This week saw the publication of an open-access article in the journal Town Planning Review, that built on and took further applied work conducted for BirdLife International, together with colleagues at NABU in Germany. The article examines the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach (EBA) in Germany’s current maritime spatial plan for its Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) in the Baltic and North Seas (published and adopted in 2021). The findings in the paper are based on an in-depth interpretive policy analysis of the final plan itself, earlier consultation drafts, submissions to the consultation process and the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) conducted in conjunction with the plan preparation process. Key findings include the following:
- Germany’s MSP meets the requirements for an ecosystem-based approach on paper, and in a narrowly-defined legal sense only. It is not sufficiently aligned with the requirements of an EBA as set out in the relevant EU directives. Ecosystem-based MSP is intended to ensure human activities at sea contribute to the achievement and maintenance of Good Environmental Status. Based on the evidence available, it is likely, however, that a deterioration in environmental status is likely to occur over the period of the plan.
- This misalignment is not primarily due to a lack of relevant information or expertise. Compared to other European countries, the evidence base in Germany concerning the ecology of the Baltic and North Seas is strong. The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation provided detailed information in a comprehensive manner and the SEA report was informed by expert analysis.
- Rather, the failure to sufficiently implement an EBA which would allow for substantive alignment with the binding targets of EU directives is traced to procedural aspects and in particular, a narrow understanding of the role and scope of maritime spatial planning whereby the boundary between spatial planning (the spatial coordination of competing claims on the use of sea space) and nature conservation (the protection of the integrity and resilience of marine ecosystems) is sharply delimited.
- The volume and intensity of human activities in the EEZ (shipping, fishing, offhshore wind, mineral extraction) were not up for debate within the plan preparation process. These parameters were viewed as pre-given set externally, either through political decision-making at the federal level (offshore wind), or considered outside the remit of Germany’s national jurisdiction (shipping, fishing). The plan was thus only concerned with the spatial distribution of individual activities.
- As a consequence of the approach outlined above, alternative scenarios considered within the SEA process showed very limited variation in terms of the overall environmental impact. Similarly, the role of cumulative impact assessment was reduced to procedural compliance.
- Overall, our analysis suggests that the potential for MSP within this particular legal and institutional context, to deliver anything other than business-as-usual is severely limited.
In the Table below, we provide a direct comparison of the key characteristics of the 2021 Plan with those of ecosystem-based MSP in accordance with the EU MSP and MSFD.
| Ecosystem-based MSP in accordance with EU Directives | German 2021 Plan | |
| Role of MSP | Spatial and temporal coordination of human activities within carrying capacity of marine ecosystems; cross-sectoral integration; resolution of tensions between competing objectives | Spatial coordination of human activities |
| Relationship with MSFD targets | Substantive alignment of MSP with achievement and maintenance of GES | Some individual MSP measures contribute to achievement of GES |
| Purpose and scope of cumulative effects assessment | Ensure the overall impact of human activities at sea is compatible with the achievement and maintenance of GES | Ensure procedural alignment with requirements of national SEA legislation and EU SEA Directive |
| Purpose and scope of alternative planning scenarios | Assessment of realistic alternative future development scenarios, to ensure the plan follows the approach that minimises adverse environmental impacts | Ensure procedural alignment with requirements of national SEA legislation and EU SEA Directive |
| Role and status of MPAs within MSP | MPAs form the backbone of ecosystem-based MSP. They are strictly protected through the exclusion of incompatible uses | MPAs are considered a use of sea space with similar status to other uses. Incompatible uses are not excluded. |
Summary comparison of the key components of ecosystem-based MSP, in accordance with EU Directives (left) and as found in the German 2021 Plan (right) (source: Walsh et al 2024).
The paper concludes with a discussion of possible alternative and complementary approaches including the formulation of a high-level orverarching strategiy for the use of marine space and protection of marine ecosystems that would sit above both MSP and MSFD implementation. A further key recommendation concerns the conduct of SEA for MSP by an external authority or agency to allow for a greater degree of independent scrutiny.
It is likely that the application of ecosystem-based principles in MSP in other EU jurisdictions faces similar pitfalls. As such, it is imperative that the necessary steps are taken to ensure alignment with MSP and the achievement and maintenance of Good Environmental Status.