Search

The implementation of maritime/marine spatial planning (MSP) strategies and management actions is often sought out by means of holistic, sustainability seeking processes, recognizing the connectivity and interdependences of all ecosystem elements, including humans. In this context, overall sustainability is reached when social, environmental and economic sustainability are equally considered. However, the integration of social aspects and views, alongside other, non-political, elements of the social dimension, has been found to lack well-rounded consideration in processes supporting decision-making. One identified problem is the absence of an existing framework that defines social variables and dimension components in ocean management approaches. This paper assesses the social context important to build such a definition within MSP. Based on existing literature and social sciences research it provides an outline for the concept of a social dimension in MSP and suggests definitions to further discussion and aid in the development of socially integrative guidelines. Recommendations are provided to support necessary future research and enhance social justice and inclusion within existing planning processes. This is important to avoid and mitigate negative implications at social levels and to motivate the development of a new approach to ocean sustainability and integration of all planning dimensions.

The publication of reports on geo-political risks in the world sponsored by intelligence agencies, university institutes and think tanks are valuable instruments in societies that are being increasingly exposed to the effects of globalisation. Although all express mention of geo-political risks of a maritime nature is absent from these documents, it is an interesting exercise to determine: i) Which geo-political risks or threats have a maritime dimension or imply derivations whose occurrence may be linked to maritime space? ii) Which processes or tendencies in the use, occupation and governance of maritime space can fall into the category of geo-political risk? The basic aim is to address the forms that instability and geo-political risks take in the ocean world. If the risks stated in the chosen literature are examined from the maritime perspective, it is possible to perceive ‘secondary’ risks whose size and reach can become major contingencies for international stability. They therefore should not be ignored in the prognosis and evaluation of geo-political risks. In as much as societies' political organisation continues to rest on the nation-State, the dominance of the maritime component in the territorial basis is a permanent source of tensions and conflicts. In parallel with this, the displacement of economic expectations and the supply of traditional and new resources to the marine environment broadens the spectrum of risks and threats.

Although stakeholder participation is transversal to other steps of the Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) process, its recognition and adoption is context dependent. Considering that MSP plans need to be periodically evaluated, not only in relation to their outputs and outcomes, but also through an analysis of the processes used to achieve the results, criteria to evaluate participation throughout the whole process are needed. However, a robust and comprehensive assessment framework focused specifically on participation is not available up to date. Therefore, this study proposed an assessment for such operational analysis in order to support assessment of consequences related to the participatory strategy chosen (e.g., increased social acceptance). A Stakeholder Participation Assessment Framework (SPAF) was developed and divided in two phases: Phase I based on key theoretical aspects ‘why, who, when and how to engage stakeholders’, as well as on criteria for costs (these five criteria were divided in 15 sub-criteria, and instructions based on social science knowledge to analyse each one were given); and Phase II in which a list of questions about participatory consequences can be addressed based on specific criteria of the first phase and stakeholders' feedback. SPAF can be used not only to evaluate MSP planning cycles but also to plan meaningful participatory processes; therefore, contributing to strengthen MSP processes and to promote more horizontal and integrated ocean governance approaches.

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has experienced vigorous growth on the international scale in recent years, and several practices has emerged from different countries. The demand for specific training in the preparation and implementation of marine planning has therefore already shown itself to be quite relevant on a global scale. Educational initiatives related to MSP have to respond to the increased complexity of MSP, which integrates environmental and economic perspectives on marine resources and maritime sectors, considering governance framework as well as maritime affairs and legislation. This paper aims at addressing the educational and training needs for the development of both academic education and professional training in MSP. Learning skills, contents and methods of an ‘ideal’ MSP course are depicted from widely accepted operative guides on MSP and from the EU Framework Directive on MSP (2014/89/EU). They are considered for the analysis of the current educational offer around MSP, performed in a sample of countries that have already undergone a process of implementation of MSP by Law. As result, beside the great variety of courses, it emerges that MSP education seems to be often regarded from an environmental perspective – in continuity with Integrated Coastal Management education – while planning theory and experiences in MSP are the least represented contents. Results are discussed in relation to three major challenges: i) how educational offer reflects on transdisciplinarity, ii) the role of theory in MSP courses, and iii) the enforceability of Plans as major concern in MSP.

The European Union׳s Integrated Maritime Policy (EU IMP) is being developed in the framework of a process that is reshaping maritime geographical scenarios and world geopolitics. This process is characterised by a change in States׳ territoriality resulting from their jurisdictional expansion. Over 60% of coastal States in the world possess territory with a more extensive maritime component than the terrestrial component which helps to reaffirm the fragmentation of maritime space and stresses the national vision of the oceans. Unlike the process of ocean space fragmentation that results from its nationalisation the EU Integrated Maritime Policy has a global and cooperative vision, which is particularly evident in the Atlantic Strategy. In this context, this article aims to: (i) provide a first estimate of the size and extent of the territorial changes resulting from jurisdictional claims available to date and their mapping; (ii) consider the case of the European Union as one of special significance with its express policy of maritime spatial projection. The conclusions point to a redefinition of the large territorial pieces of the global geopolitics puzzle and the emergence of a new Atlanticism associated with the EU׳s maritime policy.

The delimitation of the outer edge of the continental margin beyond 200 nautical miles is paving the way for areas where States exercise rights of sovereignty to be extended when their geographical locations with respect to the continental margin allows it. Sixty-one submissions and forty-five preliminary reports, involving a total of ninety-one States (submitted to 31.07.2001), enable some of the geopolitical consequences to be outlined. Amongst those that can be highlighted are sometimes substantial changes in States' territorial bases and economic potential, and the global balance between national and international jurisdictions. This article uses regional and global scale maps based on national reports deposited with the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to present the main geographical and geopolitical findings. The geographical analysis similarly enables a quantitative estimation to be made of the effects of jurisdictional expansion on the “global commons”, of insularity and of the territorial gains made by the States concerned.

There is broad agreement that marine spatial planning (MSP) should incorporate transboundary considerations, reflecting the cross-border nature of marine and coastal ecosystem dynamics and maritime resources and activities. This is recognised in the European Union's recent legislation on MSP, and experience in transboundary approaches is developing through official processes and pilot studies. However, differences between institutional systems, priorities and practices may not easily be overcome in transboundary initiatives. This requires a stronger focus on understanding the governance frameworks within which MSP operates and fostering interlinkages between them. This article discusses a European funded project in which emphasis was placed on joint-working in every aspect, based on principles of equity and mutual trust. This led to the development of inter-relations, not just of the geographies and maritime resources and activities of the marine areas concerned, but also of the systems of data management, governance and policy-making and of the participants involved as officials or stakeholders, including their means and cultures of exchange. It is suggested that transboundary initiatives in MSP would benefit by complementing current resource management-focused understandings with governance and policy-related perspectives, drawing on experience in other fields of territorial cooperation. Crown Copyright (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The coming into effect of the Directive 2008/56/EC (Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)) will induce European Union member States to create mechanisms for managing maritime space in order to comply with the goals set out in this binding legislation. This leads one to think that marine spatial planning in various countries in the EU will be directed at complying with the Directive's environmental goals, as is the case in Spain, rather than undertaking proactive planning for developing the maritime sectors. To put the case of Spain into perspective, a review is conducted of the initiatives taken, especially in Europe and the European Union, exploring the correlations between the main focuses of the maritime sectors and the planning systems. The analysis of the Spanish initiative demonstrates how the maritime economy model and geopolitical factors explain the planning options for the marine environment. In other respects, with the coming into effect of the MSFD, a dual institutional course for marine spatial planning seems to be opening up in the EU: Integrated Maritime Policy vs. the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Owing to their style and economic impact, Brazil, Russia, India and China (the BRIC countries) are destined to become relevant actors in the new ocean governance. The following working hypothesis is sustained: the BRIC countries, due to the potential of their maritime territories, can be considered to be emerging maritime powers capable of displacing some of the historical maritime powers. This would also entail a shift of strategic maritime space towards the southern hemisphere. Other emerging maritime scenarios associated with the BRIC countries include the Russian Arctic, and the Indo-Pacific ocean belt, or “string of pearls”, as it is known. Factors such as competitiveness, maritime leadership and ocean governance are thus placed in a new economic and political context where they might be redefined and adapted to the circumstances of the BRIC block and other emerging countries, the majority of which are subject to demographic pressure and a high degree of poverty. The most relevant conclusions point to the emergence of a new type of neo-navalism, on the one hand—a BRIC version of traditional sea power and, on the other, a possible threat to the EU's Integrated Maritime Policy under pressure from strong competitiveness in a highly internationalised environment, forcing changes in its original approach with its distinct social profiles and commitment to latest generation rights.

This article sets out to explore the extent to which the maritime policies that have been formulated in recent years are public policies on a par with other State-level policies, or whether the geographical domain where they are applied makes them exceptional. Maritime policy and territorial structure are very closely related, and it can be seen that maritime policies are beginning to shift towards the domain of State internal affairs, necessitating the rethinking of the way powers are distributed between territorial bodies that have the legal power to be involved in the formulation of these policies and some instruments, such as marine spatial planning.

During the process by which the number of actors was increased manifold as a result of the development of civil society, the fisher community has lost prominence and importance, fading into the wide spectrum of interests with which it is competing to make its voice heard in decision-making bodies and in the media. This results in what could be termed the participation paradox—the greater the number of actors, the smaller the role each plays, and the lesser the importance of traditional sectors. Participation and devolution do not bear a linear relationship; greater devolution does not necessarily result in greater participation, a claim that has contributed to the processes of devolution being overvalued. Governance, as interaction between State, civil society and the market, paradoxically might not strengthen the most traditional of the interest groups.

The 2004 enlargement of the European Union (EU), as well as the further enlargements planned from 2007 onwards (Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Turkey), entail changes of a geo-political nature that not only imply an increase in size (a rise in the number of States, new boundaries), but, more especially, also involve a shift in the EU's maritime status, with its projection towards the Atlantic now being checked by a swing towards continental Europe and its inland seas. In view of the new political map being drawn up, two questions beg to be asked: to what extent is Europe's maritime condition being strengthened; and, does the new maritime Europe constitute an opportunity, or does it aggravate the already-existing problems and threats?

Cooperation is the core mechanism in UNCLOS for the management of enclosed and semi-enclosed seas. There is a sizeable history of cooperation between the coastal States in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea based on politics and socio-economics, but conditions have changed greatly over the last 20 years. The processes of regional integration, centred, fundamentally, on the northern shore, and expressions of nationalism, including maritime nationalism, are shaping a new stage on which to strive for the cooperative system which is essential for the governance of a sea where sharp imbalances and demographic pressure that, in the short term, point to a significant worsening of environmental conditions, coexist.

Modern Spanish marine policy originates from the last part of the 19th Century. “Navalist Ideology” was the theoretical platform which led to the structuring of the modern maritime sector in a way that has remained in force to the present day. Any future Spanish marine policy should be firmly placed on strong, new foundations, and create a new vision of the oceans focussed on new fields of interest, including marine science and technology, as well as the environment, as a means of diverting the aim of public policy from the traditional maritime sector.

The paper describes an alternative management system for Spain's highly diverse fishing industry, involving a high degree of territorial decentralisation and the devolution of management responsibilities to professional organisations. Although such a system would fit well with the prevailing structures of a regionalised state with the Autonomous Communities assuming administrative responsibility for a wide range of regulatory functions, a number of problems are identified, including the possible loss of cohesion for Spain's fishing industry on the international scene and potential resistances to change from within the administrative system and the existing professional organisations alike.

This paper examines regional government competences in relation to their maritime space and management resources. The inherently oceanic character of insular regions has had an influence on self-governing which is now clearly oriented towards the sea environment on which they depend for development. At the same time, their insularity sets limitations on them and places them in an unadvantageous position in relation to other non-insular regions. The tendency to deepen their political autonomy, emphasizing the maritime dimension of their territory, results in greater claims for competences to manage the ocean, as well as in the emergence of tensions between central government and regional government.

This paper revolves around the role that food-from-the-sea plays in European maritime security. It aims to illustrate the links between food, fisheries, and maritime security by considering these as coexisting attributes of security in general and of maritime (in)security, in particular. The article analyzes three dimensions of this issue: the links between food security, maritime security and maritime policy; the principles that inspire the Common Fisheries Policy and their implications for the food system; and the complexity involved in the trade relations between European markets (EU) and non European suppliers (the case of Cape Verde). The relevant conclusions that can be established are i) the EU's food security policy shows little sign of changing the course of its fisheries policy objectives; ii) The different dimensions of the relationship between fisheries and food security should not be neglected. In fact, from a local perspective, the concept of food sovereignty could be applied to some of the European Union's coastal territories. Therefore, European decision-makers should not ignore the fact that subsistence fisheries are still a strategy in some European coastal areas, where access to maritime resources is the key to their economies.