The added value of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) – an informal
discussion paper
Country Agencies Interagency MSP Working Group
(EN, Countryside Agency, CCW, JNCC, SNH)
1
Introduction
1.1
This paper is generally aimed at informing the further elucidation of MSP and
specifically picking up on significant points raised by stakeholders at the Marine
Spatial Planning Pilot (MSPP) workshop in Liverpool 22-23 June1. The paper was
drafted over the summer as a basis for discussion amongst the Country Agencies and in
the absence of a revised draft of the Irish Sea Regional Plan. Whilst a draft has now
emerged, it was felt worthwhile by the Country Agencies to provide a revised draft of
the paper to inform the MSPP and more general discussion of MSP.
1.2
The Country Agencies have already set out some of the benefits and value of MSP both
in individual agency material but also collectively2 (see Table 1) within the context of
MSP as a tool to help achieve sustainable development and to facilitate more effective
regulation. This paper attempts to consider what added value MSP offers to a broad
range of stakeholders, including industry, sea users and regulators, as well as
environmental interests, by elaborating on key elements. In doing so, we believe it is
important to clarify the relationship to other measures, particularly consenting
(irrespective of any changes that may be made to them) and the potential for SEA3 (by
which we mean sectoral SEA unless otherwise stated).
2
Assessing the added value of MSP against what it might comprise
2.1
To do this we need to remind ourselves of not only what it might do but what it might
consist of. In terms of what it might do, we set this out in the paper on conservation
objectives and this is reiterated below. In terms of what MSP might consist of, it is
important to emphasise that it is not just about producing a map with lines demarcating
allocation – this appears to be the perception amongst some observers.
2.2
MSP is as much a process as a plan and should provide a framework of which a plan
with maps is but one part. As stated in Tyldesley and Hunt 2004 MSP “…does not
necessarily have to lead to a single system of planning, producing a single plan, or a
single set of plans. It could be established more as a discipline, or a process, that may
result in several plans – expressions of proposals and policies – but which are better
1
The workshop in made progress in bringing a wide range of stakeholders up to speed with the concept of MSP
and practical considerations. Although there was some scepticism about potential benefits to industry it is worth
noting that most representatives expressed a view, at the start of the meeting at least, that MSP might have
potential benefits for some industries (mainly through greater predictability and higher success rate of
development proposals). However, there appeared to be a widely shared view that the value of MSP and regional
plans had not been demonstrated at the workshop. In particular, it was not clear what the substantive added
strategic value would be to planning and sustainable management and use of the marine environment beyond a
general acceptance that it would require, and therefore should drive, making better use of data and information.
2
Natural Heritage / Nature Conservation objectives for a Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) system. A paper prepared
by Country Agency Marine Spatial Planning Group (MSPG).
3
Systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed policy, plan or programme
initiatives in order to ensure they are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest appropriate stage of
decision making on a par with economic and social considerations; note, policies are not covered by the EC
Directive on SEA (from South-West Ecological Surveys et al 2004)
533565060
Page 1 of 16
integrated and their spatial implications are better understood and co-ordinated”. The
evolution of the land use planning system (see, for example, analysis in Tyldesley and
Hunt 2004 and Tyldesley 2005), indicate that MSP could include a number of
elements:


National planning policy guidance in association with principles, sectoral policy
guidance and national objectives
At a regional or local level a number of documents that amount to a spatial planning
strategy including:
o Core strategy, ie integrated view of implications of different objectives and
guidance
o Spatial assessment based on collated data
o Management measures such as mitigation, planning conditions or ‘Action
Plans’ focussed on particular areas
o Indicative allocations
o Prescribed allocations
o Comprehensive zoning scheme, ie entire planning area assigned to zones
2.3
Thus there are a number of elements to MSP without proceeding as far as a
comprehensive zoning scheme. It is also clear that there is no prerequisite for MSP to
proceed as far as prescribed spatial allocations4, it might instead simply indicate
preferences or priorities (such ‘indicative planning’ would not prevent users from
applying to use other areas including an area indicatively allocated to another use).
Equally, zoning may not need to apply across the whole plan area in the sense that
specific ‘zones’ might be identified, eg a conservation priority zone, amongst one
general ‘zone’ that covers most of the area.
2.4
It is important to recognise that the different elements and their benefits can be
achieved without going as far as a comprehensive zoning scheme with prescribed
allocations, ie MSP is not “all of the above or nothing”. This point is indicated
conceptually in Figure 1 in general terms, ie without reference to any particular sector
or organisation. A key question is at what point do those involved (those making
decisions, those advising on them and those affected by decisions) believe the benefits
are outweighed by the disbenefits. We suggest that the value of MSP is additive with
each new element, rather than the value only arising from a combination of all
elements. We recommend that proceeding as far as assigning the equivalent of
“development rights” would be a disbenefit and that, at present, a partial element of
prescribed allocation is the furthest point at which maximum benefits can be derived.
2.5
In view of the above, and to better indicate what MSP is about, we suggest it might be
appropriate to adopt (or re-adopt) the term “Sea Use Planning”.
3
3.1
Assessing the added value of MSP against alternatives
The view that MSP doesn’t appear to add to what we have already have (based on what
was presented at the Liverpool workshop) seemed to be made against the background
of current consenting regimes and associated EIA and, for some sectors, SEA. Each of
these has its use and advantages (see, for example, Gilliland et al 2004), the question is
what can MSP offer that EIA and SEA can’t. A number of added benefits have been
It is assumed that no one is advocating proceeding as far as the equivalent of ‘permitted development rights’ and
that even assigned allocations would be subject to further detailed EIA (the scope of which may depend on what
information and decisions have determined the allocation)
4
533565060
Page 2 of 16
proposed in various documents but these are reiterated or noted in Table 2 with
suggested comments about what could be achieved in the absence of MSP.
3.2
4
Sections 4 and 5 elaborate on the added value that arises from objective setting and
spatial analysis within an MSP framework.
A framework for setting objectives
4.1
Purpose: MSP should have an overall purpose and objectives which we believe should
be focussed on achieving sustainable development, rather than simply conservation or
environmental protection, and in doing so contribute to more general government
objectives. We believe it is helpful to emphasise the following in defining the specific
purpose of marine spatial planning:

to provide a strategic, integrated and forward-looking framework for all uses of the
sea to help achieve sustainable development, taking account of environmental as well
as social and economic objectives;

to apply an ecosystem approach to the regulation and management of development
and activities in the marine environment by safeguarding ecological processes and
overall resilience to ensure the environment has the capacity to support social and
economic benefits (including those benefits derived directly from ecosystems);

to allocate space in a rational manner which avoids or minimises conflicts of interest
and, where possible, maximises synergy between sectors;

to identify, safeguard, or where necessary and appropriate, recover or restore
important components of coastal and marine ecosystems including natural heritage
and nature conservation resources.
4.2
Added value: Whether one agrees with the suggested purpose, there is added value in
defining a purpose rather than, as currently, simply defining each sector’s needs and
hoping that these needs can be integrated or reconciled in the absence of some overall
‘top down’ direction. Improved coordination of data gathering, management and
greater accessibility of datasets will have obvious benefits to both statutory agencies
and developers.
4.3
Objectives: Within the overall purpose, MSP should provide a framework within
which to articulate, reconcile, optimise and integrate relevant economic, environmental
and social objectives collectively; this was a shortcoming in the Liverpool simulation
where there was almost no reference to government policy and objectives. As far as we
are aware, this is not done at present in the marine environment or under the auspices
of any existing measures. Objectives, with associated targets, are defined for some
individual sectors, either explicitly, eg the 10% by 2010 target for renewable energy,
quotas for fisheries, or implicitly, eg to optimise exploitation of oil and gas reserves
wherever they are found.
4.4
Even then, objectives do not seem to be broken down into more operational regional
targets and rarely do they have a spatial context, although again these are sometimes
implicit, eg much of the sand and gravel for regeneration of east London will come
from marine sources (primarily from the Outer Thames and English Channel) because
of direct transport provision to wharves in London. Thus, an MSP that includes a
regional level provides a framework within which to identify and state the contribution
that will be made by the area covered by the plan, ie ‘region’, to national objectives,
533565060
Page 3 of 16
such as wind and other renewable energy targets to be achieved, fish stocks in need of
recovery, Habitat Action Plan targets.
4.5






Added value: Defining overall purpose/objectives and then more detailed objectives
that ideally are spatially defined, including for different sectors of human use, should
provide the following added value compared to existing measures or other planned
measures:
A clear, albeit ‘top down’, driver for what is to be achieved within the MSP area to
complement ‘bottom up’ stakeholder input, strengthening the vertical integration
between national policy guidance and targets and the regional delivery of these (some
observers have suggested this is the element that has been missing from achieving
successful Estuary Management Planning in some cases)
A better basis on which to consider the inter-relationship between economic,
environmental and social objectives at the same time, rather than sequentially, and
increase the chances of achieving sustainable development;
Provide a more strategic basis for any one economic sector to identify the objectives
of other sectors, and for the environment and social aspects, with which they may
interact and take account of these, for example to reduce conflicts and encourage
synergies. This should reduce the burden on any one sector for undertaking this
analysis, eg through their sectoral SEA
Better basis for identifying widely agreed, common scenarios for the future taking
account of the best available forecasts such as identifying which targets are likely to
change significantly beyond the 20-year planning time frame (eg renewable energy
targets?) and their projected increases. It is accepted that the ability to forecast will
vary between sectors. For example, aggregate production and energy generation can
be directly linked to development, such as housing needs (see regeneration of east
London example above) whereas there may be gas reserves that have yet to be
discovered, fisheries exploit a resource that moves over space and time and the
distribution of wildlife can change. These differences would need to be
accommodated irrespective of the management measure under consideration.
Proactive approach to the delivery of objectives for the safeguard and recovery of the
marine ecosystem and the services that it provides rather than through each sector of
economic activity having to enter into consultation on these for every development
application
Improved governance with greater confidence of government, industry and others of
how and where their objectives can and should be translated into delivery at the
regional/local level.
4.6
SEA: SEA is not an objective setting process but rather is driven by objectives already
identified. Hitherto, and in the near future, SEA in the marine environment is being
applied sectorally. Thus the SEA is driven by the objectives for that sector only,
making it difficult to take account of and reconcile objectives for other sectors of use.
SEA, for oil and gas at least, does identify the ‘constraints’ that result from current
development/use and conflict with environmental concerns but it is limited in its ability
to address conflict based on future scenarios for other sectors. Undertaking SEAs from
the perspective of different sectoral interests, for example aggregates, windfarms, oil &
gas, also has cost implications, with the potential for savings if the process is better
integrated with the framework of MSP.
4.7
Consenting: Clearly a close link between objectives identified by a sector (or for a
particular development) with national or regional policy guidance should inform
consent decisions. MSP would strengthen this by providing a framework for
articulating objectives up front (and providing some spatial expression of these – see
Section 5), MSP could ensure such objectives are more clearly set out, more integrated
533565060
Page 4 of 16
and better understood than at present and therefore ensure the relevance of objectives to
consent decisions is made more transparent, including where they are subject to some
form of Public Inquiry.
5
Spatially expressing objectives and zoning
5.1
It is recognised from the above that benefits can be derived from the planning process
without producing maps, such as better understanding of different sectors’ aspirations.
However, spatial analysis and interpretation using maps would seem an obvious
additional beneficial part of the planning process (analogous to the Regional Spatial
Strategies and Local Plans). For instance, most sectors at sea use a definable space,
albeit over varying periods of time, and it is therefore possible to express spatially the
objectives for each sector. There appears to be a widely shared view that it is logical to
have some form of spatial expression of objectives, not least to improve visualisation
of the complex array of sea-use interactions. Such spatial analysis will involve a
number of steps (see Figure 2) each of which would be beneficial; we believe that it is
essential in the MSPP to elaborate as much as possible on such spatial analysis and
clarify the role and value of each step.
5.2
The MSP process should consider the degree to which objectives, targets and uses are
inherently spatially or temporally constrained. There are different constraints
a) Location of the resource5
b) Co-location of incompatible uses or interest
c) A decision to constrain a use through policy or regulation
5.3
In relation to 5.2a), some objectives and targets will only relate to a small part of the
MSP area – for example, targets for the exploitation of marine aggregates would only
be constrained to within areas of suitable deposits. The greater the degree of this
spatial constraint the less flexibility there is likely to be to adjust ‘use’ boundaries
between conflicting uses, for example. It would seem useful to identify and map the
objectives/targets and actual/potential uses using the approach in Table 3. This should
enable the mapping of targets by high and moderate spatially constrained categories.
5.4
Having undertaken the analysis described in 5.3 MSP, using GIS as a key tool,
provides a framework to assess the interaction between uses and associated
objectives/targets, including to:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
5.5
interrogate different ‘layers’ to identify where and to what extent targets and
actual/potential uses overlap, including sensitivity of the environment to particular
uses or of a use to other uses
assess the interactions between uses and objectives/targets (positive or negative,
large or small, short, medium or long term)
assess the extent of interactions between highly (and moderately) spatially
constrained targets/uses
identify where there are potential conflicts which may prevent targets being
achieved
This assessment should provide a basis to assess the potential for integrating uses and
associated objectives/targets, including the following categories:
5
Based on up to date information on the distribution of the resource and what is technically possible.
New resources may be found but equally technological development may make currently unexploitable
resources available.
533565060
Page 5 of 16
i)
ii)
Area where targets/uses are likely to be compatible, complementary or
synergistic
Areas where interests may conflict and where specific measures are likely to be
required. There are a range of options which should be considered through further
assessment, including to better understand the nature and degree of conflict,
rather than simply assuming there is a need to separate uses or allocate areas (see
Figure 2). Such assessment could lead to the following categories
a. Management, mitigation or other measures to meet sustainable development
objectives
b. Identify areas where priority should be given to one or more targets/uses,
subject to their meeting sustainable development considerations, ie indicative
or preferred allocation.
c. Identify areas where exclusive use may need to be given to a particular
target/use, ie prescribed allocation.
5.6
In relation to 5.5ii) b) and c), the spatial expression of such allocation would be
‘zones’. Even where spatial or temporal separation of uses are required, more detailed
assessment or investigation could inform this, eg are there opportunities to adjust the
spatial distribution of moderately restricted uses and targets around highly restricted
uses?
5.7
It should be possible, and of value, to map the output of this assessment. It is easier to
envisage examples based mainly on current use (see Table 4, Areas 1-4). It should be
noted that such examples already occur in the Irish Sea, ie areas already being used,
often subject to multiple-use, some of them subject to licence conditions. Other
examples would include where policies or priorities are indicated (see Areas 5 and 6,
Table 4). Current use and priorities have to be factored into the spatial assessment (see
Boyes et al 2005 for further examples).
5.8
A key question is the extent to which the spatial element of MSP can look forwards and
how prescriptive it can be. This, of course, will be largely determined by the
government policy and objectives that drive MSP. It is likely that the ability of MSP to
forward plan spatial allocations should increase as the MSP process, and practical
experience with it, develops. The extent to which MSP needs to be prescriptive is
likely to depend upon an assessment of the need (and ability) to make spatial
allocations for agreed, specific, high priority uses, to ensure that those uses and targets
associated with them, are not compromised by others. We suggest that added value will
be derived from clarifying existing allocations, expressing
policies/conditions/limitations spatially, indicating preferences for future use and
perhaps going as far as a partial element of prescribed allocation (see 2.4).
5.9
As stated above, where some form of spatial separation (which may have a temporal
element), preference, exclusion or allocation has been decided on, such areas would be
termed ‘zones’. It is a separate step as to whether to integrate and summarise all such
zones in the form of a comprehensive zoning scheme for part or all of the area under
consideration (it is not axiomatic that the whole area is divided into zones). Different
case studies have identified different integrated ‘zones’. For example, Boyes et al 2005
have undertaken a similar categorisation based upon an analysis of existing activities in
the Irish Sea (reflected in the latest version of the draft plan for the Irish Sea). Table 5
includes examples of some suggested integrated zones that might encompass future as
well as current use but the efficacy of such an approach requires further examination.
6
Conclusion
533565060
Page 6 of 16
6.1
From the above, the added value of MSP compared to current governance tools such as
consenting informed by EIA and SEA is:
1. Process and framework for identifying environmental, economic and social objectives
collectively and objectives across different sectors at both national and regional level.
2. Process for identifying or considering priorities.
3. Basis for assessing the spatial implications of objectives and targets and interactions
between sectors of use and between all sectors and the environment in a more
comprehensive and (net) efficient way than sectorally.
4. Process and framework for considering options to achieve objectives and, where
these can’t all be achieved, for making choices between them, and presenting the
outcome of such analysis or decisions.
5. More strategic and efficient approach to data management with informed view of
priorities for data collection and potential value for money if value of data across
objectives/sectors is factored into setting priorities.
6. Improved governance though better basis for democratic accountability involving all
sectors and increased potential for involvement of local and regional interests.
7. Better basis (particularly in relation to 6) to provide commonly understood and
accessible information and scenarios.
6.2
A number of disbenefits to MSP have been suggested including the fact that it will not
reduce significantly the amount of effort and resources required for EIA. However,
such disbenefits or limitations also apply to SEA. At present, it is difficult to fully
articulate the benefits of MSP without a clear view of how current consenting regimes
will be changed by primary legislation and how MSP might therefore, replace current
regulatory regimes that are overlapping and overly complex.
6.3
Comparison with SEA: The benefits of MSP vs sectoral SEA are discussed above
(see also Table 2). If, as some suggest, we could undertake a ‘super SEA’ rather than
sectoral SEA, compared with 6.1 above, then point 5 in large part and 3,4, 6 and 7 in
some part might be achieved. Indeed, the process for MSP and SEA are very similar
(see Figure 3). The key difference with a ‘super SEA’ is that the SEA process does not
generate objectives and is not required to address objectives of different sectors,
proactively address environmental and social objectives, and assess their interaction or
how to reconcile or choose between them.
6.4
Ideally, a spatial plan would be produced, subject to SEA and this would then provide a
context for any further, sectoral SEA if required. In reality, in the short to medium term
MSP needs to build on sectoral SEAs already undertaken. MSP will take several years
to establish and in the meantime much could be achieved by undertaking SEA of
particular sectors, such as those completed for the hydrocarbon and renewable energy
sectors and those that may be undertaken for sectors such as fisheries, which would
facilitate the development of a spatial planning system. In the longer term, a MSP
framework accompanied by SEA should reduce both the need and amount of effort to
undertake sectoral SEAs.
6.5
Comparison with consenting and EIA: EIA is always likely to be at a finer scale of
resolution than MSP (and SEA). It should be the case that MSP as envisaged above
should provide a better context in which to assess, for example, the impact of an
individual development on a particular environmental feature or the impact of one type
of development on other types of development. It is not clear why some protagonists
expect MSP to substantially reduce the amount of effort required for EIA, and even to
expect that MSP do so more than SEA.
533565060
Page 7 of 16
6.6
The benefits that MSP should bring to EIA and consenting, and to industry and
regulators includes:






Clearer framework of policy, objectives and priorities
Some up front indication of the views of regulators, their advisers and other industries
A better basis for setting their development in the context of the broader area,
including reduced effort and onus on an individual applicant or sector to fund and
undertaken collation or collection of data on the broader area
Reduced effort and onus on an individual applicant or sector to fund and undertaken
assessment of cumulative effects
Increased potential for sharing costs of monitoring
Some indication of more or less ‘difficult’ (or more ‘sensitive’) sites and therefore a
better basis on which to judge whether to pursue a particular location. This will not
necessarily change at all the requirements of the consenting process but it should
bring efficiencies by reducing the number of contentious and costly (to regulators and
their advisers as well as industry) applications entering the consenting process.
References
BOYES,S., ELLIOTT, M., THOMPSON, S., ATKINS, S., GILLILAND, P., HAMER, J. &
HILL, A. 2005. Multiple-use zoning in UK and Manx Waters of the Irish Sea: interpretation
of current legislation through the use of GIS-based zoning approaches. Report to Scottish
Natural Heritage, English Nature and Countryside Council for Wales. Scottish Natural
Heritage, Perth.
DEPARTMENT FOR TRADE AND INDUSTRY. 2002. Future offshore: a strategic
framework for the offshore wind industry. London: Department for Trade and Industry.
EAST OF ENGLAND REGIONAL ASSEMBLY. 2005. East of England Plan
(Regional Spatial Strategy 14 ), Consultation version.
GILLILAND, P.M., ROGERS, S., HAMER, J.P., & CRUTCHFIELD, Z. 2004. The
practical implementation of marine spatial planning – understanding and addressing
cumulative effects. Report of a workshop held 4 December 2003, Stansted. English Nature
Research Reports, No. 599.
POSFORD HASKONING LTD, DAVID TYLDESLEY ASSOCIATES, THE CENTRE FOR
THE ENVIRONMENT, FISHERIES AND AQUATIC SCIENCES, HR WALLINGFORD
LTD. 2004. A development plan for marine aggregate extraction in England. A scoping
study. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
TYLDESLEY, D. 2005. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and the Planning System in
England. English Nature Research Report 643, English Nature Peterborough.
TYLDESLEY, D & HUNT, B. 2004. Review of how the Land Use Planning System could
influence the development of a Marine Spatial Planning System for England. Peterborough:
English Nature Research Reports, No. 566.
533565060
Page 8 of 16
Table 1. The potential benefits of marine spatial planning (from recent Country Agency
paper)
Benefits for nature conservation

It promotes efficient use of space and resources, in a way that reduces impacts on the
environment.

It ensures there is space for biodiversity and nature conservation measures and places
biodiversity commitments at the heart of planning and management.

It provides a proactive and focused way to achieve nature conservation objectives.

It establishes areas of importance or sensitivity, thereby reducing the risk of conflict with
incompatible development.

It provides a broad framework within which to understand and maximise the value of a
network of multiple-use sites and highly protected marine areas.

It offers a key tool to pre-empt or address cumulative effects on the natural environment.

It improves prospects of increased awareness and ownership of marine conservation features
and issues, particularly amongst users, regulators and decision-makers.
Wider benefits to industry and other users

It allows greater confidence for industry when planning new development and a reduction in
conflict between competing users.

It provides for rational allocation of space in the marine environment that will help to deliver a
strategic vision for UK seas in accordance with government priorities
533565060
Page 9 of 16
Table 2. Potential added value of different elements of MSP
Aspect
MSP
Without MSP (including
EIA/SEA)
Strategic
direction national
National planning policy guidance
driven by overall vision of what is
desired for the marine environment
Strategic
objectives
across sectors
- national
Provides a process and framework,
because it is cross-sectoral, to
encourage and set out clear objectives.
Based on this, provide forecasts, as far
as possible, to inform planning and
planning policy guidance
An overall Vision expressed as the desired
state doesn’t require an MSP but it is not
clear how other mechanisms could
proactively encompass this beyond “the
consenting body should take account of
this”
Individual sectors have had objectives
identified for them in some way, eg the
broad target of 10% of energy supply by
2010 from renewables (accompanied by an
assessment of the potential of the marine
renewables sector in DTI 2002) and for
aggregate extraction in Posford Haskoning
et al 2004. However, it is not clear that this
will be done for all relevant sectors on an
individual basis as quickly or readily than if
all sectors were required to do so as part of
a more integrated approach. SEA
essentially considers environmental
objectives ‘reactively’.
Individual sectors do try to set out regional
objectives and targets, eg through Regional
Aggregate Working Parties (although it is
not clear whether this has been in the
context of POSFORD HASKONING ET
AL 2004). DTI advocated the need for a
regional breakdown of the national target
for renewable energy generation in the
wake of Future Offshore (DTI 2002) and
regional targets have appeared in Regional
Spatial Strategies (see East of England
Regional Assembly 2005). However, it is
not clear that this will be done for all
relevant sectors on an individual basis as
quickly or readily than if all sectors were
required to do so as part of a more
integrated approach.
Provide a framework for enhanced
working between government
departments.
Strategic
direction and
objectives regional
Provide a process and framework to
consider the contribution the region can
or needs to make to national objectives
(and possibly a better a basis for
considering these together than at the
national level) now and in the future
taking account of likely significant
changes over the period of the planning
cycle.
Provide early indication of relevant
objectives and concerns, eg
environmental objectives. “A
commitment to Marine Spatial
Planning might give better focus and
impetus [than EIA or SEA) to tackle
long standing issues such as providing
environmental objectives at a broad
scale…” (Gilliland et al 2004).
Provide a process and criteria by which
priorities could be set and, therefore,
part of the basis for resolving conflicts,
ie making choices between uses
Assess spatial
implications
of objectives
533565060
Provide a framework to do so across all
sectors including not only the current
pattern of use but realistic scenarios
that take account of all sectors. Able to
consider sectors with different spatial
A process is underway to identify marine
ecosystem objectives. The JNCC Irish Sea
Pilot produced some draft conservation
objectives at a regional scale. It is open to
question whether there would be sufficient
focus and impetus to derive regional
environmental objectives without a crosssectoral governance mechanism such as
MSP.
Appear to be no (transparent) alternatives
to identify priorities
Any SEA and even EIA can map the
current pattern of use although if this is
repeated for each assessment it is less
efficient than being done as one collective
effort under MSP. Future use has been
Page 10 of 16
restrictions.
By proactively including environmental
objectives, provides a better basis for
identifying upfront areas of importance
or sensitivity to, eg, industry, rather
these being identified reactively during
an EIA or SEA
assessed for individual sectors, eg high,
medium and low development scenarios in
BMT Cordah (wind SEA), but it is difficult
for such sectoral driven assessments to take
account of other sectors’ scenarios.
Potential to co-ordinate and mediate
between regulation/regulators,
including information, without
developers having to go to each of
them
Assess
interactions
between
different uses
and between
these and the
environment
Consider
options for
addressing
outcome of
interactions
including
conflicts
Provide a framework for enhanced
working between government
departments.
Provide both a process and framework
to better assess (including collectively
and more efficiently) interactions than
if being done by one
sector/developer/regulator.
Provide more comprehensive analysis
of where real issues are. Enable
opportunities through complementary
and synergistic uses to be identified.
Provides a better basis to assess and
make decisions about cumulative and
in combination effects over a broad
area
Provides a process and framework for
identifying options that maximise
opportunities, eg optimising use of
space by identifying compatible uses in
the same area, and addressing conflicts,
eg referring back to priorities and
‘decision rules’ “we can achieve 85%
of target for sector X if accept only
60% of target for sector Y”.
Sectoral tools will only assess the
interaction between that sector and other
sectors and therefore give an incomplete
picture. They tend to focus on conflicts
rather than opportunities.
EIA, SEA and MSP are complementary
‘tools’ to assess cumulative effects and as
one moves from the former to the latter the
ability to assess cumulative effects
becomes more complex and uncertain
(Gilliland et al 2004). However, it is more
difficult for an individual sector to identify
and assess cumulative effects compared to
the cross-sectoral approach of MSP
Can only assess options from perspective
of one sector or developer. May identify
options that raise other conflicts for other
sectors or elsewhere in the region
depending on the scale of the area being
assessed.
Enables different permutations of
options to be explored and their relative
merits assessed (in conjunction with
different users).
Data
management
(collation,
interpretation,
collection)
533565060
Provides a transparent framework to
indicate locational guidance, priorities
or even allocations in zones across all
of or part of the area.
Potential to provide a more strategic
and efficient approach to data
management. “Participants thought that
a commitment to Marine Spatial
Planning could drive a more strategic
and comprehensive approach to
managing data for the marine
environment ..” and “give a better focus
The oil and gas SEA in particular has
undertaken substantial data management,
albeit from the perspective of one industry;
this provides a good basis to build on.
However, experience with offshore wind
and aggregates demonstrates both the
difficulty and unfeasibly high cost of data
management for individual sectors let alone
Page 11 of 16
and impetus to tackle long standing
issues such as ….addressing prioritised
data gaps that haven’t been tackled
solely in response to assessing
cumulative effects.” Gilliland et al
2004.
Democratic
accountability
It would seem to be an advantage to
individual industries or regulators if
data management for an area, eg at the
scale of wind or oil & gas SEA, was
not left to them to undertake or fund,
and sometimes repeated, ie MSP
increases the chances of data
management attracting strategic
funding and co-ordination.
Compared to the current situation, MSP
provides a process by which analysis
and the basis for decisions is
undertaken in ‘public’ using common
scenarios informed by a common and
more comprehensive (compared to that
collected for one sector) data set.
developers.
The Marine Data Information Partnership is
evaluating how to achieve more effective
data/information management (gathering,
collation, access etc) but is currently
focussed on issues such as sharing of data,
and providing commonly accessible
resources, such as bathymetry, rather than
collation and collection of all data for a
region.
ODPM’s draft EIA Regulations for marine
minerals may provide for public inquiry
where appropriate
Both EIA and SEA have well established
consultation processes and mechanisms, eg
steering group for oil and gas SEA with
wide membership.
MSP could increase the opportunity for
‘public’ or ‘users’ to comment
compared with current arrangements,
eg a ‘right to be heard’?
Table 3. Categories of activity by degree of spatial restriction of resource and its
potential use
Category
Activities with a high
spatial restriction
Activities with a
moderate spatial
restriction
Activities with a low
spatial restriction
533565060
Description
The resource and potential use of it is restricted to a small and
specific areas of the MSP area (examples might include: marine
aggregates, oil and gas, tidal energy, protected wrecks, nationally
important habitats)
The resource and potential use of it is more widespread and there
may be greater flexibility in spatial allocation to minimise conflict
and optimise benefits (examples might include offshore wind
energy, landscape scale nature conservation, some fisheries)
Resources and uses which are extensive within the MSP area and
for which there may be limited flexibility to move location but
more flexibility on the measures available to minimise conflict
with other uses (examples might include objectives relating to
navigation, recreational sailing, conservation of mobile species,
wider environment)
Page 12 of 16
Table 4. Hypothetical examples of areas in the different categories identified by
spatial analysis (refer to section 5.7)
CURRENT USE
Category i) ‘compatible, complementary or synergistic’
Area 1: no current conflict between uses, with only interest (occurring already) being
aggregate extraction. Conditions of licence include…..
Area 2: current uses compatible (conservation management, navigation, and submarine
cables) and no identified additional future use
Category ii) a) ‘Management, mitigation or other measures’
Area 3: Restricted access during MOD activity but other activities permitted at other
times
Category ii) b) ‘priority (preferred allocation)’
Area 5: Multiple use zone but conservation objectives will take precedence
Area 6: Large, static structures such as windfarms and oil/gas installations likely to be
discouraged to help meet seascape objectives
Category ii) c) ‘exclusive use (prescribed allocation)’
Area 4: Most activities excluded on grounds of safety around an oil/gas installation
FUTURE USE
Category i) ‘compatible, complementary or synergistic’
Area 7a: no apparent conflict between uses as only expressed interest (potential use) is
whelk potting. Should the latter proceed it will be subject to detailed EIA – there are no
specific conditions that can be identified prior to the EIA but, without prejudice to the
results of the EIA, it appears that the habitat concerned is likely to be of low sensitivity to
the potential use
Category ii) b) ‘priority (preferred allocation)’
Area 8a : Priority will be given to windfarm development; if this proceeds impact on
trawling will be addressed as a condition to the licence but with a presumption (without
prejudice to other issues identified by more detailed EIA) that the licence will be granted
Category ii) c) ‘exclusive use (prescribed allocation)’
Area 7b) (equivalent to Area 7a) Area allocated to whelk potting subject to EIA but,
without prejudice to the results of the EIA, it appears that the habitat concerned is likely
to be of low sensitivity to the potential use
533565060
Page 13 of 16
Table 5. Some suggested zones that might be identified within a comprehensive
zoning scheme as an integrated summary of the assessment and subsequent
decisions arising from spatial analysis. For examples of implications for different
uses and environmental targets, see Boyes et al 2005.
1. General use zone
Areas in which no specific spatial allocation or restriction of use needs to be made.
Subject to sustainable development practices, activities are generally likely to be
compatible with each other. These areas are likely to be more extensive offshore where
there are fewer uses and potential conflicts.
2. Restricted use zone
Areas where to safeguard important uses or ecosystem functions, certain other types of
use may need to be restricted in order that these areas may make their appropriate
contribution to meeting UK policy objectives/targets. The restriction may be temporary
or longer term:
3. Priority use zone
Areas where priority consideration should be given to a specific use, subject to meeting
sustainable development considerations, in order that these areas may make their
appropriate contribution to meeting UK policy objectives/targets:
4. Exclusive use areas:
Areas which are allocated for a particular exclusive use. Generally small areas of sea or
seabed where there may be a high incompatibility between a priority use and other uses.
This incompatibility may be temporary or long term.
Figure 1 – see separate file
533565060
Page 14 of 16
OBJECTIVE/TARGET
SETTING
National
PLANNING
PROCESS/GUIDANCE
SPATIAL ANALYSIS*
Planning policy
statements
Distribution of resource
Distribution of current use
and “allocations”
Regional
Planning guidance
including prioritisation,
and “decision rules”
Local
Spatial expression of targets
and potential future use
Options/tools – examples

Optimise, eg
- facilitate co-location
Further
Assessment


Can accommodate targets/uses
by, eg
- Mitigation measures
- Action plan of management
measures
- Planning conditions
Can’t accommodate, therefore,
eg
- Further discussion, eg
“public interest”
- Prioritisation
- Exclusion
- Appeals process
Analysis of interactions
including spatial restrictions
 Compatible,
complementary, or
synergistic
 Potential conflict
Target Notes
Indicative allocation zones
Prescribed allocation zones
Review and
adjust objectives
and targets
Integrated
presentation?
Implement planning and
management options
Comprehensive
Zoning Scheme?
Figure 2. Marine Spatial Planning – process and associated spatial analysis. *Mappable
outputs
533565060
Page 15 of 16
Figure 3. MSP and SEA processes compared
Strategic Environmental Assessment
Marine Spatial Planning
National objectives, targets – all
sectors
?
?
?
Determine objectives and targets
for plan area
?
?
Generate alternative options (strategies)
Public Consultation/Involvement
Collect appropriate information –
environment, economic and social
Analysis (inc. occurrence and degree of
conflict)
? Plan or programme specific objectives
and targets inc. alternatives?
Scoping – including other relevant
objectives (mainly environmental?)
Identify issues (minor task at this stage?)
Forecast (reasonable scenarios)
[National objectives, targets for
specific sectors - already derived]
Describe baseline – State of
Environment
Assess impacts
Evaluate alternatives (to the plan
or programme)
Identify mitigation and
enhancement measures
Evaluate options
Prepare and publish draft plan
Environment report (including
possible future scenarios)
Examination of plan
Public consultation
Decision including
- mitigation
- response to public view
Adopt plan
Implement
Monitor and review
533565060
Inform licensing
process
Monitor impacts of
plan/programme
Page 16 of 16