Ecosystem-based Maritime Spatial Planning Assessment Tool

This tool is intended to assess if a spatial plan is aligned with ecosystem-based management criteria.

For implemented spatial plans, standardized evaluation provides insights into weaknesses of the plan for which specific actions should be adopted during the review and adaptation.

For the pre-planning and plan preparation phases of MSP, it provides guidance that ensures that the plan fulfills ecosystem-based management criteria.

It could serve as good practice guidance for planning processes in the early stages. It could also be used to define the plan development strategy and make the process more cost-effective.

EB-MSP Assessment Checklist

The EB-MSP assessment checklist can be responded to in different ways or with different perspectives depending on the scope of the assessment:

• If the aim is to assess if a certain national MSP is fulfilling EBA, then it should be filled according to the legislative documents (as well as considering the whole MSP process before reaching the final document, e.g., assessing phase).

• In case a planning site represents an area in which an MSP is not in place, the user can assess the work already done towards EB-MSP development. This includes assessment of cumulative impact, the implementation of Systematic Conservation Planning approaches, or any previous research (e.g., research projects) that is producing or has produced information and knowledge useful for informing the future development of a spatial plan.

• In case a planning site covers a transboundary region, the user can assess the individual national MSPs to evaluate commonalities or differences in terms of EB-MSP criteria.

How to fill it

The assessment tool can be filled out by one or many people with expertise and experience in different topics or MSP implementation stages. It can be filled more than once, especially if significant changes have occurred in the planning process, to monitor its evolution. Specific adopted plans can be assessed, as well as plans in progress or at the regional level.

Definitions of commonly used terms in ecosystem-based management

Ecosystem-based approach (to management) (EBM):

An 'ecosystem-based approach' or 'ecosystembased management' is an integrated approach to the management of human activities that considers the entire ecosystem including humans (CSWD, 2020).

Marine or Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP):

Maritime spatial planning’ means a process by which the relevant Member State’s authorities analyse and organise human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives (Directive 2014/89/EU).

Ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (EB-MSP):

The comprehensive integrated management of human activities based on the best available scientific knowledge about the ecosystem and its dynamics, in order to identify and take action on influences which are critical to the health of marine ecosystems, thereby achieving sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services and maintenance of ecosystem integrity (HELCOM and OSPAR, 2003).

Marine Protected Area (MPA):

Geographically distinct zones for which protection objectives are set (EEA, 2018).

Ecologically and Biologically Significant Areas (EBSA):

Special areas in the ocean that serve important purposes, in one way or another, to support the healthy functioning of oceans and the many services that it provides (CBD, 2006).

Human activities:

Various actions for recreation, living, or necessity done by people. In the marine environment, EEA identifies the following activities related to six key sectors: energy, industry, transport, fishing and aquaculture, tourism and recreation, and households.

Driver:

Drivers or driving forces describe the social, demographic, and economic developments in societies and the corresponding changes in lifestyles, overall levels of consumption and production patterns (EEA, 1999).

Pressures:

Resulting from [human] activities - defined as the mechanisms (as rate processes) of change, in the way in which an activity will change the natural and societal systems, by modifying the structure and functioning of the systems. In Smith et al. (2022) from Elliott et al., (2022).

Type of cumulative pressures:

Additive: the cumulative pressure is equal to the sum of the individual pressures. Antagonistic or countervailing: the cumulative pressure is less than the sum of its individual pressures. Synergic: the cumulative pressure is greater than the sum of the individual pressures.

Cumulative impacts:

The impacts (positive or negative, direct and indirect, long-term and short-term impacts) arising from a range of activities throughout an area or region, where each individual effect may not be significant if taken in isolation (European Commission, 1999).

Cumulative Effects Assessment-CEA (Combined Effects Assessment, Cumulative Impact Assessment, In combination Effects Assessment):

Assessment of ecosystem changes that accumulate from multiple pressures, both natural and manmade. In Smith et al. (2022) from Dubé et al. (2013).

Ecosystem services:

The final outputs or products from ecosystems that are directly consumed, used (actively or passively) or enjoyed by people (CSWD, 2020).

Socio-ecological system (SES):

Complex adaptive systems where human societies are embedded in nature and where an ecological (biophysical) system is intricately linked with and affected by one or more social (human) systems (adapted from Anderies et al., 2004).

Ecosystem component:

Biotic and abiotic elements that constitute the ecosystem.

Ecosystem restoration:

The process of halting and reversing degradation, resulting in improved ecosystem services and recovered biodiversity (The United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration).

References:

CSWD, 2020. Commission Staff Working Document: Background document for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive on the determination of good environmental status and its links to assessments and the setting of environmental targets. Accompanying the Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC). European Commission SWD (2020) 62 final.

Directive 2014/89/EU, Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. Official Journal of the European Union L 257/135.

HELCOM and OSPAR, 2003. Statement on the Ecosystem Approach to the Management of Human Activities: Towards an Ecosystem Approach to the Management of Human Activities. Bremen 25-26 June 2003. https://www.ospar.org/site/assets/files/1232/jmm_annex05_ecosystem_approach_statement.pdf.

EEA, 2018. Briefing No 13/2018. Marine protected areas: Designed to conserve Europe's marine life, marine protected areas are a globally recognised tool for managing and enhancing our marine ecosystems.

CBD, 2006. Report of the scientific experts' workshop on criteria for identifying ecologically or biologically significant areas beyond national jurisdiction. 6–8 December 2005. Ottawa, Canada; 2006. UNEP/CBD/COP/8/INF/39.

EEA, 1999. Environmental indicators.: Typology and overview. Technical report No 25.

Smith C., Papadopoulou N., Elliott M., Franco A., Barnard S., Borja Á., Uyarra M.C., 2022. Marine Strategy Framework Directive Terminology Definitions and Lists. GES4SEAS Project. 29 pp.

Elliott M., Boyes S.J., Cormier R., 2022. The operationalisation, governance and achievement of Good Environmental Status for UK marine areas. Unpublished Discussion Paper for Natural England, International Estuarine & Coastal Specialists (IECS) Ltd, Leven, HU17 5LQ, UK; pp112, https://www.iecs.ltd.

European Commission, 1999. Integrating environment concerns into development and economic cooperation. Draft version 1.0. Brussels.

Dubé M., Duinker P., Grieg L., Carver M., Servos M., McMaster M., Noble B., Schreier H., Jackson L., Munkittrick K.R., 2013. A framework for assessing cumulative effects in watersheds: an introduction to Canadian case studies. Integrated Environmental Assessment & Management, 9(3): 363–369. doi:10.1002/ieam.1418.