Photo by Joachim Schnürle on Unsplash

Shaping the Future of our seas with Maritime Spatial Planning

February 2026

Funded by the Strategic Research Council’s WAWE programme, the multidisciplinary WATERWAYS project examines the use of Baltic Sea maritime routes through the lens of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, developing research-based tools for up-to-date situational awareness, risk assessment and management, and cross-sectoral co-creation of sustainable future pathways.

This blog post examines the evolution of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) from early pioneering work in the Baltic Sea to the upcoming European Ocean Act 2027. It explores the practical implementation of the ecosystem-based approach and discusses how integrated governance can address the growing competition for marine space while ensuring environmental sustainability.

“Even if you never have the chance to see or touch the ocean, the ocean touches you with every breath you take, every drop of water you drink, every bite you consume. Everyone, everywhere is inextricably connected to and utterly dependent upon the existence of the sea.”
Sylvia A. Earle, The World Is Blue: How Our Fate and the Ocean’s Are One (1)

Oceans and seas sustain the life we know today, influencing everything from the planet’s climate to the food on our plates. In this space, both traditional and emerging activities converge, and diverse interests and priorities need to be balanced. This incredibly complex and interconnected system seems also to be growing at the centre of global attention. From the Ocean Decade to Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, recent international efforts have put the world’s spotlight on our oceans and our relationships with them.

Maritime Spatial Planning as a response

Given this focus, we need to consider how we can manage this highly connected and complex system. Or more precisely, how can we manage the diverse human activities interacting with this system? Over the last decades, Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) has emerged as one promising answer. MSP is widely recognised as a tool for implementing the ecosystem-based approach (EBA), a complex framework that, although has been defined from two different and partly contradictory perspectives (2), proposes to move beyond approaches focused on single species, sectors or activities to support decision-making that considers the ecosystem in its entirety, including humans (3).

Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) is defined by IOC-UNESCO as “a public process of analysing and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that have been specified through a political process” (4). To support countries navigating in these challenging waters, IOC-UNESCO published in 2009 the “Marine Spatial Planning: A step-by-step approach towards ecosystem-based management” (5). This guide organised the MSP process into ten steps, each followed by tasks designed to support a successful planning process. It also emphasized that MSP is a future oriented process that seeks to engage stakeholders throughout the entire process and highlighted the need for an adaptive approach, grounded in continuous monitoring and evaluation.

From global guidance to EU implementation

In Europe, maritime spatial planning was formalised by the EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) in 2014 (6), under the Integrated Maritime Policy umbrella, setting out a common framework for MSP and accelerating its development across the continent with a deadline for fully developed plans by 2021. The MSPD aimed at fostering the Blue Growth by promoting the sustainable development of human activities in the marine environment through a coordinated, integrated, and cross-border approach (6), while incorporating the EBA concept from the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) (7).

Notably, the coastal countries of the Baltic Sea have been at the forefront of early MSP development in Europe, especially its transboundary dimensions, contributing to the drafting of the MSPD. Based on the earlier work on ICZM (8) and Sea use planning (VASAB), a joint regional HELCOM-VASAB MSP working group of MSP practioners was established in 2010 (9) and continues to operate today, coordinating efforts toward a coherent MSP in the region. The early BaltSeaPlan project (2009-2012) included seven early MSP case studies which provided important entry points for national administrations. The first explicitly transboundary MSP pilot project and plan “Plan Bothnia” (2010-2012) across the Swedish and Finnish border, was completed already in 2012 (10).

Lessons learned, and what comes next

By 2025, most Member States have a maritime spatial plan in place, a milestone that brings the European marine area closer to being comprehensively managed. In a review of the status of MSP in Europe, Zaucha et al., (2025) (11) observe that countries are, however, at different stages of implementation, with some already reaching the second and even third-generation plan. The authors also note that the implementation across Europe varies considerably among countries, with a diversity of legal effects, interpretation of the MSPD’s listed sectors and views on sustainability, which can be linked to factors such as national interests, planning traditions and existing governance systems (11).

Another important point raised by Zaucha et al. (11) is stakeholder participation, which mirrors these broader implementation dynamics. Despite the considerable efforts many Member States have made to broaden engagement, issues remain regarding equal representation, conflict resolution and fairness of outcomes (11).

Despite this variability, certain priorities are consistent across all plans. Areas for shipping, offshore wind farms and nature conservation have been prioritised in the zoning plans, reflecting overarching policy priorities and commitments (11). Specifically for Offshore Wind Farms (OWF), a sector which is currently developing in an impressive scale and pace, MSP is referenced across many of the energy-related frameworks, such as the Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy and the Renewable Energy Directive. Within these frameworks, MSP is seen as a key instrument to secure areas for OWF development while balancing the trade-offs associated with the use of the marine space, including safeguarding the marine environment.

The growing demand for marine space in an already busy sea amplifies the need for careful planning and coordination across sectors and scales. While MSP can, as a form of spatial planning, foster coordination and cooperation across sectors, challenges remain as maritime spatial plans can enable, but not ensure, proper management. Furthermore, even though recognized as a tool to foster EBA, its implementation in MSP remains a challenge in practice, partly due to the complexity of the EBA concept but also as this planning seeks to balance potentially contradictory objectives.

As the implementation of national maritime spatial plans is taking place, and the preparation for the next planning cycle begins, it will be critical to draw lessons from the past, developing and improving decision-supporting methods, data acquisition and management, and advancing scientific and practical knowledge to support an adaptive and democratic MSP. Furthermore, it is worth noting that, following the announcement of the European Ocean Pact in June 2025 and its plans to revise and incorporate the MSPD under the Ocean Act by 2027, the future configuration of MSP is still being shaped, and further changes are yet to emerge.

With its transdisciplinary and system-based approach to assess human-sea interactions, the ongoing Finnish Strategic Research Council project WATERWAYS has an important opportunity to develop the MSP framework further, within Finland but also over the whole Baltic Sea, EU-wide and globally.

Deborah Shinoda
Doctoral Researcher
University of Helsinki

Hermanni Backer Johnsen
Senior Researcher
Åbo Akademi

Also, see our January 2026 blog post by the same authors for a more legal point of view on MSP.

References:

  1. Earle, S. (2009). The World is Blue: How Our Fate and the Ocean’s Are One. (Quote source: Goodreads). Available at: https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/7104365-the-world-is-blue-how-our-fate-and-the-ocean-s-are-one)
  2. Backer Johnsen, Hermanni. 2020. The HELCOM Ecosystem Approach: time for quantification, integration and measures. University of Helsinki. PhD thesis.
  3. McLeod KL, Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, Rosenberg AA, et al. (2005) Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem‑Based Management. Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea. Available at: https://marineplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Consensusstatement.pdf
  4. IOC-UNESCO. (2023) Marine Spatial Planning. Available at: https://www.ioc.unesco.org/en/marine-spatial-planning
  5. Ehler C.N., Douvere F. (2009), Marine Spatial Planning: A Step-by-Step Approach toward Ecosystem-based Management, IOC Manual and Guides 53, ICAM Dossier 6, UNESCO, Paris.
  6. European Parliament & Council of the European Union (2014). Directive 2014/89/EU of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. [pdf] Official Journal of the European Union L 257:135–145. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089
  7. EU. 2008. 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 164/19.
  8. EUCC & HELCOM 2002. Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Baltic States -State of the Art Report-Background for Coastal Planning and Management in the Baltic Sea Region. 93 pp. https://spicosa-inline.databases.eucc-d.de/files/documents/00000657_EUCC_Baltic_ICZM_State_of_Art.pdf
  9. HELCOM.2010. HELCOM Ministerial Declaration on the implementation of the HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan 20 May 2010, Moscow. p. 11.
  10. Backer, H. & Frias M. (eds). 2012. Planning the Bothnian sea. Plan Bothnia 2012. 160 pp. [Print version 2012]
  11. Zaucha J, et al. (2025) Implementing the EU MSP Directive : Current status and lessons learned in 22 EU Member States. Marine Policy. 2025;171:106425. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106425