had until 31 March 2021 to set up maritime spatial 
plans. 

2.  MSP DIRECTIVE 

The MSP Directive provides the legal framework for the development of MSP in the EU. 
In particular, it requires the 22 coastal Member States1 to produce maritime spatial plans 
for the marine waters under their jurisdiction.  

The Directive aims for MSP to be a cross-cutting policy tool enabling public authorities 
and  stakeholders  to  apply  a  coordinated,  integrated  and  transboundary  approach.  By 
applying  an  ecosystem-based  approach,  the  Directive  aims  to  promote  the  sustainable 
development of the maritime and coastal economies and the sustainable use of marine and 
coastal  resources.  The  Directive  is  embedded  in  the  EU’s  integrated  maritime  policy 
(IMP),  designed  to  develop  coordinated,  coherent  and  transparent  decision-making  in 
relation  to  the  EU’s  sectoral  policies  affecting  the  oceans,  seas,  islands,  coastal  and 
outermost regions2 and maritime sectors. 

1 The MSP Directive does not apply to landlocked Member States. 

2 The MSP Directive does not apply to ‘waters adjacent to the countries and territories mentioned in Annex II 
to  the  Treaty  and  the  French  Overseas  Departments  and  Collectivities’  (see  Article 3(4),  which  refers  to 
point (1)(a) of Article 3 of Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)).  

2 

 
                                                 
The Directive lays down the obligation to establish a maritime planning process, which 
should take into account land-sea interactions and promote cooperation among Member 
States. The Directive addresses public consultation requirements, the use of best available 
data and cross-border cooperation with non-EU countries. It focuses on processes while 
leaving  content largely in the hands of the Member States, in  line with  the subsidiarity 
principle. Member States still have the responsibility and competent to set up and decide 
on the format and content of the resulting maritime spatial plans, including any allocation 
of maritime space to various activities and uses. 

3.  TRANSPOSITION AND DESIGNATION OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES 

Article 15(1) of the MSP Directive requires Member States to transpose the Directive into 
national law by 18 September 2016. Article 15(2) requires Member States to designate the 
authorities competent for the implementation of the Directive by the same date. 

3.1.  Transposition into national law 

All  22 coastal Member  States have now  transposed the Directive into national  law and 
designated  competent  authorities.  In  November  2016, 
the  Commission  opened 
infringement proceedings against eight Member States (Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, France, 
Croatia, Cyprus, Lithuania and Finland). These proceedings were closed by July 2018 after 
all Member States involved had notified and communicated full transposition measures to 
the Commission. 

Member States took various approaches to the transposition of the MSP Directive. Some 
Member States already had MSP legislation or legislation on spatial planning also covering 
the  maritime  domain  in  place  (e.g.  Belgium,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands).  Several 
Member States amended legislation on spatial planning or environmental protection (e.g. 
France  and  Croatia).  Other  Member  States  adopted  new  specific  MSP  legislation  (e.g. 
Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania and Spain). Another group of Member 
States  combined  amendments  to  legislation  with  new  specific  MSP  legislation  (e.g. 
Finland, Malta and Sweden). 

The legislation adopted by some Member States (e.g. France, Latvia and Spain) refers to 
legislation  transposing  other  Directives,  and  more  specifically  to  Directive  2008/56/EC 
(the Marine Strategy Framework Directive or “MSFD”).  

A number of Member States with  a federal  or devolved structure adopted legislation at 
national  and  subnational  level  to  transpose  the  Directive.  In  some  cases,  subnational 
entities adopted subnational legislation using a separate procedure (e.g. the Åland Islands 
(Finland)).  

Having started in 2016, by the second quarter of 2020, the Commission had concluded its 
conformity check of transposing measures. The Commission analysed the Member States’ 
transposition of the Directive into national law and found that it was complete. As for the 
correctness  of  transposition,  analysis  showed  that  the  transposition  into  national  law 
mostly complies with the requirements of the Directive.  

3 

 
3.2.  Competent authorities 

Article 13  of  the  MSP  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  designate  competent 
authorities3.  Member  States  have  chosen  to  designate  either  ministries  or  government 
agencies.   

In  cases where a  ministry  was  designated, it was  responsible for  either a  mix of policy 
areas  (e.g.  environment,  planning  or  regional  development)  or  a  sectoral  policy  (e.g. 
transport  and  infrastructure,  or  maritime  economy).  In  some  instances,  the  ministries 
covered policy areas such as home affairs or finance, and two Member States designated 
their Ministry of the Sea as the competent authority.   

In cases where a government agency was designated, the remit of these bodies ranged from 
planning to the regulation of maritime activities, or specialised activities in environmental 
management (e.g. water and sea). 

The  main  functions  of  these  competent  authorities  are  to  implement  the  Directive  and 
ensure effective cross-border cooperation between Member States and with neighbouring 
non-EU  countries.  In  the  context  of  cross-border  cooperation  activities,  a  number  of 
competent  authorities  organised  cross-border  and 
transnational  consultations  or 
participated  as  coordinating  entities  in  EU-funded  projects  to  foster  cross-border 
cooperation on MSP. Staff from these competent authorities represent Member States in 
the Member States expert group on maritime spatial planning.  

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION  

4.1.  Commission implementation support  

Since the adoption of the MSP Directive in 2014, the Commission took action and set up 
a number of initiatives to support MSP in the EU, notably a Member States expert group, 
technical assistance and cross-border projects. This has enabled Member States to make 
significant  progress  in  areas  such  as  cross-border  consultation  and  cooperation, 
information and data sharing for and on maritime spatial plans, or increased coherence at 
sea basin level. These areas will continue to be supported under the 2021-2027 European 
Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund. 

  Member States expert group on maritime spatial planning 

To  create  a  key  platform  for  exchanging  experience  and  building  the  EU’s  MSP 
community, the Commission set up a Member States’ expert group. It provides a regular 
forum  for  the  Member  States’  competent  authorities,  planners  and  observers  to  discuss 
progress in the Directive’s implementation and any challenges that may arise. The expert 
group has met about twice a year since 2012 and has played an important role in the transfer 
of knowledge and experience among Member States. The expert group is not intended as 
a  formal  forum  for  decision-making.  Nevertheless,  it  has  enabled  Member  States  and 
observers, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), industry associations and 
regional bodies, to be informed on the development of MSP in the EU and to exchange 
experience on policy and practical issues related to the Directive’s implementation.  

3 
planning.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/overview_of_msp_authorities_november_2020.pdf  

For a list of competent authorities see https://maritime-spatial-

4 

 
                                                 
  European MSP Platform 

In 2016, the Commission set up the European MSP Platform as an assistance mechanism 
for MSP. It helps Member States implement the Directive by making available a dedicated 
online platform and an expert team. It provides targeted advice, guidance and training to 
facilitate Member States' MSP work. It also provides administrative and technical support 
to  the  Commission  in  activities  such  as  organisation  of  Member  State  meetings, 
conferences or analysis and study work on MSP. 

  Project funding 

The  EU  has  been  supporting  MSP  projects  in  all  EU  sea  basins,  including  outermost 
regions, even before the Directive was adopted. The nature of these funded projects ranges 
from  research  and  innovation  (e.g.  Horizon  2020),  higher  education  (Erasmus+)  and 
regional cooperation (e.g. Interreg) to capacity development and cross-border cooperation 
(European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF)).  

By the end of 2021, the EMFF had funded 15 projects under direct management, for a total 
amount  of  around  EUR 25  million.  These  regional  and  cross-border  projects  were 
coordinated by the Member States’ planning authorities and have helped Member States 
cooperate on issues of common interest (e.g. environmental protection or renewable energy 
production)  when  developing  their  maritime  spatial  plans.  They  have  also  supported 
capacity  building  for  MSP  by  transferring  experiences  and  best  practice  from  other 
Member  States,  or  by  developing  tools  to  support  MSP  activities.  Lastly,  they  have 
facilitated  cross-border  exchanges  with  stakeholders  and  consultations.  These  projects 
have  also  strengthened  MSP’s  EU  dimension,  in  particular  in  the  context  of  sea  basin 
cooperation. 

4.2.  Establishing maritime spatial plans: overview of progress 

Article 15(3) of the MSP Directive requires that Member States establish maritime spatial 
plans as soon as possible, and at the latest by 31 March 2021. Article 14(1) of the Directive 
also  required  Member  States  to  inform  the  Commission  and  other  Member  States 
concerned within three months of the establishment of those plans.  

This  report  covers  the  period  from  the  adoption  of  the  MSP  Directive  in  2014  until 
15 February 2022.  

In general, four groups of Member States can be distinguished:  

First,  several  Member  States  could  build  on  an  MSP  tradition  that  either  predates  the 
Directive  or  started  very  soon  after  it  had  entered  into  force.  Hence,  Belgium,  the 
Netherlands  and  Germany4  were  easily  able  to  meet  the  deadline  of  31 March  2021. 
Germany and the Netherlands are currently already developing or implementing the second 
revision of their maritime spatial plans.  

Malta had established a comprehensive ‘Strategic Plan for Environment and Development’ 
in 2015 covering terrestrial planning and maritime issues, which it also considers to be its 

4 

In  Germany,  subnational  entities  also  adopted  subnational  maritime  spatial  plans  using  a  separate 
procedure (Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Schleswig-Holstein). 

5 

 
                                                 
maritime spatial plan. Lithuania has also had a comprehensive plan in place since 2015 
and revised it in 2021, strengthening its maritime aspects in line with the Directive. 

Second, a large group of Member States succeeded in either complying with the deadline 
fixed  by  the  Directive,  or  establishing  and  adopting  their  maritime  spatial  plans  within 
1 year after the deadline. These Member States now have comprehensive maritime spatial 
plans  in  place,  usually  for  the  first  time,  and  are  moving  on  to  the  challenge  of 
implementing  them  in  practice.  The  Directive  has  proven  to  be  vital  in  providing  the 
framework for Finland, Latvia, Poland, Denmark, France, Ireland, Slovenia and Sweden 
to set up their MSP processes. Portugal has also established its plans for most of its marine 
waters, with the exception of the Azores.  

Third, the Commission preliminarily concluded in late 2021 that five Member States did 
not make sufficient progress towards establishing and/or notifying maritime spatial plans 
as required by the Directive. Therefore, on 2 December 2021, the Commission sent letters 
of formal notice to Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Romania for failure to comply with 
Article 8(1), Article 15(3) and Article 14(1) of the MSP Directive. These Member States 
are at various stages of drafting their maritime spatial plans. The Commission urges them 
to  dedicate  the  necessary  resources  to  the  development,  finalisation  and  notification  of 
maritime spatial plans that comply with the Directive and that cover all of their marine 
waters.  By  15 February  2022,  most  of  these  Member  States  had  replied  to  the 
Commission’s  letters of  formal notice5. The Commission  will  continue to  work  closely 
with these Member States to help them remedy the infringement in the shortest possible 
time. 

Finally, some Member States were not able to comply with the Directive’s requirement to 
establish maritime spatial plans by 31 March 2021, but they are at an advanced stage in 
producing draft plans and proceeding to final adoption. Hence, the Commission expects 
Estonia,  Spain  and  Bulgaria  to  establish  their  final  plans  soon.  The  Commission  is 
monitoring  progress  closely  and  will  take  action  as  appropriate.  This  also  applies  to 
Portugal with respect to the Azores. 

4.3. 

Implementation  of  the  Directive’s  requirements  for  maritime  spatial 
plans 

4.3.1.  Ecosystem-based approach 

Article 5(1) of the MSP Directive states: ‘Member States shall consider economic, social 
and environmental aspects to support sustainable development and growth in the maritime 
sector, applying an ecosystem-based approach, and to promote the coexistence of relevant 
activities and uses’. The Directive also highlights the MSFD and its goal of ensuring a 
good environmental status of EU seas. Given the MSFD’s central role in improving the 
environmental status of marine ecosystems, Member States have opportunities to integrate 
the MSFD’s implementation with MSP Directive.  

5  The replies from the Member States are under assessment. Croatia also notified to the Commission its 
maritime and territorial plans, which are now also under assessment. Romania requested and was granted 
an extension of the deadline for reply. 

6 

 
 
                                                 
All Member States that had established a maritime spatial plan at the time of this report 
have referred to an ecosystem-based approach. However, the analysis of this approach and 
its impact on the maritime spatial plan varied across Member States. The reference to an 
ecosystem-based  approach  was  found  in  the  maritime  spatial  plan  itself  and/or  in  the 
strategic environmental assessment6 of the maritime spatial plan.  

Nevertheless,  some  Member  States’  plans  went  further  than  analysing  the  ecosystem’s 
characteristics  and  the  impacts  of  sectoral  developments.  They  looked  explicitly  at  the 
relation between an ecosystem-based approach and the resulting maritime spatial plan. A 
practical example from Finland is given in the box below. 

Example of good practice: Finnish plan uses scenario planning 

To support MSP, the Finnish authorities used scenarios for the future of the 
maritime area and assessed their impact. The scenarios consider the changes 
in the maritime area’s operating environment until 2050 and the needs and 
views of interest  groups  regarding the future development  of the Finnish 
maritime area. The scenarios also consider potential risks and opportunities.  
This work supports the MSP process using an ecosystem-based approach. 

A specific project on the ecosystem-based approach to MSP, supported by 
the EMFF, was carried out during the preparation of the Finnish plan. The 
results 
here: 
https://www.merialuesuunnittelu.fi/wp-
content/uploads/2020/10/Ecosystem-based-approach-in-Finnish-MSP.pdf.  

project 

found 

this 

can 

be 

of 

4.3.2.  Consideration of environmental, economic, social and safety aspects 

Article 6(2)(b)  of  the  MSP  Directive  requires  Member  States  to  take  into  account 
environmental, economic, social and safety aspects. 

All  Member  States  with  adopted  maritime  spatial  plans  have  taken  into  account 
environmental,  economic,  social  and  safety  aspects  in  their  plans.  In  most  cases,  these 
aspects have been analysed in detail. Some plans even contain a dedicated chapter, section 
or report on these aspects.  

To  analyse  these  aspects,  several  Member  States  chose  to  use  the  instruments  that  are 
already  available,  for  example  the  strategic  environmental  assessment  (SEA).  Other 
Member States carried out additional assessments of socio-economic and environmental 
impacts.  

One interesting and innovative example of taking into account of environmental aspect is 
demonstrated in the Belgian Maritime Spatial Plan, where in order to test options for future 
seawalls to contain rising sea levels, the construction of a testing island is considered and 

6  Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment 

of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
the environmental aspect plays a central role in the approval and evaluation of the testing 
site7.  

4.3.3.  Promote coherence 

Article 6(2) (c) of the MSP Directive requires Member States “to aim to promote coherence 
between maritime spatial planning and the resulting plan or plans and other processes, such 
as integrated coastal management or equivalent formal or informal practices”. 

All Member States that submitted their plans have sought to promote coherence between 
other rules, policies and plans relevant to MSP. In addition, the maritime spatial plans of 
several Member States give an extensive overview of relevant rules, policies and plans that 
were taken into account in preparing the maritime spatial plan. These include regulations, 
policies  and  plans  prepared  at  various  levels  by  the  EU,  regional  sea  conventions,  and 
national and local authorities.   

Some examples of administrative simplification and ensuring coherence include the choice 
of some Member States (Lithuania and Malta) to combine maritime and territorial plans in 
one single plan. This choice might nevertheless not be applicable to all Member States. 
Another  example  of  ensuring  coherence  is  Ireland,  where  each  chapter  of  the  maritime 
spatial plan shows an extensive list of references to other EU or Irish research and policies 
with which it is coherent with. Some Member States also align MSP with the cycles of 
other  highly  relevant  policies  to  facilitate  implementation  and  cross-fertilisation  (e.g. 
France aligns MSP and MSFD cycles). 

4.3.4.  Land-sea interactions 

Article 4(2), Article 6(2)(a) and Article 7 of the MSP Directive require Member States to 
take land-sea interactions into account in their plans. In this context, the process of (formal 
or informal) integrated coastal management can support the drafting of the plans. 

Most Member States with plans did mention land-sea interactions. Most Member States 
dedicated  a  chapter  or  report  to  land-sea  interactions,  providing  a  detailed  analysis  of 
interactions, not limited to coastal defence.  

Policy  coherence  with  MSFD,  WFD,  Nitrates  and  other  relevant  legislation  were  also 
considered by some Member States in the context of land-sea interaction.  

Example  of  good  practice:  Lithuania  takes  maritime,  land  and  air 
maps into account 

land  and  air 

One example of innovative practices by Member States in considering land-
sea interaction is demonstrated by Lithuania. Its plan takes account of maps 
interdependencies  with 
of  maritime, 
neighbouring countries that can influence MSP (and ongoing cross-border 
infrastructure projects). This practice shows a traditional way of working 
(dependency  analysis)  applied  in  an  innovative  manner  by  extending  the 
analysis  of  sea,  land  and  air  interdependencies  to  all  countries  that  can 
influence the use of the Member State’s maritime space. 

transportation 

7  Annex 2 to the Royal Decree establishing the marine spatial planning for the period 2020 to 2026 in the 

Belgian sea-areas. 

8 

 
                                                 
4.3.5.  Identification of the spatial and temporal distribution of activities and 

uses 

Article 8  of  the  Directive  introduces  the  fourth  dimension  –  time  –  by  requiring  that 
maritime spatial plans ‘identify the spatial and temporal distribution of relevant existing 
and future activities and uses in ... marine waters’. 

At the time of assessment, all Member States with maritime spatial plans had identified 
and zoned existing and future activities and users, including temporally. Most of the plans 
considered the interactions among these activities.  

As Member States identify the spatial and temporal distribution of relevant existing and 
future  activities  and  uses  in  their  marine  waters,  a  multi-sectoral  approach  should  be 
stimulated.  The  maritime  spatial  plans  generally  elaborate  more  on  the  interactions 
between activities, users, shared use and location. Improving these links and the coherence 
operationally and objective-wise between them remain an important task.  

The  maritime  spatial  plans  are  characterised  by  convergence:  most  of  them  are  highly 
comparable in that they take a prescriptive zoning approach. This means that EU maritime 
spatial plans tend to prescribe where activities are allowed and where they are not allowed.  

Example of good practice: Belgium – potential for multi-use enabling 
offshore renewable energy production  

The coordination of activities  in the maritime area is  a key aspect  of the 
maritime  spatial  plan.  In  Belgium,  the  competent  authorities  had  to  deal 
with a limited area with high pressure for shared use of spatial resources. 
Rising demand for offshore renewable energy is also a significant factor. In 
addition,  Belgium’s  2050  vision  for  the  North  Sea  includes  multi-use  of 
maritime space as one of its key pillars.    

Belgium  has  developed  an  in-depth  analysis  of  potential  multi-use  of  its 
maritime  space,  implementing  a  legally  binding  governance  framework. 
This  includes  the  identification  of  both  the  spatial  and  the  temporal 
distribution  of  activities  in  the  North  Sea  and  the  evaluation  of  the 
compatibility of multiple activities in the same area. This approach provides 
extensive  support  for  incorporating  offshore  renewable  energy  areas  in 
Belgium’s limited maritime space.  

4.3.6.  Stakeholder involvement and public participation 

Article 9 of the MSP Directive requires that Member States secure the participation by all 
relevant  stakeholders  and  authorities,  and  the  general  public,  in  MSP  initiatives  at  the 
earliest  possible stage. Member States must also  ensure public  access to the plans once 
they are finalised.   

Engaging  key  stakeholders  in  MSP  development  is  essential,  as  MSP  aims  to  achieve 
multiple  objectives  (social,  economic  and  ecological).  Therefore,  MSP  development 
should reflect as many expectations, opportunities or relevant disagreements as possible. 
Stakeholder consultation in MSP processes is especially important in accommodating the 

9 

 
 
 
various  interests  of  established  sectors  (like  fisheries  or  shipping)  and  addressing  the 
increasing  need  for  space  for  nature  protection  areas  and  new  developing  sectors  (like 
offshore renewable energy).  

At  the  time  of  assessment,  all  Member  States  with  maritime  spatial  plans  met  the 
requirements of Article 9 of the Directive. The scope and extent of stakeholder engagement 
varied  across  Member  States.  The  level  of  stakeholder  engagement  often  reflected  the 
political or legal requirements for participation that already existed in a particular Member 
State.  

The  implementation  of  Article 9  was  well  documented.  The  process  for  public 
participation is clearly described, stakeholders using various methods were included in the 
entire process and their feedback was to a varied extent integrated in the maritime spatial 
plans.  

Example of good Practice: Ireland – local public consultation 

Ireland held a three-month public consultation on its MSP baseline report. 
This was part of the broader consultation process which resulted in Ireland’s 
first  MSP.  The  MSP  team  hosted  public  engagement  events  in  almost  all 
coastal  counties  across  Ireland.  These  events  were  aimed  at  raising 
awareness of:   

 

the concept of MSP; 

 

the Irish government’s plans to develop a marine plan for Ireland; 

  how people could engage with the plan-making process; 

 

the timeframe for the various phases of this process. 

During the consultation period, five regional public engagement events were 
held across coastal communities. In total, over 170 responses on the baseline 
report were received, and these had a significant impact on the content of the 
draft  MSP.  This  consultation  process  was  also  expanded  and  repeated  for 
Ireland’s draft plan.  

This practice focuses on a participatory and transparent process, enabling the 
public to engage in the MSP process and to provide their views on the report 
and the MSP draft.  

4.3.7.  Use of best available data and data sharing 

Article 10 of the MSP Directive requires Member States to organise the use of the best 
available data, and decide how to organise information sharing necessary for development 
of  maritime  spatial  plans.  Member  States  must  also  use  relevant  instruments  and  tools, 

10 

 
 
including those already available under the integrated maritime policy and other relevant 
EU policies, such as those mentioned in the INSPIRE Directive (Directive 2007/2/EC) 8.  

In  implementing  these  provisions  of  the  MSP  Directive,  most  Member  States  were 
transparent and explicit on the data sources used, providing varying degrees of detail on 
these data sources. The INSPIRE Directive was used by most Member States.  

Some Member States decided to centralise the task of combining existing data sources by 
creating central data points – for example the Netherlands (Marine Information Centre), 
France (SIMM) and Slovenia (TOOLS4MSP) – and other data sharing systems or tools.  

Another good example of the use of best available data is the use of the public participation 
geographic information system (PPGIS). Under PPGIS, methods have been developed to 
collect  place-  and  time-dependent  information  from  stakeholders  to  compile  local, 
experience-based data. This  data can be used to identify  connections  between activities 
and areas and to verify and supplement expert information. Such an approach was used in 
the survey undertaken by Finland in the context of the Pan Baltic Scope project, to identify 
sites that are significant in terms of nature and cultural values in the Åland Islands and the 
Satakunta region. 

Example of good practice: interoperable data model makes it possible 
to show national maritime spatial plans in EMODnet Human Activities 
portal 

Preparing  maritime  spatial  plans  requires  data  that  is  diverse  in  terms  of 
domain, geographical area, spatial and temporal scale, quality, availability 
and  re-use  potential.  The  MSP  Directive  has  no  explicit  or  prescriptive 
requirements  for  harmonisation,  reporting  or  data  sharing.  Nevertheless, 
various regional geospatial data models were developed over time to enable 
cross-border  availability  (and  visualisation)  of  data.  This  important  work 
was taken forward by data experts in national administrations or agencies, 
often in the context of EU-funded cross-border cooperation projects.  

In 2021, a technical expert group supported by the Commission developed 
a  common  data  model  for  the  “Harmonisation  of  nomenclature  and 
standardization of Output Data”. It offers the MSP EMODnet model as a 
ready-to-use  solution  together  with  BASEMAPS  and  the  MSP  INSPIRE 
data models9. This enables these three data models to be integrated in the 
Human Activities data portal of the European Marine Observation and Data 
Network (EMODnet)10. 

So far, four Member States (Belgium, Denmark, Finland and Latvia) have 
uploaded their maritime spatial plans to the geoportal, where the integrated 
data product is generalised (i.e. to display MSP plans at EU level).  

8  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 (INSPIRE) (OJ L 108, 25.4.2007, p. 1). 

9  Proposal  for  making  harmonized  MSP  plan  data  available  across  Europe,  September  2021, 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f4d14782-19ba-11ec-b4fe-01aa75ed71a1.  

10  https://www.emodnet-humanactivities.eu/  

11 

 
                                                 
4.3.8.  Cooperation among Member States and at sea basin level 

Article 6(2)(f)  and  Article 11  of  the  MSP  Directive  require  Member  States  bordering 
marine waters to cooperate in a planning and management process to ensure that maritime 
spatial plans are coherent and coordinated. The Directive explicitly mentions cooperation 
in existing regional institutional cooperation structures, networks or structures of Member 
States’ competent authorities, or any other appropriate method.   

Cross-border and transnational cooperation is essential in identifying potential issues at an 
early  stage,  and  in  identifying  opportunities  for  cooperation  and  long-term  sustainable 
management  of  the  maritime  space.  In  this  context,  all  Member  States  with  adopted 
maritime spatial plans and those that are in the process of adoption coordinated their plans 
with other Member States, and involved regional governance bodies. Most plans take into 
account  –  to  a  varying  degree  –  transboundary  impacts  and  developments.  Some  plans 
describe the relevant processes in more detail.  

Cooperation among Member States (and with non-EU countries) in the same sea basin is 
fostered by:   

  EU-funded  projects  e.g.    NorthSEE,  SEANSE,  Baltic  Lines,  PanBalticScope  , 
SIMNORAT, 
SIMWESTMED,  MUSES,  MARSPLAN, 

MSP-MED, 
SIMATLANTIC, MARSP, MSP-OR, eMSP, and others11;  

  bilateral  or  multilateral  contacts  and  informal  meetings  among  Member  States’ 

competent authorities; nationally-funded projects, e.g. Ritmare;  

 

regional sea conventions: HELCOM-VASAB (MSP working group) for the Baltic 
Sea basin, the Barcelona Convention for the Mediterranean Sea, OSPAR for the 
north-eastern Atlantic region;  

  participation  in  the  MSP  Experts  Group  ,  the  MSP  Global  Initiative12,  the  MSP 

platform and the EU Maritime Forum;  

 

formal consultations in the context of the implementation of the SEA Directive13. 

Cross-border consultation is required for the establishment of maritime spatial plans that 
identify appropriate locations for specific activities or projects. However, consultation in 
the context of the MSP Directive cannot replace cross-border consultation on the impacts 
of specific projects. At the same time, cross-border cooperation on MSP offers an early 
opportunity to identify necessary changes, e.g. areas or zones where maritime traffic14 is 
dense and may need to be rerouted.  

11     https://maritime-spatial-planning.ec.europa.eu/msp-practice/msp-projects 

12 

Joint initiative by the European Commission and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of 
UNESCO, https://www.mspglobal2030.org/. 

13    Directive  2001/42/EC  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  on  the 

environment (SEA Directive) (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30). 

14  E.g. the European Maritime Safety Agency provides maritime traffic density maps via EMODnet, which 

can support MSP. 

12 

 
 
                                                 
Example of good Practice: HELCOM-VASAB – an intergovernmental 
MSP working group    

for 

long-term 

Cross-border  cooperation 
sustainable 
is  essential 
management of the maritime space. In this context, the Member States and 
non-EU  countries  of  the  Baltic  Sea  basin  are  represented  in  the  Baltic 
Marine  Environment  Protection  Commission  (HELCOM),  a  platform  for 
environmental  policy  set  up  in  1974.  The  members  of  HELCOM  are 
Denmark, Estonia, the EU, Finland, Germany,  Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Russia, Sweden and observer organisations (including Belarus, Ukraine and 
NGOs).  

To  support  the  development  of  maritime  spatial  plans,  the  HELCOM-
VASAB  working  group  has  been  set  up.  This  joint  MSP  working  group 
developed recommendations and principles that its members can use when 
they  are  drafting  maritime  spatial  plans.  In  doing  this,  HELCOM 
specifically  focused  on  supporting  an  ecosystem-based  approach.  This  is 
also supported by EU-funded projects, such as the Capacity4MSP platform. 
More recently, in October 2021, HELCOM adopted a regional Baltic MSP 
Roadmap 2021-2030. 

Overall, this practice supports both cooperation among Member States and 
cooperation with non-EU countries. It also supports the consistency of the 
various maritime spatial plans of the Baltic Sea basin and the adoption of 
an ecosystem-based approach. 

4.3.9.  Cooperation with non-EU countries 

Articles 6(2)(g) and 12  of the Directive invite  Member States to  promote cooperation 
with  third  countries  on  their  actions  with  regard  to  maritime  spatial  planning  in  the 
relevant marine regions.   

Most  of  the  Member  States  with  non-EU  neighbours  in  relevant  marine  regions 
endeavour  to  cooperate  with  them.  These  endeavours,  including  details  of  specific 
interactions have been included in some maritime spatial plans.  

Cooperation  with  non-EU  countries  mostly  concerned  informal  bilateral  cooperation, 
cooperation in the context of regional sea conventions, EU Macro-Regional Strategies 
(EUSBSR  and  EUSAIR)  and  cooperation  via  EU-funded  projects.  Other  channels  of 
cooperation were also used, to a lesser extent, such as cooperation in the context of the 
SEA Directive, the Espoo Convention and the European MSP Platform. 

Examples of cooperation with non-EU countries  

  Spain developed a cross-border portal with Morocco and Algeria to 
increase  transparency  and  improve  governance  on  MSP  in  the 
Alboran Sea region.   

13 

 
 
  The  PORTODIMARE15  Interreg  project  supported  multilevel  and 
cross-border  cooperation,  addressing  the  common  challenges  of 
integrated  coastal  zone  management  (ICZM)  and  MSP  in  the 
Adriatic-Ionian region. The main output is the Geo data portal of the 
Adriatic  Ionian  Region,  an  open-source  interoperable  platform 
developed on the basis of transnational cooperation between Italy, 
Slovenia,  Croatia,  Greece,  Montenegro,  and  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina. 

  The  WestMED  initiative  gathers  10 countries  in  the  western 
Mediterranean  region  involved  in  the  5+5  Dialogue:  five  EU 
Member States (France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Malta), and five 
southern  partner  countries  (Algeria,  Libya,  Mauritania,  Morocco 
and  Tunisia).  MSP  and  ICZM  are  among  the  areas  of  common 
interest. The western Mediterranean pilot project carried out under 
the MSPglobal project16 made it possible to  increase cooperation, 
draft regional recommendations in line with the WestMED initiative 
and strengthen institutional capacities on MSP in Algeria, France, 
Italy, Malta, Morocco, Spain and Tunisia. Other member countries 
of  the  Union  for  the  Mediterranean  in  the  western  Mediterranean 
could also participate in training activities. 

4.4. 

Implementation challenges 

When  drawing  up  their  maritime  spatial  plans,  Member  States  faced  a  number  of 
challenges.  For most  of  them, it was  the first  time they  engaged in  such far-reaching, 
multi-sector  and  multi-objective  strategic  planning  of  their  maritime  space.  This  is  a 
complex and adaptive process requiring broad and intense cooperation and coordination 
among  national  ministries,  agencies,  coastal  regions,  with  stakeholders  and  with 
neighbouring countries.  

Other challenges that could be observed in terms of process included data collection and 
compilation (e.g. lack of comprehensive data on marine areas, cross-sectoral dimension 
of data or difficulty to collect data from national authorities), and, in particular, coherence 
of plans across neighbouring countries (i.e. the transboundary challenge of the plans). In 
several Member States the cross-cutting character of MSP and a lack of clear targets for 
various maritime sectors made it difficult to prioritise measures and sectors (e.g. national 
security versus other economic activities). 

Transboundary challenges were more significant in cases where there was no established 
sea  basin  cooperation  on  maritime  space,  or  where  the  maritime  zones  had  not  been 
clearly  established  or  delimited  between  neighbouring  Member  States  or  non-EU 
countries.  

The  COVID-19  pandemic  and  related  health  measures  coincided  with  the  final 
implementation  phase  of  many  national  maritime  spatial  plans.  This  not  only  slowed 

15  https://portodimare.adrioninterreg.eu/  

16  Co-funded by the EMFF under direct management, https://www.mspglobal2030.org/msp-global/pilot-

project-west-mediterranean/.  

14 

 
      
                                                 
down the work of national administrations and cooperation between Member States, but 
also affected stakeholder participation and consultation.  

In  terms  of  content,  the  most  significant  challenges  were  implementing  the 
ecosystem-based approach, prioritising maritime space uses and providing space at sea 
to enable various economic activities and achieve various policy objectives, while at the 
same time protecting the environment or leaving space for future uses. 

5.  CONCLUSIONS 

5.1.  MSP as an enabler of the European Green Deal 

As a result of the MSP framework set up by the MSP Directive, for the first time, all 
coastal EU Member States simultaneously drew up national maritime spatial plans and 
ensured cross-border cooperation. 

The implementation of maritime spatial planning in the EU will not end after the adoption 
of the first wave of plans. On the contrary, the coming years will see a step change in the 
role  of  MSP  for  the  sustainable  development  of  seas,  likely  accelerated  by  the 
implementation of the European Green Deal and related legislation and strategies.  

Thanks to its adaptive and strategic dimension, MSP as conceived by the Directive can 
act as a powerful enabler for the European Green Deal. The crucial role of MSP in this 
regard was also highlighted in the Commission’s Communication on a new approach for 
a sustainable blue economy in the EU17.  

The EU strategy on offshore renewable energy18 explicitly identified MSP as an essential 
and well-established tool for facilitating the development of offshore renewable energy 
in the EU in a sustainable way. Several Member States have anticipated these changes in 
their plans by defining areas for future deployment of offshore wind parks, identifying 
potential for multi-use of the maritime space to support various objectives, such as low-
carbon food production via aquaculture and fisheries.  

North Sea and Baltic Sea countries are the most experienced in MSP and in cooperating 
at sea basin level. Coastal Member States set up the North Seas Energy Cooperation to 
enable  political  and  technical  cooperation,  including  on  MSP.  In  the  Atlantic  and  the 
Mediterranean  Sea,  several  national  plans  include  zoning  for  possible  deployment  of 
offshore renewables, paving the way for scaling up of renewables. 

Cross-border and regional cooperation will play a central role in supporting the alignment 
of maritime spatial  plans with  national  energy and  climate  plans, which are due to  be 
revised in 2023, with increased targets expected for offshore renewable energy. 

17  Commission Communication A new approach for a sustainable blue economy in the EU – Transforming 

the EU's Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future (COM(2021) 240 final of 17.5.2021). 

18  Commission Communication An EU Strategy to harness the potential of offshore renewable energy for 

a climate neutral future (COM(2020) 741 final of 19.11.2020). 

15 

 
                                                 
MSP will also need to reflect potentially increased use of maritime transport, in particular 
short  sea  shipping,  as  envisaged  by  the  Commission’s  sustainable  and  smart  mobility 
strategy19.  

MSP is a key tool to achieve the MSFD’s good environmental status objectives for EU 
waters and to help preserve biodiversity20.To support Member States in this endeavour, 
in  2021,  the  Commission  issued  guidelines  for  implementing  an  ecosystem-based 
approach in MSP21, which pay a lot of attention to the integration of MSFD objectives in 
MSP. Discussions on the definition of ecosystem-based approaches are still ongoing as 
part  of  international  fora  on  MSP,  but  it  is  clear  that  the  link  between  concerned 
legislative  acts  is  crucial  at  EU  level.  European  Maritime,  Fisheries  and  Aquaculture 
Fund (EMFAF) shared management programmes also offer the opportunity for Member 
States to use their allocation to support the implementation of the MSP Directive, notably 
integrating MSFD objectives in MSP.  

Strategic planning, including spatial planning, is essential to scale up marine protected 
areas  from  the  current  12%  area  coverage  to  30%  by  2030,  with  at  least  one  third  of 
protected areas under strict protection as envisaged in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 
203022.  All  maritime  spatial  plans  submitted  to  the  Commission  underwent  an 
environmental  assessment,  which  consider  the  envisaged  measures’  effect  on 
environmental protection and how they prevent, reduce and offset any significant adverse 
effects on the environment of implementing the plans. However, the integration of the 
biodiversity strategy objectives might only become fully apparent during the review of 
the national plans, as the necessary guidance and framework were delivered when  the 
environmental assessment of most plans had already been completed. 

The  Commission  will  aim  to  strengthen  further  synergies  between  fisheries  and 
environmental policies with the action plan to conserve fisheries resources and protect 
marine ecosystems, to be adopted later this year. The Commission will also report on the 
functioning of the common fisheries policy by the end of 2022. 

5.2.  The way forward 

Both  Member  States’  work  to  transpose  and  implement  the  MSP  Directive  and 
Commission support for cross-border projects and policy dialogue have helped develop 
a  large  and  diverse  MSP  community  across  the  EU.  This  is  a  strong  asset  for  future 
development.  Cooperation,  in  particular  at  sea  basin  level,  is  set  to  intensify  with  the 
transformation  of  the  EU  blue  economy.  The  Commission  will  expand  the  necessary 
dialogue between the various users of the sea by setting up a Blue Forum for sea users in 
2022 and providing continuous support for MSP. 

Coastal  EU  Member  States  have  made  progress  in  transposing  and  implementing  the 
MSP Directive. The adoption of the Directive and its implementation has made the EU 

19  Commission Communication Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on 

track for the future (COM(2020) 789 final of 9.12.2020). 

20 

In 2021, the Commission launched the review of the MSFD, in which consistency with other policies is 
a central aspect 

21  Guidelines 

for 

implementing  an  ecosystem-based  approach 

in  maritime  spatial  planning, 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a8ee2988-4693-11ec-89db-01aa75ed71a1. 

22   COM(2020) 380 final. 

16 

 
                                                 
 
the grouping of countries that is most advanced in developing MSP, and an international 
point of reference in this field.  

However,  some  Member  States  are  lagging  behind.  The  Commission  has  initiated 
infringement  procedures  against  five  Member  States  for  failure  to  establish  maritime 
spatial plans and/or to communicate them to the Commission. The Commission is also 
closely monitoring the progress of Member States that are in the process of drafting plans, 
but which are not formally adopted.  

Furthermore,  Member  States  will  need  to  continue  to  reflect  the  ambitions  of  the 
European Green Deal in their maritime spatial plans, and to align their plans with these 
ambitions.  This  also  applies  to  related  initiatives  in  areas  such  as  climate  change 
mitigation  and/or  adaptation,  biodiversity,  pollution,  food,  mobility,  energy  transition, 
alongside established activities and interests, such as aquaculture, fisheries, shipping and 
defence.  

MSP  will  continue  to  help  coexistence  at  sea  in  the  context  of  new  objectives  and 
developing  new  practices.  It  will  have  an  increasing  role  in  anticipating  changes  and 
possible conflicts at an early stage, and in ensuring synergies. The ‘Restore our Oceans 
and  Waters’23  mission  under  Horizon  Europe  and  the  related  ‘lighthouses’  with  a 
sea-basin dimension will help deliver on these challenges. 

Future maritime spatial plans will have to cater for cumulative impacts of anthropogenic 
pressures  by  applying  an  ecosystem-based  approach,  and  complying  with  all  relevant 
environmental legislation24.  

Member  States  can  programme  MSP  action  using  EMFAF  funds  under  shared 
management  to  support  the  future  development  of  their  maritime  spatial  plans. 
Additionally, Member states can also request the support through the Technical Support 
Instrument  which  provides  technical  support  to  design  and  implement  reforms  in  EU 
Member States.  

The  Commission  will  continue  its  support  of  making  MSP  digital  and  pan-European, 
including via the EMFAF in direct management. The European MSP Platform will work 
with Member States and with EMODnet to further harmonise data and to disseminate the 
contents  of  the  plans  via  a  common  or  shared  digital  platform.  The  Commission 
recommends that Member States build on one of the three ready-to-use data models25, 
depending on which one fits their MSP plan and/or is already implemented by national 
authorities in a regional cooperation or joint project. Although these data models do not 

23  https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes-
and-open-calls/horizon-europe/eu-missions-horizon-europe/healthy-oceans-seas-coastal-and-inland-
waters_en 

24  Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework  for  Community  action  in  the  field  of  marine  environmental  policy  (Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive) (OJ L 164, 25.6.2008, p. 19).; Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 20, 26.1.2010, p. 7); 
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna 
and  flora  (OJ  L  206,  22.7.1992,  p.  7);  Directive  2001/42/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  of  27  June  2001  on  the  assessment  of  the  effects  of  certain  plans  and  programmes  on  the 
environment (OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30) and other relevant legislation.  

25  See box in Section 4.3.7. 

17 

 
                                                 
provide the level of detail given by Member States in their maritime spatial plans, using 
them will enable analysis of maritime spatial plans at sea basin and EU level. 

The Commission also encourages Member States to continue their extensive stakeholder 
involvement, and to implement and monitor their maritime spatial plans effectively. It 
will continue to support these processes and will inform the European Parliament and the 
Council about this in its next progress report, due in 2026. 

18