Considerations of Use-Use Interactions between Macroalgae Cultivation and Other Maritime Sectors: An Eastern Baltic MSP Case Study
- To what extent have macroalgae cultivation interests been recognised as well as socially and spatially represented in the existing MSPs in these countries?
- To what degree have interactions between macroalgae cultivation and other maritime sectors and opportunities for co-location been considered during the implementation of these MSPs?
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. The Conceptual Approach, Data Gathering, and Analysis
2.2.1. Theoretical Background
2.2.2. Qualitative Content Analysis and Observer Knowledge: Sector Inclusion in MSP
2.2.3. Classification of Co-Location Opportunities in MSP
- Environmental links—uses affect the environment and resource needs of another use.
- Location links—marine activities take place at the water surface, within the water column and on the seabed and at different times, and can at times overlap, which can result in sharing or competition over marine space.
- User attraction links—change in the number of users due to the proximity of activities.
- Technical links—concerning infrastructure, tools, or safety.
3.1. Macroalgae Sector Inclusion in the MSP Processes
A Formally Recognised “Future Use”
Environmental Benefits and Risks
Limited Socio-Economic Significance
Varying Degrees of Actor Representation
Spatial Macroalgae Cultivation Representation during the Planning Process
3.1.3. Technical Challenges and Knowledge Gaps as Barriers for Sector Recognition and Representation
3.2. Potential for Sector Co-Location
3.3. Spatial Representation of Use-Use Interactions and Potential for Co-Location
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
|Status and scope||Legally binding, national scale plan for the entire marine area under the Estonian jurisdiction expected to be adopted in early 2022.|
Pilot plans for the Pärnu and Hiiu county territorial waters had been developed before the launch of the national scale plan and have now been integrated in the national plan.
National MSP based on the Planning Act 2015 and the pilot plans for Pärnu and Hiiu counties, on the earlier version of the Planning Act.
|A national scale plan for the entire marine waters under the national Latvian jurisdiction and the 2 km strip of internal waters mandated to coastal municipalities was adopted in May 2019. It is not legally binding.|
The plan is based on the Spatial Development Planning Law (1 December 2011) and Regulation No. 740 of the Cabinet of Ministers on the Procedures for the Development, Implementation and Monitoring of the Maritime spatial plan (30 October 2012).
|A legally binding plan for the entire area was developed based on the Act on Sea Areas of Poland and Maritime Administration 2015 and has been in force since 21 May 2021. The Polish MSP provides the legal basis for decision-making and management of marine space and has a direct impact on the legal status and rights of sea users.|
Before the adoption of the EU MSP Directive, pilot plans were developed in 2008–2012 for: the western Gulf of Gdańsk, the Middle Bank, and the Bay of Pomerania. The pilot plans were non-binding but informed the Polish Maritime Administration decision-making process as a source of best available knowledge.
Separate, more detailed plans for the Szczecin, Kamień, and Vistula lagoons as well as port areas are also being developed due to the high levels of existing or potential conflicts in the areas.
The final draft plan for the Szczecin and Kamień Lagoons was ready in 2019 but is still under consultation. The first out of three drafts for the Vistula Lagoon and the Gulf of Gdańsk have been prepared. Once approved, the gulf of Gdańsk plan (at a scale of 1: 25,000), will override the coarser MSP of the area.
|Key drivers||The plan will be the strategic basis for all decisions regulating sea use.|
Its aim is to “attain and maintain a good status of the marine environment and to promote the maritime economy” while securing a “good environmental status, diverse and balanced use” .
The two pilot plans were started on one hand, because of the wind farms, as more competing interests were emerging, which were in conflict with each other and there was a need to find a balanced solution. The explanatory memorandum on the initiation of plans states that an important outcome of MSP is the avoidance or minimisation of conflicts between activities carried out and planned at sea, as well as between marine uses and nature. On the other hand, the aim was precisely to pilot the maritime planning process, as such plans have not been made in Estonia before. The experience of these two plans, although with a slightly different approach, has been used in the preparation of the national plan.
|The key criteria for defining uses of the sea outlined in the first draft were:|
“Rational use of the sea space and minimising of the sea use conflicts”, maintenance of the “ecosystem integrity”.
Further consideration of “possibilities of combined uses with similar demands for environmental conditions and infrastructure, not disturbing each other” and promotion of “synergies between different uses: Encouraging coexistence of the complementary or interdependent (functionally related) sea uses.”  (p. 33)
|Description of the planning approach||The plan focuses on the principles of spatial development, and the activities are not planned on a detailed scale. The plan provides guidelines and states conditions for the next stages of planning the activities, including at the local government level. The planning solution was drafted on the basis of environmental considerations and the best available knowledge. The inclusion of the best available knowledge is ensured by a broad-based expert group, cooperation with other countries, authorities and stakeholders, and further analyzes. As in many traditional uses (e.g., fishing, maritime transport), the rules of marine uses have predominantly been established; the plan focuses primarily on the combined use of the marine area and new uses of the sea. Guidelines are provided for all areas of activity to accommodate all different uses in the marine space ||In the first draft of the MSP, the marine space and permitted uses are divided into four categories—“areas of priority interest” and uses of strategic importance; “areas of potential development” focused on new uses with elements on uncertainty; “other types of uses of the sea and marine features”—all activities with pre-existing legal basis; and “areas of general use”, which permit uses of any nature if they do not impact the environment and are legally permitted .||The national marine plan at a scale of 1:200,000 divides the Polish marine space into 95 basins. In line with legislation, every basin has been assigned a “main function”. Other activities—“allowed functions”, may occur simultaneously within the basin as long as they do not disturb the main activity.|
Activities not listed are not permitted within the basin. In addition, each basin must be described in detail in terms of the existing conditions, the pressures occurring, the legal acts in force and the detailed principles of management and use of the resource, including the relationship between the different functions.
The planning process of the final MSP involved the preparation of a study of the conditions and four versions of the draft plan. All versions of the plan were subject to an Environmental Impact Prediction as a part of strategic environmental impact assessment.
A preliminary version of the “Study on the conditions of Spatial Development of Polish Maritime Areas with spatial analysis” was prepared in 2015, covering the exclusive economic zone, territorial sea and internal waters of the open coast .
This document describes the environmental aspects and aspects resulting from various forms of space use, also legal ones. It was the first source of knowledge to start the main MSP, first formal identification of actors and conflicts, but the solutions.
|Authorities responsible||The Ministry of Finance||The Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (MoEPRD) with the support from other ministries and sector authorities responsible for the national MSP. Local coastal municipality councils—coastal plan.||Polish Maritime Area is territorially divided between Maritime Offices in Gdynia, Szczecin, and, until 2020, Słupsk. The Directors of Maritime Offices are the local maritime administrative bodies of the Ministry responsible for maritime affairs and they are responsible for preparing and consulting the plans before implementation|
|Public and sector consultation process||All interested parties were able to propose their suggestions on the values and uses of the maritime space during the planning phase. They were invited to map their ideas during the almost one-year period on the official MSP website. http://mereala.hendrikson.ee/ideekorje.html (accessed on 10 November 2021)|
The planner has used a broad approach in stakeholder engagement using a variety of channels. All invitations for stakeholder meetings were published in national and regional newspapers; on Facebook; on the webpage of Ministry of Finance and the dedicated planning webpage; e-mail invitations were sent to interested parties through mailing lists that included professional associations, participants from other similar meetings and people who had subscribed to the e-mails.
Furthermore, physical posters were posted on frequented places such as notice boards in the town central squares. Content articles were published in several publications.
A round of thematic meetings with stakeholders was carried out during the preparation of the MSP, to validate the solution before they are made public and to discuss specific issues with relevant stakeholders.
MSP solutions were introduced at various international and national meetings, including introduction to aquaculture at the Baltic Blue Growth conference.
|Detailed plan for public, sector and expert engagement . “Priority sectors” such as shipping, and the offshore wind energy sector had targeted consultations with sectoral representatives .||There were four draft plans, each one was subject to public review.|
In total, 2053 requests for change were submitted and the number of applicants was 232.
There were also eight sectoral (~8*50 participants), four major national (~700 participants), and three international consultation meetings (~33*12 participants).
|Priority or strategically important sectors||Existing and well-established uses have had a clear preference when accommodating new uses. New uses need to be accommodated where the old ones do not exist. The wind energy sector has had the strongest influence out of the new uses and much clearer objectives.|
For example, an environmental NGO won
a court case, and the offshore wind energy theme was removed from the Hiiu MSP by ruling of the National Court of Estonia .
|Existing strategically important sectors include shipping, fishing, tourism, national security, and nature conservation.|
Offshore wind farm development is also foreseen in the near future, and the sector is considered a “priority sector” despite currently not existing.
- Gentry, R.R.; Froehlich, H.E.; Grimm, D.; Kareiva, P.; Parke, M.; Rust, M.; Gaines, S.D.; Halpern, B.S. Mapping the global potential for marine aquaculture. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 1, 1317–1324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Araújo, R.; Vázquez Calderón, F.; Sánchez López, J.; Azevedo, I.C.; Bruhn, A.; Fluch, S.; Garcia Tasende, M.; Ghaderiardakani, F.; Ilmjärv, T.; Laurans, M.; et al. Current Status of the Algae Production Industry in Europe: An Emerging Sector of the Blue Bioeconomy. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 7, 1247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gjertsen, A.; Bay-Larsen, I.; Bjørkhaug, H.; Vangelsten, B.V. Access to areas for algae cultivation in Norway. Mar. Policy 2020, 115, 103853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, I.; Macleod, A.; Sahlmann, C.; Neves, L.; Funderud, J.; Øverland, M.; Hughes, A.D.; Stanley, M. The environmental risks associated with the development of seaweed farming in Europe—Prioritising key knowledge gaps. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Comission European Green Deal: Developing A Sustainable Blue Economy in the European Union. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_2341 (accessed on 9 December 2021).
- Hasselström, L.; Gröndahl, F. Payments for nutrient uptake in the blue bioeconomy—When to be careful and when to go for it. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2021, 167, 112321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- European Commission, Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Duarte, C.M.; Wu, J.; Xiao, X.; Bruhn, A.; Krause-Jensen, D. Can seaweed farming play a role in climate change mitigation and adaptation? Front. Mar. Sci. 2017, 4, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020: Sustainability in Action; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- HELCOM. State of the Baltic Sea—Second HELCOM Holistic Assessment 2011–2016. 2018. Available online: https://helcom.fi/media/publications/BSEP155.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Reusch, T.B.H.; Dierking, J.; Andersson, H.C.; Bonsdorff, E.; Carstensen, J.; Casini, M.; Czajkowski, M.; Hasler, B.; Hinsby, K.; Hyytiäinen, K.; et al. The Baltic Sea as a time machine for the future coastal ocean. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaar8195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kersen, P.; Paalme, T.; Pajusalu, L.; Martin, G. Biotechnological applications of the red alga Furcellaria lumbricalis and its cultivation potential in the Baltic Sea. Bot. Mar. 2017, 60, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weinberger, F.; Paalme, T.; Wikström, S.A. Seaweed resources of the Baltic Sea, Kattegat and German and Danish North Sea coasts. Bot. Mar. 2020, 63, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Skipper, L.; Calabuig, I.; Møller, J.; Wenøe Breddam, D.; Skovgaard Mathorne, J. Saccharina latissimi (Linnaeus) C.E.Lane, C.Mayes, Druehl & G.W.Saunders, 2006. In National Checklist of All Species Occurring in Denmark; Miljøstyrelsen/The Danish Environmental Protection Agency: København, Denmark, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- van Oirschot, R.; Thomas, J.E.; Gröndahl, F.; Fortuin, K.P.J.; Brandenburg, W.; Potting, J. Explorative environmental life cycle assessment for system design of seaweed cultivation and drying. Algal Res. 2017, 27, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visch, W.; Kononets, M.; Hall, P.O.J.; Nylund, G.M.; Pavia, H. Environmental impact of kelp (Saccharina latissima) aquaculture. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 155, 110962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brzeska-Roszczyk, P.; Barańska, A.; Kruk-Dowgiałło, L. Review of selected methods of macroalgae cultivation in the marine waters. BIM 2017, 32, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suutari, M.; Leskinen, E.; Spilling, K.; Kostamo, K.; Seppälä, J. Nutrient removal by biomass accumulation on artificial substrata in the northern Baltic Sea. J. Appl. Phycol. 2016, 29, 1707–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christiansen, E.R. The Potential of Ulva for Bioremediation and for Food and Feed. Master’s Thesis, National Food Institute, Aarhus University, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark, 2018. Available online: https://docplayer.dk/154782299-And-for-food-and-feed.html (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Anneliis Kõivupuu. Macroalgae Sector in Estonia: Past, Present and Future Perspectives. 2021. Available online: https://www.kurzemesregions.lv/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Estonia-macroalgae-sector_Anneliis.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Meichssner, R.; Stegmann, N.; Cosin, A.; Sachs, D.; Bressan, M.; Marx, H.; Krost, P.; Schulz, R. Control of fouling in the aquaculture of Fucus vesiculosus and Fucus serratus by regular desiccation. J. Appl. Phycol. 2020, 32, 4145–4158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A.; Rahikainen, M.; Lonkila, A.; Yang, B. Alternative proteins and EU food law. Food Control 2021, 130, 108336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, J.E.; Ramos, F.S.; Gröndahl, F. Identifying Suitable Sites for Macroalgae Cultivation on the Swedish West Coast. Coast. Manag. 2019, 47, 88–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kotta, J.; Jänes, H.; Paalme, T.; Peterson, A.; Kotta, I.; Aps, R.; Szava-Kovats, R.; Kaasik, A.; Fetissov, M. GoA 2.1. Assessing the PanBaltic Potential of Macroalgae Cultivation and of Harvesting Wild Stocks. 2021. Available online: https://www.submariner-network.eu/images/grass/outputs/GRASS_OA21_pan-Baltic_map_depicting_potential_of_macroalgal_cultivation_and_harvesting.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Peteiro, C.; Sánchez, N.; Martínez, B. Mariculture of the Asian kelp Undaria pinnatifida and the native kelp Saccharina latissima along the Atlantic coast of Southern Europe: An overview. Algal Res. 2016, 15, 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, F.; Gilek, M.; Day, J.; Hassler, B.; McCann, J.; Smythe, T. Examining the role of integration in marine spatial planning: Towards an analytical framework to understand challenges in diverse settings. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 169, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014. Establishing A Framework for Maritime Spatial Planning. 2014. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2014/89/oj (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Ntona, M.; Morgera, E. Connecting SDG 14 with the other Sustainable Development Goals through marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 2018, 93, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonnevie, I.M.; Hansen, H.S.; Schrøder, L. Assessing use-use interactions at sea: A theoretical framework for spatial decision support tools facilitating co-location in maritime spatial planning. Mar. Policy 2019, 106, 103533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schupp, M.F.; Bocci, M.; Depellegrin, D.; Kafas, A.; Kyriazi, Z.; Lukic, I.; Schultz-Zehden, A.; Krause, G.; Onyango, V.; Buck, B.H. Toward a Common Understanding of Ocean Multi-Use. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abhinav, K.A.; Collu, M.; Benjamins, S.; Cai, H.; Hughes, A.; Jiang, B.; Jude, S.; Leithead, W.; Lin, C.; Liu, H.; et al. Offshore multi-purpose platforms for a Blue Growth: A technological, environmental and socio-economic review. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 734, 138256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stelzenmuüller, V.; Gimpel, A.; Gopnik, M.; Gee, K. Aquaculture Site-Selection and Marine Spatial Planning: The Roles of GIS-Based Tools and Models. In Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean; Buck, B., Langan, R., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jay, S. Planners to the rescue: Spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2010, 60, 493–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kotta, J.; Paalme, T.; Kersen, P.; Martin, G.; Herkül, K.; Möller, T. Density dependent growth of the red algae Furcellaria lumbricalis and Coccotylus truncatus in the West Estonian Archipelago Sea, northern Baltic Sea. Oceanologia 2008, 50, 577–585. [Google Scholar]
- Skudra, M.; Lips, U. Characteristics and inter-annual changes in temperature, salinity and density distribution in the Gulf of Riga. Oceanologia 2017, 59, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Świątek, M. Long-term variability of water temperature and salinity at the Polish coast. Bull. Geogr. Phys. Geogr. Ser. 2019, 16, 115–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- HELCOM. Checklist of Baltic Sea Macro-Species. Baltic Sea Environment Proceedings No. 13. 2012. Available online: https://www.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/BSEP130-1.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Czapke, K. Agar-agar z krajowego surowca (Agar-agar from national resource). Przem. Spoż. 1961, 15, 12–17. [Google Scholar]
- Czapke, K. Widlik bałtycki i agar-agar (Baltic Furcellaria and agar-agar). Przem. Spoż. 1963, 17, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, G.; Paalme, T.; Torn, K. Growth and Production Rates of Loose-Lying and Attached Forms of the Red Algae Furcellaria lumbricalis and Coccotylus truncatus in Kassari Bay, the West Estonian Archipelago Sea. Hydrobiologia 2006, 554, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ciszewski, P.; Ciszewska, I.; Kruk-Dowgiałło, L.; Osowiecki, A.; Rybicka, D.; Wiktor, J.; Wolska-Pyś, M.; Żmudziński, L.; Trokowicz, D. Trends of long-term alterations of the Puck Bay ecosystem. Stud. Mater. Oceanologiczne 1992, 60, 33–84. [Google Scholar]
- Pliński, M.; Florczyk, I. Changes in the phytobenthos resulting from the eutrophication of Puck Bay. Limnologica 1984, 15, 325–327. [Google Scholar]
- Ślesińska, B. Skład gatunkowy roślin w połowach prowadzonych przy eksploatacji widlika w Zatoce Puckiej (The species composition of plants taken when collecting Furcellaria from Puck Bay). Zesz. Nauk. Wydz. Biol. Nauk Ziemi Uniw. Gdań. 1977, 3, 139–148. [Google Scholar]
- Riigikogu. Estonian Fishing Act 2015. 2015. Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/est178448ENG.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Bucholc, K.; Szymczak-Żyła, M.; Lubecki, L.; Zamojska, A.; Hapter, P.; Tjernström, E.; Kowalewska, G. Nutrient content in macrophyta collected from southern Baltic Sea beaches in relation to eutrophication and biogas production. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 473–474, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filipkowska, A.; Lubecki, L.; Szymczak-Żyła, M.; Kowalewska, G.; Żbikowski, R.; Szefer, P. Utilisation of macroalgae from the Sopot beach (Baltic Sea). Oceanologia 2008, 50, 255–273. [Google Scholar]
- Gee, K.; Blazauskas, N.; Dahl, K.; Göke, C.; Hassler, B.; Kannen, A.; Leposa, N.; Morf, A.; Strand, H.; Weig, B.; et al. Can tools contribute to integration in MSP? A comparative review of selected tools and approaches. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2019, 179, 104834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flannery, W.; Ellis, G.; Ellis, G.; Flannery, W.; Nursey-Bray, M.; van Tatenhove, J.P.M.; Kelly, C.; Coffen-Smout, S.; Fairgrieve, R.; Knol, M.; et al. Exploring the winners and losers of marine environmental governance. Plann. Theory Pract. 2016, 17, 121–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Morf, A.; Kull, M.; Piwowarczyk, J.; Gee, K. Chapter 10: Towards a Ladder of Marine/Maritime Spatial Planning Participation. In Maritime Spatial Planning, Past, Present, Future; Zaucha, J., Gee, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Twomey, S.; O’Mahony, C. Chapter 13: Stakeholder Processes in Marine Spatial Planning: Ambitions and Realities from the European Atlantic Experience. In Maritime Spatial Planning, Past, Present, Future; Zaucha, J., Gee, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gopnik, M.; Fieseler, C.; Cantral, L.; McClellan, K.; Pendleton, L.; Crowder, L. Coming to the table: Early stakeholder engagement in marine spatial planning. Mar. Policy 2012, 36, 1139–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frederiksen, P.; Morf, A.; von Thenen, M.; Armoskaite, A.; Luhtala, H.; Schiele, K.S.; Strake, S.; Hansen, H.S. Proposing an ecosystem services-based framework to assess sustainability impacts of maritime spatial plans (MSP-SA). Ocean Coast. Manag. 2021, 208, 105577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saunders, F.; Gilek, M.; Ikauniece, A.; Tafon, R.V.; Gee, K.; Zaucha, J. Theorizing Social Sustainability and Justice in Marine Spatial Planning: Democracy, Diversity, and Equity. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schultz-Zehden, A.; Lukic, I.; Onwona Ansong, J.; Altvater, S.; Bamlett, R.; Barbanti, A.; Bocci, M.; Buck, B.H.; Calado, H.; Caña Varona, M.; et al. Ocean Multi-Use Action Plan; MUSES Project; Multi-Use in European Seas: Edinburgh, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Gee, K.; Kannen, A.; Adlam, R.; Brooks, C.; Chapman, M.; Cormier, R.; Fischer, C.; Fletcher, S.; Gubbins, M.; Shucksmith, R.; et al. Identifying culturally significant areas for marine spatial planning. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 136, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gimpel, A.; Stelzenmüller, V.; Töpsch, S.; Galparsoro, I.; Gubbins, M.; Miller, D.; Murillas, A.; Murray, A.G.; Pınarbaşı, K.; Roca, G.; et al. A GIS-based tool for an integrated assessment of spatial planning trade-offs with aquaculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 627, 1644–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyriazi, Z. From identification of compatibilities and conflicts to reaching marine spatial allocation agreements. Review of actions required and relevant tools and processes. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 166, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Przedrzymirska, J.; Zaucha, J.; Depellgrin, D.; Fairgrieve, R.; Kafas, A.; Calado, H.M.G.P.; de Sousa Vergílio, M.H.; Varona, M.C.; Lazić, M.; Schultz-Zehden, A.; et al. Multi-use of the sea: From research to practice. SHS Web Conf. 2018, 58, 01025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, D.M.; Steiner, R. Insect pollinator conservation policy innovations at subnational levels: Lessons for lawmakers. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 93, 118–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahandusministeerium. Maritime Spatial Plan; Rahandusministeerium Estonian: Tallinn, Estonia, 2020. (In Estonian)
- Rahandusministeerium. Hiiu Maakonna Merealade Planeering; Rahandusministeerium Estonian: Tallinn, Estonia, 2018.
- Rahandusministeerium. Pärnu Maakonnaga Piirneva Mereala Maakonnaplaneering; Rahandusministeerium Estonian: Tallinn, Estonia, 2017.
- Republic of Estonian Ministry of Rural Affairs. Põllumajanduse Ja Kalanduse Valdkonna Arengukava Aastani 2030 (Development Plan for Agriculture and Fisheries Until 2030). 2021. Available online: https://www.agri.ee/sites/default/files/content/arengukavad/poka-2030/poka-2030-taistekst.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Estonian Maritime Spatial Plan. Summary table of proposals submitted to the Estonian maritime spatial plan and the positions of the Ministry of Finance. 2021. Available online: http://mereala.hendrikson.ee/dokumendid/Planeeringulahendus/2021-11_Ettepanekute_koondtabel.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Estonian Maritime Spatial Plan. Consultations table for Estonian MSP. 2021. Available online: http://mereala.hendrikson.ee/dokumendid/Planeeringulahendus/2021-11_koosk%C3%B5lastuste_koondtabel.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Rahandusministeerium. Protocols of Public Consultation Meetings (2019–2020). Available online: http://mereala.hendrikson.ee/arutelud.html (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia. Multiannual Framework for Aquaculture Development 2014–2020. 2013. Available online: https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/files/CMS_Static_Page_Doc/00/00/00/35/82/akvakultura_2014.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia. MARITIME SPATIAL PLAN 2030. The Maritime Spatial Plan for the Marine Inland Waters, Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Waters of the Republic of Latvia. National Level Long-Term Spatial Development Planning Document. 2019. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mKigVjv6N03cjgPkwR5RSItcQezsn5zY/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia. Operational Programme for Fisheries Development. 2021. Available online: https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/ck/files/ZM/zivis/LV_EJZF_ZRP_21_27%20_ROJ_09_2021.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia. Maritime Spatial Plan 2030 Environmental Report; Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia: Rīga, Latvia, 2019.
- Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia. Kopsavilkums Par Sabiedrības Iebildumiem Un Priekšlikumiem Jūras Plānojuma 2030 Un Tā Vides Pārskata Projektu Publiskajā Apspriešanā. Priekšlikumi Izkārtoti Atbilstoši Jūras Plānojuma 2030 2. Redakcijas Doku-Menta Struktūrai, Sākot Ar Vispārīgiem Priekšlikumiem (Summary of Public Consultations; In Latvian). 2018. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fZQNqj8Zn13_WK2Do1C5gPo24suba2je/view?usp=sharing (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia. Maritime Spatial Plan for the Internal Marine Waters, Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Latvia; Summary; Ministry of the Environmental Protection and Regional Development of the Republic of Latvia: Rīga, Latvia, 2016.
- Ruskule, A.; Veidemane, K. Developing a Pilot MSP for the Western Coast of Latvia. Environ. Forum Latv. 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urząd Morski w Gdyni. Plan Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Polskich Obszarów Morskich w Skali 1:200000. 2021. Available online: https://www.umgdy.gov.pl/?cat=274 (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Urząd Morski w Gdyni. Projekt Planu Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Szczecin and Kamieński Lagoon; Urząd Morski w Gdyni: Gdynia, Poland, 2021.
- Urząd Morski w Gdyni. Projekt Planu Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Zalewu Wiślanego. 2021. Available online: https://www.umgdy.gov.pl/?cat=303 (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Urząd Morski w Gdyni. Szczegółowy Projekt Planu Zagospodarowania Przestrzennego Zatoki Gdańskiej; Urząd Morski w Gdyni: Gdynia, Poland, 2021.
- Zaucha, J.; Matczak, M. Study of Conditions of Spatial Development of Polish Sea Areas; Maritime Office: Gdynia, Poland, 2016.
- Zaucha, J.; Kreiner, A. Engagement of stakeholders in the marine/maritime spatial planning process. Mar. Policy 2021, 132, 103394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veidemane, K.; Ruskule, A.; Strake, S.; Purina, I.; Aigars, J.; Sprukta, S.; Ustups, D.; Putnis, I.; Klepers, A. Application of the marine ecosystem services approach in the development of the maritime spatial plan of Latvia. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2017, 13, 398–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Caune, A.; Kirkovalds, J.; Pužulis, A.; Rijkure, A.; Ungure, I. Stakeholder Involvement in Long-Term Maritime Spatial Planning: Latvian Case. In Development of Future Scenarios for the Shipping and Energy Sectors; Identification of Critical Issues of These Sectors for the Baltic Sea Region Planning Transboundary Discussion Needs: Process and Results; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bocci, M.; Sangiuliano, S.J.; Sarretta, A.; Ansong, J.O.; Buchanan, B.; Kafas, A.; Caña-Varona, M.; Onyango, V.; Papaioannou, E.; Ramieri, E.; et al. Multi-use of the sea: A wide array of opportunities from site-specific cases across Europe. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- HELCOM Map and Data Service. Available online: http://maps.helcom.fi/website/mapservice/ (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Latvian Maritime Spatial Plan Draft, 1. Permitted Use of the Sea in the Gulf of Riga under Latvian Jurisdiction. 2016. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9UI5MsfsbRDTmlQMDFzMXBSODQ/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-87W7YNmJY_DRDgWzZ82JqA (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Latvian Maritime Spatial Plan Draft, 1. Permitted Use of the Sea in the Baltic Proper under Latvian Jurisdiction. 2016. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9UI5MsfsbRDZ01EcVc4Q2NuZUk/view?usp=sharing&resourcekey=0-p1OveqxZz-7xzRxk8ucRTQ (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- FAO. Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 631 of 2014 Construction Regulations for Structures in the Internal Waters, Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Latvia; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- GRASS Project. Output 3.1a: Maps Illustrating MSP Approach to Best Available Sites for Macroalgae Cultivation and Harvesting in the Baltic Sea. 2021. Available online: https://www.submariner-network.eu/grass (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Depellegrin, D.; Venier, C.; Kyriazi, Z.; Vassilopoulou, V.; Castellani, C.; Ramieri, E.; Bocci, M.; Fernandez, J.; Barbanti, A. Exploring Multi-Use potentials in the Euro-Mediterranean sea space. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 653, 612–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christie, N.; Smyth, K.; Barnes, R.; Elliott, M. Co-location of activities and designations: A means of solving or creating problems in marine spatial planning? Mar. Policy 2014, 43, 254–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Troell, M.; Joyce, A.; Chopin, T.; Neori, A.; Buschmann, A.H.; Fang, J. Ecological engineering in aquaculture—Potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 2009, 297, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Thenen, M.; Maar, M.; Hansen, H.S.; Friedland, R.; Schiele, K.S. Applying a combined geospatial and farm scale model to identify suitable locations for mussel farming. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 2020, 156, 111254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stuiver, M.; Soma, K.; Koundouri, P.; van den Burg, S.W.K.; Gerritsen, A.; Rockmann, C. The Governance of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea for Energy Production and Aquaculture: Challenges for Policy Makers in European Seas. Sustainability 2016, 8, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Schupp, M.F.; Krause, G.; Onyango, V.; Buck, B.H. Dissecting the offshore wind and mariculture multi-use discourse: A new approach using targeted SWOT analysis. Marit. Stud. 2021, 20, 127–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 53. “Par Jūras Teritoriju Noteikšanu Akvakultūras Darbībai Nepieciešamo Iekārtu Ierīkošanai Un Ekspluatācijai”. 2014. Available online: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/264217 (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Gómez, T.C.; Lähteenmäki-Uutela, A. European and National Regulations on Seaweed Cultivation and Harvesting. “Growing algae Sustainably in the Baltic Sea” (GRASS) and “Sustainable Cultivation of Seaweed” (SUSCULT) Project Report. 2021. Available online: https://www.submariner-network.eu/images/grass/FINAL-GRASS_GoA_3.2._SYKE_regulation_report.pdf (accessed on 10 November 2021).
- Bennett, N.J.; Katz, L.; Yadao-Evans, W.; Ahmadia, G.N.; Atkinson, S.; Ban, N.C.; Dawson, N.M.; de Vos, A.; Fitzpatrick, J.; Gill, D.; et al. Advancing Social Equity in and Through Marine Conservation. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Hoey, G.; Bastardie, F.; Birchenough, S.; De Backer, A.; Gill, A.; De Koning, S.; Hodgson, S.; Mangi Chai, S.; Steenbergen, J.; Termeer, E.; et al. Overview of the Effects of Offshore Wind Farms on Fisheries and Aquaculture; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Langan, R.; Buck, B.H. Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in The Open Ocean: The Untapped Potential For Marine Resources in The Anthropocene; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Westholm, A. Appropriate scale and level in marine spatial planning—Management perspectives in the Baltic Sea. Mar. Policy 2018, 98, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Steins, N.A.; Veraart, J.A.; Klostermann, J.E.M.; Poelman, M. Combining offshore wind farms, nature conservation and seafood: Lessons from a Dutch community of practice. Mar. Policy 2021, 126, 104371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|Country||Planning Document Description/Title||Date of Publication|
|Estonia||Estonian Maritime Spatial Plan ||2020|
|Hiiu maakonna merealade planeering (Hiiu County Maritime Spatial Plan) ||2018|
|Pärnu maakonnaga piirneva mereala maakonnaplaneering (County plan of the maritime area bordering Pärnu County) ||2017|
|Põllumajanduse ja kalanduse valdkonna arengukava aastani 2030 (Development plan for agriculture and fisheries until 2030) ||2021|
|Summary table of proposals submitted to the Estonian Maritime Spatial Plan and the positions of the Ministry of Finance ||2021|
|Consultations table for Estonian MSP ||2021|
|Protocols of public consultation meetings (2019–2020) ||2019–2020|
|Latvia||Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia. Multiannual Framework for Aquaculture Development 2014–2020 ||2013|
|Maritime Spatial Plan 2030, The Maritime Spatial Plan for the Marine Inland Waters, Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone Waters of the Republic of Latvia ||2019|
|Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Latvia. Operational Programme for fisheries development ||2021|
|Maritime Spatial Plan 2030 Environmental report ||2019|
|Summary of public consultations ||2018|
|Maritime Spatial Plan for the Internal Marine Waters, Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Latvia, 1st draft ||2016|
|Developing a Pilot Maritime Spatial Plan for the Western Coast of Latvia (BaltSeaPlan Report 16) ||2011|
|Poland||Plan zagospodarowania przestrzennego Polskich Obszarów Morskich w skali 1:200,000 (Spatial Development Plan of Polish Maritime Areas at scale 1:200,000) ||2021|
|Projekt planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego Szczecin and Kamieński Lagoon (Draft Spatial Development Plan for the Szczecin and Kamieński Lagoon) ||2021|
|Projekt planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego Zalewu Wiślanego (Draft Spatial Management Plan for the Vistula Lagoon) ||2021|
|Szczegółowy projekt planu zagospodarowania przestrzennego Zatoki Gdańskiej (Detailed design of the spatial development plan for the Gulf of Gdansk) ||2021|
|Study of Conditions of Spatial Development of Polish Sea Areas ||2016|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Armoškaitė, A.; Bārda, I.; Andersone, I.; Bonnevie, I.M.; Ikauniece, A.; Kotta, J.; Kõivupuu, A.; Lees, L.; Psuty, I.; Strāķe, S.; Sprukta, S.; Szymanek, L.; von Thenen, M.; Schrøder, L.; Hansen, H.S. Considerations of Use-Use Interactions between Macroalgae Cultivation and Other Maritime Sectors: An Eastern Baltic MSP Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413888
Armoškaitė A, Bārda I, Andersone I, Bonnevie IM, Ikauniece A, Kotta J, Kõivupuu A, Lees L, Psuty I, Strāķe S, Sprukta S, Szymanek L, von Thenen M, Schrøder L, Hansen HS. Considerations of Use-Use Interactions between Macroalgae Cultivation and Other Maritime Sectors: An Eastern Baltic MSP Case Study. Sustainability. 2021; 13(24):13888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413888Chicago/Turabian Style
Armoškaitė, Aurelija, Ieva Bārda, Ingrīda Andersone, Ida Maria Bonnevie, Anda Ikauniece, Jonne Kotta, Anneliis Kõivupuu, Liisi Lees, Iwona Psuty, Solvita Strāķe, Sandra Sprukta, Lena Szymanek, Miriam von Thenen, Lise Schrøder, and Henning Sten Hansen. 2021. "Considerations of Use-Use Interactions between Macroalgae Cultivation and Other Maritime Sectors: An Eastern Baltic MSP Case Study" Sustainability 13, no. 24: 13888. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413888