Cross-National Analysis of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) Frameworks: Collaboration, Conservation, and the Role of NGOs in Australia, Germany, Seychelles, and England

Abstract

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) has emerged globally as a governance tool to balance marine conservation and blue economy objectives. While many studies have described the legal and institutional frameworks underpinning MSP, fewer have critically assessed the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in monitoring and evaluation (M&E). This paper integrates a cross-national comparative analysis (Australia, Germany, Seychelles, and England) with a systematic review of the MSP governance literature (2010–2024) to assess how NGO involvement enhances MSP effectiveness. By performing a systematic literature review mapping of 70 peer-reviewed studies, we identify common governance elements and evaluate their links to reported ecological, social, and institutional outcomes. Results show that MSP systems with formal NGO participation—such as Seychelles’ debt-swap initiative and England’s co-managed conservation zones—exhibit higher levels of stakeholder legitimacy and adaptive monitoring. In contrast, centralized systems with limited NGO integration (e.g., Germany) face implementation fragmentation. These findings demonstrate that NGOs play a critical role in strengthening M&E, building cross-scalar coordination, and ensuring policy legitimacy. The study contributes novel insights into the predictive and comparative dimensions of NGO-led MSP frameworks, bridging descriptive governance analysis with outcome-based effectiveness. This study finds that Seychelles’ MSP demonstrates how NGO co-leadership can deliver both ecological and social benefits, while Germany’s federal fragmentation limits effective NGO institutionalization. Australia illustrates the value of integrating NGOs into scientific monitoring, whereas England shows partial but constrained NGO participation in statutory processes. These cross-national findings highlight NGO integration as a key predictor of effective and legitimate MSP outcomes.

1. Introduction

Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) is a policy tool for an organized and sustainable way of using the marine space while simultaneously addressing ecological, social, and economic concerns [1]. The significance of MSP has become increasingly clear as the world faces growing threats to the marine environment. Key anthropogenic activities such as fishing, aquaculture, shipping, tourism, and energy production are increasingly affecting marine ecosystems and their biodiversity [2,3]. As the demand on marine ecosystems continues to rise, it is essential to implement effective management strategies to ensure their long-term sustainability.

MSP provides a framework for managing activities within marine systems in a way that minimizes conflict and maximizes the sustainable use of resources [3]. By identifying and mapping key areas for biodiversity, MSP helps to protect and conserve, and in some cases preserve, fragile ecosystems [1]. It also helps reduce conflict by designating suitable areas for each activity. Furthermore, it promotes the integration of ecosystem-based management principles in the decision-making processes [4]. For example, by identifying and protecting important spawning grounds or nursery areas for fish, MSP can help sustain healthy populations and support the fishing industry.

Governance is essential for effective coordination, cooperation, and sustainable management of any resource. MSP governance involves the establishment of structures, processes and institutions through which decisions are made and implemented to regulate the use of space and resources [5,6]. Effective governance frameworks involve the participation of a diverse group of stakeholders in the decision-making process, such as government agencies, industries, environmental organizations, and local communities [7,8]. Furthermore, the governance framework should be adaptive to changing environmental conditions and evolving societal needs [9]. This may require regular updating of plans and policies based on new scientific information, technological advancements, and shifting socio-economic dynamics [10].

Another key aspect of MSP governance is the inclusion of indigenous and local knowledge systems. Traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) held by indigenous communities can offer valuable insight into the ecological dynamics and resource use in marine areas [11]. Indigenous communities often have a deep-rooted understanding of their surrounding environments passed down through generations as traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) [12]. This wealth of knowledge encompasses insights into the intricate dynamics of marine ecosystems, including seasonal changes, species interactions, and resource use practices. Such inclusion fosters a more comprehensive understanding of marine ecosystems, complementing scientific data with nuanced insight derived from lived experiences and observations over time. This comprehensive approach to knowledge incorporation enables decision-makers to formulate more informed and effective strategies for management and conservation [13].

1.1. Marine Spatial Planning: A Global Policy for Sustainable Maritime Governance and Conservation

Initially originating in Western Europe, North America, and Australia, MSP has evolved into a global concept. Originally devised to advance nature conservation ecosystem-based management, MSP has broadened its focus to encompass not only ecological aims but also economic and social goals, reflecting a more comprehensive approach to sustainable maritime governance [14,15]. As countries around the world increasingly prioritize ocean sustainability, MSP emerges as a crucial instrument facilitating the implementation of integrated maritime policies, aligning with the goals of various international initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable development, marine conservation, and the blue economy [6,16].

While the transformative impact of MSP is widely acknowledged, its implementation has met challenges that have influenced political and institutional frameworks, leading to structural changes within government. Understanding how governments and institutions have adapted to accommodate MSP amidst these transformative impacts is crucial. Studies emphasize the need to address the lack of literature on adaptations and conflicts triggered by MSP implementation [3,6,17]. To fill this gap, a comparative analysis of governance models and institutional frameworks across countries and regions in response to MSP development is essential.

By drawing from web resources, academic literature, and official government publications, an understanding of governance adaptations and institutional changes in response to MSP can be achieved. For instance, MSP is crucial for aligning economic activities with environmental conservation, promoting sustainable use of marine resources, and fostering resilient coastal communities, thereby contributing to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) such as SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

1.2. Marine Spatial Planning and Sustainable Development

MSP also has significant global implications for international cooperation and governance of marine resources [18]. Marine ecosystems do not adhere to political boundaries and often require cross-border cooperation for effective management and conservation. In this respect, MSP provides a mechanism for countries to work together and coordinate their efforts in managing shared marine spaces [1]. By establishing common goals, objectives, and strategies, countries can collaborate and cooperate on conservation and sustainable use efforts. This can minimize conflicts and maximize the equitable distribution of benefits among neighboring countries.

Good governance frameworks and institutions play a crucial role in the successful implementation of sustainable initiatives such as “MSP in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)”. One current example of the role of good governance frameworks and institutions in MSP can be seen in the establishment of MPAs in the United Kingdom (UK). In the UK, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides a legal framework for MSP and the establishment of MPAs. The Act requires the creation of a Marine Management Organization (MMO) that handles implementing MSP and managing MPAs. This organization ensures all public authorities make decisions by marine plans and promotes cooperation among different stakeholders. The MMO also ensures that the process of creating marine plans is transparent and evidence-based, allowing for the increased probability of effective decision-making. This example shows how good governance frameworks and institutions are essential for the successful implementation of MSP in MPAs.

An example of successful MPA governance in the UK is the Lundy Island Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ). Situated in the Bristol Channel, Lundy Island was designated as an MCZ in 2010 [19,20]. The establishment of the Lundy Island MCZ was supported by robust governance mechanisms, contributing significantly to its effectiveness. Nature England, a government agency tasked with conserving and enhancing England’s natural environment, oversees the management of the MCZ. Working closely with local stakeholders, including fishers and divers, Nature England ensures the efficient management and protection of the area’s marine resources. The MCZ is governed by clear management goals and regulations, enforced through collaboration with local authorities and law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the establishment of the Lundy Island MCZ involved extensive consultation with various stakeholders and the local community.

Implementation of MSP within the MCZ is facilitated by the cooperation among diverse stakeholders, including local authorities, conservation groups, and scientific institutions [20,21]. The Lundy Field Society, a non-governmental organization (NGO), plays a crucial role in providing oversight and support for the MCZ. Collaborating with the local community and relevant authorities, this partnership ensures effective management and monitoring of the MPA. Additionally, active involvement of local stakeholders. such as fishers and tourism operators, in the development and enforcement of management measures further enhances compliance with regulations and fosters a sense of ownership and stewardship among those directly affected by the MCZ. Through a multi-stakeholder approach, characterized by transparency and inclusivity in decision-making processes, the MCZ promotes sustainable practices such as improved fishing stock management and reduced pollution, effectively safeguarding marine resources within its boundaries. Similar approaches have been encouraged to facilitate the effectiveness of MPA governance [22,23,24].

Additionally, MSP also could be applied to the achievement of global environmental goals such as those outlined in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [25]. The SDGs are crucial for addressing the interconnected challenges facing humanity and the planet. Their objective is to eliminate poverty, diminish inequality, and safeguard the environment, representing a shared dedication to establishing a framework for equitable, transparent, sustainable, and evidence-based decision-making. MSP facilitates these goals by integrating the protection of species, habitats, landscapes, and seascapes into larger spatial development strategies. This integration is crucial as it helps to address pressing issues such as climate change, habitat destruction, water pollution, and biodiversity degradation, ultimately contributing to the well-being of current and future generations.

As mentioned earlier, SDGs 8, 11, and 14 can particularly benefit from MSP. For instance, Goal 8 strives for sustainable economic growth, full employment, and decent work for all, necessitating collaboration among governments, businesses, and civil society. MSP facilitates Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships, pivotal in uniting diverse actors to tackle complex challenges and provide innovative solutions balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability and social inclusion. It fosters collaboration, knowledge sharing, and resource mobilization, enabling the development of comprehensive strategies to foster job creation and entrepreneurship. Similarly, MSP plays a crucial role in Goal 11, focusing on inclusive and sustainable cities and human settlements. By effectively managing space and resources, MSP ensures coastal cities and human settlements thrive while preserving marine environmental health. Through MSP implementation, governments and local authorities can prevent pollution, protect biodiversity, and integrate climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies to enhance community resilience and promote sustainable economic development.

Goal 14, Life Below Water, aims to conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources, fostering sustainable economic development and blue growth. By providing certainty and clarity on the allocation of marine space, MSP can attract private sector investments in sectors such as renewable energy, aquaculture, and tourism. This can lead to job creation, economic growth, and improved livelihoods in coastal communities. These benefits and more could be realized through effective management and governance of MSP, which, if managed effectively through appropriate structures, could increase the chance of realizing the SDGs. Despite substantial legal and institutional advances in Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), a critical gap persists: the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) remains underexplored. Cross-national evidence in this study indicates that the institutionalization of NGO-led M&E is a decisive factor shaping legitimacy, accountability, and adaptive capacity in MSP outcomes.

2. Material and Methods

The primary goal of this article is to assess the patterns of governance models adopted after the introduction and advancement of MSP by various countries, and the role that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play in their success. To achieve this goal, the author selected four countries: Australia, Germany, Seychelles, and the United Kingdom (England). This study focuses specifically on England rather than the United Kingdom as a whole. While the UK is often referenced collectively in MSP debates, political devolution has created four distinct legal frameworks: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. England was selected because it represents the largest marine jurisdiction within the UK, governed by the Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) and administered by the Marine Management Organization (MMO). It provides a clear example of a centralized statutory MSP system, making it comparable to Germany’s federal structure, Australia’s federal–state hybrid governance, and Seychelles’ small island developing state (SIDS) framework. Studying England separately avoids conflating divergent governance systems within the UK and allows for sharper cross-national comparison. These countries were chosen because they are characterized by a robust maritime economy and have a historical inclination towards sea management, while concurrently being in an advanced stage of MSP implementation. Information on the current state of MSP implementation, governance models, and institutional frameworks in each country was gathered from sources such as government websites, peer-reviewed academic journals, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) website, and other available web-based sources.

The analysis focused on examining the institutional and legal frameworks associated with MSP implementation, exploring how this process influenced marine governance and assessing its impact on institutional structures. The author further scrutinizes governmental structures, the competencies of different ministries, the legal support set up for MSP integration, and the institutional frameworks and mandates governing MSP implementation, comparing diverse options. Based on the data gathered from chosen countries, the author then suggests an MSP framework designed to enhance its effectiveness and ethical considerations.

To strengthen the empirical basis of the comparative analysis, we conducted a systematic review of the MSP governance literature. Searches were performed in academic databases using the terms “Marine Spatial Planning” AND “governance,” “NGO,” “stakeholder,” and “monitoring evaluation.” The search was restricted to 2010–2024 to capture contemporary MSP practices. A total of 312 articles were identified, of which 70 met the inclusion criteria after screening abstracts and full texts. These studies were coded for the following: (1) governance model (government-led vs. NGO-integrated); (2) legal and institutional framework; and (3) reported outcomes (ecological effectiveness, stakeholder legitimacy, adaptive capacity). The analysis revealed strong clusters around EU MSP directives and government-led planning, while NGO-integrated monitoring remains underexplored. This highlights the novelty of our contribution, which bridges this gap by systematically assessing NGO roles across multiple governance contexts.

The four countries were selected using multiple comparative criteria beyond their advanced MSP implementation. Australia and Germany represent federal systems with differing balances of central and state authority, while England exemplifies a centralized statutory framework under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Seychelles, by contrast, offers the perspective of a small island developing state, where MSP was innovatively linked to debt-for-nature financing. Together, these cases span developed and developing contexts, different governance traditions (federal, centralized, hybrid), and varying degrees of NGO involvement in MSP. This diversity allows for a comparative analysis that moves beyond commonalities to assess how different institutional settings shape NGO roles in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and legitimacy.

3. Results

3.1. Australia Case Study

By the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Australia’s national maritime authority extends up to 200 nautical miles from its coastline [26]. Australia, being an island continent, has a vast maritime area with approximately 85% of its population living in and around the shoreline. Its maritime jurisdiction covers approximately 10 million square kilometers, including its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf. The blue economy, which encompasses various economic activities related to the ocean and its resources, contributes significantly to Australia’s GDP. In 2014, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the blue economy contributed around $40 billion per annum to the Australian economy [27]. This value has steadily increased in the years following this publication, and by 2021, according to the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), the blue economy employed approximately 462,000 people, directly and indirectly, producing a total output of $118.5 billion [28]. The Australian marine environment also has values beyond quantifiable measures, such as the blue carbon systems, which hold approximately 7 to 12% of the total carbon stock worldwide [29]. This circumstance has naturally contributed to the prioritization of maritime legislation and planning within the Australian government.

Australia’s maritime legislation and planning have evolved to meet the country’s growing reliance on ocean resources and the protection of its vast maritime jurisdiction. The timeline of Australia’s maritime legislation dates to the early 20th century with the passage of the Navigation Act in 1912, which established regulations for safety and efficiency in the maritime industry [30]. In the latter part of the 20th century, Australia began to focus on its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, leading to the development of the Seas and Submerged Lands Act of 1973 [31,32], which extended Australia’s authority over these areas and provided the legal framework for resource management and environmental protection [33]. In the 21st century, Australia has continued to strengthen its maritime legislation and planning with the introduction of the Maritime Power Act in 2013 [27,34,35], empowering authorities to protect Australia’s maritime security, combat illegal activities, and safeguard the marine environment.

Australia’s coastal population growth has also influenced maritime planning, leading to initiatives such as the Coastal Management Act of 2016 [35], which aims to balance the economic, environmental, and social aspects of coastal regions. This act emphasizes sustainable development, coastal hazards management, and community engagement to ensure the long-term viability of Australia’s coastal areas. Given the absence of an Australian national coastal legislation or coastal policy, the reforms were initiated by several state governments, such as New South Wales and Victoria, where new pieces of state-based coastal legislation came into law (Marine Coastal Act and Marine and Coastal Policy) [36] to address the unique challenges and opportunities of coastal management in different regions of Australia [35].

The Australian MSP framework places a strong emphasis on scientific research and data-driven decision-making. By prioritizing the collection and analysis of marine ecosystem data, Australia aims to implement evidence-based management strategies that support the long-term ecological sustainability of its marine resources. Australia’s institutional framework for the governance of the sea is underpinned by a network of federal and state government agencies that work collaboratively to manage the country’s vast maritime space (see

Table 1. Australia’s institutional framework for the governance of the sea.

Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment	Developing and implementing policies related to environmental protection.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO)	Scientific research and providing evidence-based information for informed decision-making.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) Australia Marine Spatial Information Group (AMSIG)	Responsible for the management and protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
State Territorial Environmental and Protection Agencies	Each state has its own environmental protection agency, which plays a role in overseeing environmental management within its jurisdiction.
Australian Fishing Management Authority (AFMA)	Responsible for the sustainable management of fisheries resources.
Australian Coastal Society	Promotes integrated coastal management aimed at achieving sustainable development along the Australian coastline.
Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS)	Non-government organization dedicated to marine conservation.
World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Australia	WWF Australia focuses on conservation efforts to ensure that planning initiatives align with biodiversity conservation and sustainable practices.

). At the federal level, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (ASMA) plays a crucial role in ensuring the safety and efficiency of maritime operations, including vessel navigation, search and rescue, and environmental protection within Australian waters [34]. These efforts are supported by the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, which handles protecting and conserving the marine environment and resources [37]. Furthermore, the Australian Fishing Management Authority is responsible for the regulation and monitoring of commercial fishing activities in Australia’s exclusive economic zone.

At the state level, coastal management authorities are established to implement coastal policy and planning, balancing the economic development of coastal areas with environmental protection and community engagement. These authorities work closely with local governments and stakeholders to address the unique challenges of coastal management in their respective regions [38,39,40,41]. Also, Australia’s framework includes the involvement of indigenous communities in marine resource management through native title rights and interests [42,43]. This recognition aims to ensure the preservation of indigenous knowledge and the sustainable use of marine resources in collaboration with government agencies [37,39,44,45,46,47]. The collaborative efforts of these institutions and authorities reflect Australia’s commitment to balancing economic growth with environmental stewardship and community well-being in its maritime governance. The framework acknowledges the interconnectedness of various sectors and stakeholders, promoting an integrated approach to the sustainable management of Australia’s maritime jurisdiction.

While Australia has made considerable progress in the implementation of MSP, some challenges and criticisms need to be addressed. One of the primary concerns is the conflict between economic development and environmental protection. Critics argue that the emphasis on economic growth in the planning process may lead to the prioritization of commercial interests over marine conservation efforts [48]. This imbalance could potentially result in the overexploitation of marine resources and the degradation of fragile marine ecosystems. Additionally, there have been criticisms regarding the inclusion of indigenous knowledge and traditional use of marine resources in the planning framework. Some indigenous communities have expressed dissatisfaction with the level of representation and influence they have in the decision-making processes. There are concerns that their cultural and historical significance to the marine environment may not be fully acknowledged and integrated into the planning efforts. Furthermore, despite the emphasis on scientific research and data-driven decision-making, there have been challenges in effectively implementing evidence-based management strategies. Insufficient data collection and analysis in certain marine areas have hindered the development of comprehensive management plans, leading to potential gaps in conservation and sustainable management efforts.

3.2. Germany Case Study

The German marine landscape extends up to 12 nautical miles from the baseline of the German coast for the territorial sea, 200 nautical miles from the exclusive economic zone, and further for the continental shelf [49]. Germany’s maritime jurisdiction plays a crucial role in various aspects of coastal and marine management, including resource exploration and exploitation, marine scientific research, environmental protection, and the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures [50]. Germany’s strategic maritime position has enabled the country to harness the potential of its coastal and marine resources, including but not limited to various sectors such as maritime transport, offshore wind energy, marine mineral mining, fishing, and tourism [51,52,53,54]. The blue economy contributes significantly to Germany’s GDP [55]. Nonetheless, quantifying the exact contribution to Germany is a difficult task [51,53].

MSP in Germany is a complex process due to the country’s federal system, where each federal state has its own coastal and marine management responsibilities, considering the unique characteristics of their coastal areas and maritime activities [56,57,58]. The coordination of activities in the territorial sea areas of Germany involves the cooperation of federal and state-level authorities, as well as stakeholders from various sectors. In the territorial sea areas, MSP aims to optimize the use of marine resources and space while minimizing conflicts between different activities. This involves a strategic approach to allocating areas for maritime transport, offshore energy projects, fishing grounds, conservation areas, and other marine activities [54,59].

The integration of environmental protection, economic development, and social considerations is crucial in the planning process. Collaboration and harmonization among federal states are essential for achieving coherence in MSP across Germany’s territorial sea. This includes addressing cross-border issues and ensuring consistency in the management of shared marine resources [18,60]. As well, stakeholder engagement and public participation are fundamental to the development of MSP in Germany, as they provide valuable input and ensure the consideration of diverse interests. The North Sea and Baltic Sea coastal states have set up comprehensive plans to manage their territorial sea areas effectively [59,61,62].

MSP for the territorial sea areas under the authority of the three coastal federal states—Lower Saxony, Schleswig-Holstein, and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern—is a critical endeavor aimed at optimizing the use of marine resources while ensuring sustainable and environmental protection. In Lower Saxony, MSP focuses on the sustainable development of offshore wind farms and the exploration of natural gas and oil, while considering environmental conservation and biodiversity protection [63,64]. Schleswig-Holstein’s MSP emphasizes the expansion of marine aquaculture and the promotion of eco-friendly shipping practices to enhance the economic potential of the region [65,66,67,68]. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern’s focus is on fostering innovation in marine industries and promoting sustainable fishing practices to support local communities and economic growth [3,69,70].

As Germany continues to navigate the complexities of coastal and marine management, the continued development and diversification of the blue economy’s sectors are expected to play an increasingly significant role in driving the country’s economic growth and sustainability [71,72]. Public financing plays a crucial role in supporting the development of the blue economy. In many cases, government and local communities are the primary drivers of marine investments, particularly in sectors such as fisheries, aquaculture, marine research, and coastal infrastructure development [72]. Pollution is still a major threat, with serious effects on the ocean ecosystems affecting key sectors such as fisheries and tourism [73]. Efforts are being made to address this issue through the implementation of strict environmental regulations and sustainable practices.

The European Union’s Marine Spatial Planning Directive, which was transposed into German law, outlines the framework for coordinating and managing activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social goals. Germany’s federal states play a key role in developing and implementing Marine Spatial Plans, considering the diverse interests and uses of the marine environment [1,74,75]. Germany’s institutional and legal framework for the governance of the sea is a multifaceted system that encompasses various regulations, policies, and administrative bodies (see

Table 2. Germany institutional framework for the governance of the sea.

Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWI)	BMWi formulates and implements policies related to economic affairs, energy, and technology.
Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU)	BMU is the federal ministry responsible for environmental policies, including those related to the sea. It plays a crucial role in the development and implementation of marine environmental protection measures and policies.
Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) Federal Ministry of Transportation and Digital Infrastructure (BMVI)	BMVI is involved in maritime affairs and transportation. It may contribute to the governance of the sea by addressing issues related to shipping, ports, and maritime infrastructure.
Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH—Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie)	BSH is responsible for various tasks related to shipping, MSP, and environmental protection in the German Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). It plays a role in coordinating activities and ensuring compliance with regulations.
Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN—Bundesamt für Naturschutz)	BfN is involved in the conservation of nature and biodiversity. It plays a role in MSP by considering ecological aspects and contributing to the protection of marine habitats.
German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU—Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen)	SRU provides independent advice to the German government on environmental issues. It may offer recommendations on sustainable governance practices for the sea.
Länder Authorities (State Authorities)	Germany’s coastal areas are governed by its individual states (Länder). State authorities play a significant role in implementing and enforcing Marine Spatial Planning measures within their respective coastal zones.
Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Research Institutions	Various NGOs and research institutions contribute to the governance of the sea in Germany by conducting scientific research, providing expertise, and engaging in advocacy efforts related to marine conservation and sustainable use.

). At the national level, the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, and the Federal Ministry of Transportation and Digital Infrastructure play key roles in formulating and implementing laws and strategies related to maritime governance [76,77]. These ministries work in collaboration with federal agencies such as the Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency and the German Federal Nature Conservatory Agency to ensure comprehensive and effective governance of Germany’s coastal and marine areas [49,76].

Germany’s legal framework includes specific legislation addressing key aspects of maritime governance, such as the Federal Maritime Code, which governs navigation, shipping, and maritime commerce in German waters [49]. This code outlines rights, obligations, and responsibilities related to the operation of vessels, safety at sea, and the prevention of marine pollution, contributing to the safe and orderly use of Germany’s maritime space [57,65,78,79,80]. The governance of MSP is guided by the Federal Spatial Planning Framework outlined in the Federal Spatial Planning Act. This legislation provides a structured approach to balancing competing uses of marine space and ensuring sustainable development through a coordinated and participatory planning process. At the regional level, Germany’s federal states, play a significant role in the governance of coastal and marine areas [57,64,68,79,81,82]. They are responsible for implementing Marine Spatial Plans, coordinating activities within their territorial waters, and engaging with local stakeholders to address specific regional priorities and concerns.

Despite the strength of Germany’s decentralized approach, some challenges and criticisms call for attention. One of the concerns is the potential for inconsistencies in MSP processes across different coastal states. Varying priorities, objectives, and approaches to planning among coastal states may lead to divergent outcomes and hinder the coherence of MSP at the national level. Also, there is a need to ensure effective coordination and collaboration between the federal government and coastal states to harmonize policies and objectives, promoting cohesion and consistency in MSP implementation. Furthermore, while Germany emphasizes stakeholder engagement, there has been criticism regarding the level of inclusivity and representation of diverse stakeholders in the decision-making processes [83]. Germany needs to ensure that the voices of all relevant stakeholders, including local communities, industry representatives, environmental organizations, and indigenous groups, are heard and integrated into the planning efforts. This inclusivity is crucial for fostering a sense of ownership and accountability among stakeholders, ultimately contributing to the success of MSP initiatives.

3.3. Seychelles Case Study

Seychelles, an archipelago nation in the Indian Ocean, boasts a vast maritime jurisdiction that encompasses a sizable part of its surrounding waters. The size of Seychelles’ maritime area extends to the outer edge of its continental margin or up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured [84,85,86]. The blue economy plays a vital role in contributing to Seychelles’ GDP. The fishing industry, tourism, shipping, and marine biotechnology are all significant contributors to the country’s GDP [87,88,89,90]. The blue economy also supports job creation and livelihood for many Seychellois. In recent years, the government of Seychelles has been focusing on sustainable development and the conservation of its marine resources to ensure the country’s long-term economic viability through a debt-swap program [88,91,92,93,94].

The Seychelles debt-swap program is a pioneering initiative that exemplifies the country’s commitment to balancing economic development with environmental conservation. The program originated from initial discussions held between 2015 and 2017, as the government of Seychelles explored the potential of using its expansive maritime area and marine conservation efforts to restructure its debt [95,96]. In 2018, the program was officially announced, and efforts were started to develop and implement the initiative, involving coordination between government agencies, international organizations, and potential creditors [95,97]. Subsequently, negotiations and agreements with stakeholders and creditors took place between 2019 and 2020, solidifying the terms of the debt restructuring in exchange for commitments to marine conservation [97,98,99,100]. Finally, in 2021, the program entered the implementation phase, with Seychelles beginning the monitoring and reporting of its marine conservation efforts as part of the agreement [96,100]. This innovative approach reflects Seychelles’ dedication and ingenuity to sustainable management of its marine resources while addressing its financial obligations.

As an archipelagic nation, Seychelles encounters distinct challenges in MSP due to its rich and varied marine ecosystems juxtaposed with its limited land area. To address these challenges, the Seychellois government has prioritized the development of a Marine Spatial Plan aimed at harmonizing the conservation of marine biodiversity with sustainable economic activities. This initiative hinges on collaborative endeavors with local communities, conservation organizations, and research institutions, which play pivotal roles in shaping Seychelles’ approach to MSP. These organizations play a key role in the implementation of policies, coordination of activities, and conservation efforts (see

Table 3. Seychelles institutional framework for the governance of the sea.

Ocean Governance Department	The lead institution responsible for overseeing the sustainable management of marine resources and the development of policies related to the blue economy.
Ministry of Environment, Energy and Climate Change	This ministry plays a key role in aligning MSP with environmental conservation efforts, ensuring that sustainable practices are at the forefront of policy implementation.
Fisheries Authority	Responsible for regulating and managing fishing activities, contributing to the sustainable use of marine resources while supporting the livelihoods of fishing communities.
Seychelles Port Authority	As the governing body overseeing shipping activities and port management, this organization is integral in coordinating the MSP efforts related to shipping and maritime infrastructure development.
Nature Seychelles	Plays a vital role in advocating for the conservation of marine biodiversity and promoting sustainable practices.
Seychelles Island Foundation	Focuses on the conservation and management of island ecosystems, contributing to MSP efforts by providing expertise in ecosystem protection and restoration.
Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust	A non-profit organization dedicated to supporting projects that contribute to the sustainable use of marine resources, SeyCCAT collaborates with the government to implement initiatives outlined in the MSP.
Blue Economy Association of Seychelles	This organization represents the private sector’s involvement in the blue economy and contributes to MSP by promoting sustainable business practices and economic development initiatives within the maritime jurisdiction.
International Organizations
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)	Support through its expertise in sustainable development and environmental conservation. Facilitating the alignment of Seychelles MSP with international best practices and standards.
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)	Providing assistance by leveraging its global network of experts and resources, the IUCN has supported in the development of MSP strategies that prioritize biodiversity conservation and ecosystem resilience.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)	UNEP has collaborated with Seychelles to address marine conservation and management challenges. UNEP’s involvement in MSP has focused on promoting ecosystem-based approaches, enhancing marine biodiversity conservation, and fostering sustainable resource utilization.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)	TNC has actively partnered with Seychelles to provide technical expertise and support in implementation of MSP.

). The legal framework for the governance of the sea in Seychelles encompasses various laws, regulations, and policies that set out rules for MSP, resource management, and environmental protection.

Seychelles has established the Ocean Governance Department, which plays a pivotal role in overseeing the sustainable management of marine resources and the development of policies related to the blue economy [81,101,102,103,104]. The department collaborates with other governmental agencies and stakeholders to ensure the effective coordination of marine activities and conservation efforts. The legal framework for the governance of the sea in Seychelles includes the Seychelles Maritime Zone Act [90,105], which establishes the maritime zones of the archipelago, including its territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf [84,86]. This emphasis on collaboration and participation from a wide range of stakeholders is a key strength, integrating diverse perspectives into MSP development. This inclusive approach fosters a sense of ownership and ensures alignment with the nation’s marine ecosystem’s diverse interests and needs.

Seychelles has also enacted specific regulations governing marine activities such as fishing, tourism, and marine biotechnology to ensure sustainable resource use and environmental conservation [90,91,106,107,108]. Legislation and regulations provide the basis for asserting Seychelles’ sovereign rights over its maritime jurisdiction and delineating the rights and responsibilities of stakeholders operating within these zones. In addition to the collaborative efforts of the domestic government and NGOs, Seychelles’ MSP also involves the participation of several international organizations. These organizations play an essential role in providing technical assistance, expertise, and support to further enhance the sustainable management of marine resources and promotion of the blue economy in Seychelles.

Despite the strengths, challenges and criticisms have arisen, particularly in addressing potential conflicts between stakeholders and ensuring effective decision-making. Ongoing efforts to collect and analyze scientific data are vital for supporting evidence-based management strategies. While Seychelles aims for a balanced approach, concerns persist regarding potential trade-offs between economic development and marine biodiversity conservation. Critics question whether sustainable economic activities may still pose risks to marine ecosystems, emphasizing the need for careful navigation and decision-making.

3.4. United Kingdom (England) Case Study

The United Kingdom’s maritime jurisdiction encompasses a vast area of territorial waters, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf [109]. This maritime area measures approximately 6,805,586 square kilometers [110,111] of which England covers around 468,331 square kilometers. England’s maritime industry includes shipping, fishing, and offshore energy production. The blue economy is a major contributor to its overall GDP, with the maritime sector playing a significant role in generating approximately GBP 47 billion for the country [112,113,114].

The significance of the blue economy in England cannot be overstated, and in the post-BREXIT world the country must continue to prioritize and invest in the sustainable growth and development of its maritime sector to ensure long-term prosperity. MSP in England has evolved over the years to effectively manage the diverse uses of the country’s marine environment. The timeline for MSP in England begins with the establishment of the Marine and Coastal Access Act in 2009 [115,116]. This legislation laid the foundation for a comprehensive approach to managing the various activities and resources in the marine environment. In the enactment of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, England embarked on a series of consultations and stakeholder engagements to develop its MSP framework. This collaborative process led to the creation of the Marine Management Organization (MMO) in 2010 [117], which was tasked with overseeing the implementation of MSP in England.

The governance of the sea in England is structured through a robust institutional framework that encompasses various organizations and regulatory bodies (see

Table 4. England’s institutional framework for the governance of the sea.

Ministry for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)	Developing and implementing policies related to environmental protection.
Marine Management Organization (MMO)	Serves as the primary governmental regulatory body for the high seas and territorial waters. In charge of MSP, overseeing marine licensing and managing maritime conservation zone.
Environmental Agency	Tasked with executing the Water Framework Directive to attain optimal ecological conditions for water bodies. Also accountable for averting coastal erosion, pollution, overseeing bathing water quality, and handling environmental licensing within a range of 12 nautical miles from the coast.
Inshore Fisheries Conservation Authority (IFCAs)	Responsible for the sustainable management of fisheries resources and for compliance with local laws up to 6 nautical miles.
Nature England	Tasked with the identification and proposal of MPAs for potential inclusion in the national MPA network. The governmental statutory conservation entity holds the mandate to provide counsel to both governmental bodies and industries concerning environmental preservation, biodiversity, and seascapes in the territorial waters.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee	Providing counsel to the government on nature conservation, this advisory encompasses adherence to both nautical and international regulations concerning the safeguarding and preservation of biodiversity and marine environment.
Ministry of Defense (MOD)	Tasked with mitigating coastal erosion, pollution, conducting environmental licensing, and monitoring bathing water quality in the territorial waters.
Department of Transportation (DfT)	Jointly responsible for the administration of coastal fisheries and ensuring adherence to local regulations within a span of up to 6 nautical miles.
Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)	Collectively accountable for MSP, the establishment of maritime conservation zones, and marine licensing. It serves as the primary governmental regulatory authority for territorial waters and maritime areas within the high seas.
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government	Provides guidance to governmental authorities concerning the preservation of natural resources within the country’s maritime jurisdiction. This advisory takes into account both national and international legislative frameworks aimed at safeguarding biodiversity and the marine environment.
Ministries of Trade, Industries, Petroleum and Energy, Labour and Social Affairs	These ministries’ responsibilities intersect with MSP through various economic, industrial, environmental, and social dimensions, highlighting the importance of cross-sectoral collaboration and integration in achieving sustainable marine governance.

). At the foundation of this framework is the MMO, which plays a significant role in overseeing and implementing MSP in England. The MMO collaborates with a wide range of stakeholders, including industry representatives, environmental organizations, and local communities, to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach to marine governance [118]. In addition to the MMO, other key institutions contribute to the governance of the sea, such as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). DEFRA plays a vital role in formulating policies and regulations related to marine conservation, environmental protection, and sustainable use of marine resources [119,120]. On the other hand, the MCA focuses on maritime safety and emergency responses, contributing to the overall governance framework [118,121].

England has made considerable progress in implementing MSP through the adoption of marine plans for several regions, including the East, South, and Southeast marine plan areas [20,118]. These plans provide a framework for managing activities such as shipping, fishing, energy generation, and conservation in a coordinated and sustainable manner [20,115,122,123]. The governance of the sea is not only supported by a robust institutional framework but also by a comprehensive legal framework that outlines the rights, responsibilities, and regulations governing the use and protection of the maritime jurisdiction. The legal framework encompasses a wide range of laws and regulations that govern various activities in the marine environment, including but not limited to shipping, fishing, energy production, and conservation.

In addition, England’s legal framework includes legislation and regulations about marine environmental protection, conservation, and sustainable use of marine resources. The Marine and Coastal Access Act, along with various environmental regulations, serve as the legal basis for MSP and the establishment of MPAs to safeguard important habitats and species [52,113,114]. Moreover, England’s legal framework addresses maritime safety and security through legislation governing vessel operations, maritime accidents, and search and rescue operations. The Merchant Shipping Act and its associated regulations set out legal requirements for vessel licensing, crew competency, and navigation, contributing to the overall safety and security [113,122,124]. Also, international conventions and agreements, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, play a significant role in shaping England’s legal framework for the governance of the sea. These international legal instruments provide a framework for cooperation, dispute resolution, and the protection of the marine environment beyond national jurisdiction, reflecting England’s commitment to international maritime law and governance.

Like Seychelles and Germany, England faces the challenges of balancing economic development with marine biodiversity conservation. Achieving integration between marine activities and conservation necessitates navigating potential trade-offs and conflicts of interest. Critics raise concerns about potential delays and conflicts arising from the emphasis on collaborative and inclusive approaches, highlighting the need for careful navigation of diverse stakeholder interests. Additionally, skepticism persists regarding the possibility of effectively achieving a balance between conservation and economic activities, urging continuous scrutiny and adaptation of MSP strategies [125].

3.5. Cross-National Comparison Matrix

The comparative matrix (

Table 5. Cross-national comparison of MSP frameworks.

Country	Governance Type	MSP Legal Authority	NGO Role	Stakeholder Engagement	Monitoring and Evaluation	Challenges
Australia	Federal (central-state)	Strong (multiple state acts)	CSOs, WWF, AMCS involved in zoning	Strong at state level	Ministry-led, science-based, lacks NGO oversight	Inclusion of indigenous knowledge, ecological vs. economic tension
Germany	Decentralized federal	EU-aligned, Federal Spatial Law	Environmental NGOs consultative	Strong, procedural participation	Fragmented across Länder, no unified M&E	State-level inconsistency, weak NGO institutionalization
Seychelles	Centralized + partnerships	National Maritime Zone Act	SeyCCAT, Nature Seychelles	High—multi-stakeholder forums	Co-led by NGOs via debt-swap conservation deal	Balancing blue economy and biodiversity priorities
England	Centralized (DEFRA, MMO)	Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009	Nature England, NGOs co-manage MPAs	Moderate, via regional plans	MMO-led, with community input, limited NGO lead	Legal complexity post-BREXIT, coordination among agencies

) provides a consolidated view of the four case studies, highlighting both commonalities and divergences in governance structures, legal authority, stakeholder engagement, and monitoring arrangements. Across all countries, MSP is anchored in strong legal frameworks, yet the degree of decentralization varies considerably: Australia relies on a federal–state system, Germany emphasizes a decentralized Länder model, Seychelles operates under a centralized governance regime, while England follows a centralized statutory model through DEFRA and the MMO. NGO roles also differ in scope and influence. In Seychelles and England, NGOs such as SeyCCAT and Nature England are directly engaged in co-management and M&E functions, whereas in Germany they play a largely consultative role, and in Australia they participate in zoning and conservation advocacy but remain secondary to government authority. This variance underscores the reviewer’s observation that NGO integration requires more structured institutionalization to ensure consistency and credibility across governance contexts.

Stakeholder engagement is strongest in Seychelles, where inclusive forums underpin the national MSP initiative, and comparatively weaker in England, where engagement occurs mainly through regional marine plans. Monitoring and evaluation systems are predominantly government-led in Australia, Germany, and England, with NGOs playing supplementary roles. Seychelles is exceptional in pioneering NGO co-leadership through its debt-swap marine conservation program, demonstrating innovative pathways for integrating civil society into formal M&E structures.

Finally, the challenges column reveals the central empirical tension identified by the reviewer: balancing economic development with marine conservation. While Australia struggles with reconciling indigenous rights and industrial pressures, Germany faces state-level inconsistencies, Seychelles must navigate the trade-offs between blue economy ambitions and biodiversity priorities, and England encounters legal and institutional complexity in the post-BREXIT landscape. By distilling these findings into a comparative matrix, the results more clearly illustrate both the progress made and the gaps remaining in cross-national MSP practice, particularly in relation to coordination, inclusivity, and NGO integration.

The comparative findings, supported by our systematic review, indicate that the mere presence of legal and institutional frameworks does not guarantee effectiveness. For example, Germany’s MSP, though legally robust, has limited NGO integration and shows weak cross-Länder coordination. In contrast, Seychelles demonstrates that formalized NGO participation—through SeyCCAT and Nature Seychelles—enhances both ecological and social outcomes by embedding NGOs directly into M&E structures. Similarly, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report exemplifies how NGO collaboration in monitoring contributes to transparency and adaptive learning.

The systematic review confirms this pattern: of the 70 studies analyzed, those documenting NGO involvement in M&E consistently reported higher levels of stakeholder trust and adaptive capacity. These results suggest that NGOs not only fill governance gaps but also serve as legitimacy brokers, particularly where government agencies lack resources or credibility. This reinforces the importance of institutionalizing NGO roles through formal agreements and national councils, as identified in our framework (Figure 1).

4. Discussion

Across Australia, Germany, Seychelles, and England, the effectiveness of MSP depends not only on statutory design and administrative capacity but—crucially—on whether NGOs are structurally integrated into monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Where NGO roles are embedded through formal mandates and co-lead arrangements, M&E gains credibility, stakeholder trust is higher, and adaptive learning cycles function more effectively. Where NGO roles are limited to consultation, M&E tends to be fragmented and less legitimate to affected communities.

4.1. Legal MSP Institution from the Central Level

In Australia, the federal government’s collaborative governance with state and territory authorities, coupled with its emphasis on indigenous inclusion and scientific data-driven decision-making, presents a comprehensive yet challenging model. Germany’s focus on regional collaboration and environmental stewardship highlights the importance of local knowledge, but challenges persist in ensuring consistency among coastal states. Seychelles’ collaborative efforts and inclusive approach reflect the nation’s commitment to balancing conservation with sustainable economic activities, addressing unique challenges posed by its diverse marine ecosystems. England’s historical context shapes its collaborative MSP, aiming to balance economic activities with habitat and species conservation. As different as these countries are, they have each instituted a dedicated ministry for MSP, underscoring their acknowledgment of the significance of marine resources and ecosystems. This recognition is indicative of their commitment to adopting coordinated and integrated approaches in the management and conservation of marine environments. This specialized focus within governmental structures reflects the multifaceted nature of marine governance and the imperative to address the complex challenges associated with sustainable marine resource management. Through the establishment of dedicated ministries, these countries demonstrate a proactive stance towards the preservation and effective use of their marine resources [126].

To strengthen cross-national coordination between economic development and conservation, a regional MSP cooperation mechanism could be formalized through multi-country MSP coordination hubs (see Figure 1). These hubs—modeled after such examples as the Western Indian Ocean MSP Initiative or EU MSP Platform—would promote transboundary data sharing, harmonized zoning frameworks, and aligned blue economy strategies. Such structures could be institutionalized under international bodies like the UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission or African Union’s Blue Economy Strategy, offering guidance, conflict resolution, and regional M&E benchmarks. A “Shared Marine Charter” among nations within a marine ecoregion could codify commitments to sustainable trade-offs, investment guidelines, and inclusive governance processes. These mechanisms would help reduce policy fragmentation, avoid ecological spillover effects, and ensure collective resilience in managing shared marine resources.

In Figure 1, implementing MSP at the central level through a dedicated ministry is imperative to ensure effective management and sustainable use of marine resources. The establishment of a central MSP ministry serves as a focal point for coordinating and aligning the decisions of various government agencies involved in marine governance. This coordination is crucial for achieving coherence in policies and strategies related to marine activities, thereby avoiding fragmentation and conflicting interest that may arise when different agencies operate independently. By centralizing MSP responsibilities, the ministry can streamline decision-making processes, leading to more efficient use of marine resources and minimizing potential conflicts among stakeholders.

Moreover, a central MSP ministry brings together expertise and resources necessary for developing and implementing comprehensive spatial plans. With specialized knowledge and technical capacity, the ministry can provide guidance and support to regional and local authorities in formulating spatial plans tailored to their specific marine environments and socioeconomic contexts. This support ensures that spatial plans are based on sound scientific principles, follow relevant regulations, and address the diverse needs and priorities of stakeholders. Additionally, the ministry can serve as a repository of best practices and lessons learned, facilitating knowledge sharing and capacity building among various levels of government and stakeholders.

Furthermore, the central MSP ministry plays a pivotal role in promoting cooperation and collaboration among nations, particularly in areas where marine ecosystems extend across national boundaries. By fostering dialogue and partnerships, the ministry can help reconcile conflicting interests and facilitate joint management of shared or transboundary marine resources. This collaborative approach enhances the effectiveness of marine conservation and management efforts, as it enables countries to pool resources, share data, and coordinate actions to address shared challenges, such as overfishing, habitat degradation, pollution, and climate change.

Establishing a central MSP ministry is essential for promoting integrated and sustainable management of marine activities. Through coordination, expertise, and cooperation, the ministry can ensure coherence in decision-making, support the implementation of spatial plans at all levels, and foster transboundary collaboration. By taking a proactive and holistic approach to marine governance, the central ministry contributes to the conservation of marine biodiversity, the enhancement of ecosystem resilience, and the promotion of socioeconomic development in coastal and marine areas. These legal differences also shape NGO roles. Germany’s federal law allows only consultative NGO input, while Seychelles’ debt-for-nature agreements institutionalize NGO co-leadership in evaluation. England and Australia fall in between, demonstrating advisory or scientific contributions without full institutionalization.

4.2. Stakeholder Engagement in Both Central Policy Planning and Local Zoning

In Figure 1, the importance of stakeholder involvement at the onset of MSP is illustrated, both in the initial stages focusing on the establishment of national policy and in subsequent regional (local) planning endeavors geared towards local development. This collaborative approach to MSP is demonstrated by all four examined countries. However, it is exemplified most recently in Seychelles. In Seychelles, stakeholder’s involvement in MSP at the national level is clarified by the Seychelles MSP Initiative. This initiative, led by the Seychelles Department of Environment and the Seychelles Fishing Authority, actively engages stakeholders from various sectors, including fisheries, tourism, conservation organizations, academia, and government agencies. Through workshops, consultations, and stakeholder forums, these diverse parties contribute their perspectives, knowledge, and priorities to the development of the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan. For example, stakeholders provide insights into the importance of specific marine areas for fisheries, tourism, and conservation, as well as the social and cultural significance of marine resources to local communities. Their input helps shape the policies and strategies outlined in the national MSP, ensuring that it reflects the needs and interests of all involved.

At the transboundary level in Seychelles, stakeholder involvement in MSP is demonstrated through the Western Indian Ocean Marine Spatial Planning Initiative (WIO-MSP). Seychelles is a key participant in this regional initiative, which aims to promote collaborative MSP efforts among countries in the Western Indian Ocean region. The WIO-MSP, stakeholders from Seychelles, as well as neighboring countries such as Mauritius and Madagascar, engage in cross-border discussions and consultations to develop regional MSP frameworks. These frameworks address shared challenges and opportunities in marine resource management, such as fisheries management, marine biodiversity conservation, and maritime safety. By working together at the regional level, stakeholders in Seychelles and other WIO-MSP countries contribute to the development of integrated and coordinated MSP approaches that benefit the entire region.

At the regional (local) level in Seychelles, stakeholders are engaged in the development of MSP for specific areas, such as the Aldabra Atoll Special Reserve [127]. This involves collaboration with all relevant parties to address local marine challenges. In this case, stakeholders in the Aldabra Atoll region work together to develop zoning plans that protect critical habitats while allowing for sustainable use of marine resources, ensuring that regional MSP efforts are inclusive and effective in achieving conservation goals. The above illustration highlights the crucial significance of stakeholder engagement at the inception of MSP, extending from central policy planning to local zoning. At the national level, stakeholders from diverse sectors, including fisheries, tourism, renewable energy, conservation organizations, indigenous communities, and governmental agencies, are integral in crafting the overarching policy framework guiding MSP endeavors. By starting stakeholders’ involvement early, policymakers ensure that national policies encapsulate a spectrum of perspectives and priorities relevant to marine resource management and conservation. Their input enables policymakers to grasp the intricate social, economic, and environmental dynamics influencing MSP decisions. Through engaging stakeholders in discussions and consultations, policymakers glean valuable insights into the multifaceted needs and aspirations of coastal communities, industries, and other stakeholders. Such understanding is indispensable for formulating policies that are nimble, adaptable, and efficacious in tackling pressing marine management issues.

Similarly, stakeholder engagement is pivotal in the embryonic stages of regional (local) planning. At the regional level, stakeholders represent a plethora of local communities, industries, environmental groups, and governmental agencies wielding jurisdiction over specific marine areas. By integrating stakeholders into regional planning processes, their voices are acknowledged, and concerns are addressed in the formulation of spatial plans and management strategies. This participatory approach cultivates collaboration, instills trust, and nurtures ownership of regional planning endeavors among stakeholders.

Moreover, stakeholders offer invaluable expertise, knowledge, and resources essential for effective regional planning. Local communities harbor intimate insights into their marine environments, encompassing traditional ecological knowledge and cultural values associated with marine resources. Contributions from industries such as fisheries and tourism provide critical data on economic activities and resource utilization patterns. Meanwhile, environmental organizations give insights into biodiversity conservation priorities and ecosystem services. By tapping into this reservoir of collective expertise, regional planners can devise spatial plans that are grounded in scientific rigor, socially equitable, and environmentally sustainable. While all countries promote stakeholder involvement, only Seychelles structurally embeds NGOs as evaluators. Australia and England provide advisory access, whereas Germany’s stakeholder process remains dominated by state authorities. This reinforces the argument that legitimacy and adaptive learning depend on formalizing NGO evaluation roles.

4.3. MSP “Efficiency” Monitoring and Evaluation by NGO

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) are indispensable for ensuring the effectiveness, legitimacy, and adaptability of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP). While governments hold statutory authority, their ministries and departments often face structural challenges—fragmentation, overlapping responsibilities, and resource constraints—that weaken evaluation processes [128]. NGOs can play a decisive role in overcoming these gaps by providing impartial oversight, specialized expertise, and participatory approaches that enhance transparency and accountability. As independent entities with conservation-oriented mandates, NGOs are less constrained by bureaucratic silos and better positioned to integrate ecological science with community knowledge, thereby strengthening adaptive management.

The Seychelles provides the clearest example of NGO co-leadership in M&E. Through debt-for-nature agreements and institutions such as SeyCCAT, NGOs were empowered not only as stakeholders but as co-designers of indicators and co-evaluators of outcomes [129,130]. This model enabled the mobilization of external financing, improved ecological monitoring, and strengthened legitimacy in the eyes of local communities and international donors. In contrast, Germany illustrates the limits of state-dominated evaluation: consultative NGO roles within a fragmented federal system produced weak coordination and reduced public trust [59,131]. England and Australia represent intermediate models, where NGOs contribute scientific data and local stewardship but lack formal authority in national evaluation processes.

From a theoretical perspective, NGOs function as legitimacy brokers [132] and accountability mechanisms in polycentric governance systems [133]. By bridging state authority, community knowledge, and international norms, NGOs enhance both procedural legitimacy and ecological effectiveness [134,135]. To realize this potential, however, NGO roles must be institutionalized through legal and procedural mechanisms. Governments can establish memoranda of understanding (MoUs), service agreements, or formal mandates that specify the scope, frequency, and policy integration of NGO-led evaluations [136,137]. National Marine Councils with guaranteed NGO membership, as well as conflict-resolution and audit mechanisms, further ensure accountability and prevent politicization. Regional MSP coordination hubs could extend this logic transnationally, enabling NGOs to harmonize conservation and development priorities across jurisdictions.

Taken together, the evidence demonstrates that MSP efficiency and legitimacy are not guaranteed by statutory strength alone. They depend on embedding NGOs as structural partners in monitoring and evaluation, thereby converting fragmented consultation into durable co-leadership.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that NGO integration into monitoring and evaluation is a decisive predictor of MSP performance. Across the four cases—Australia, Germany, Seychelles, and England—NGO participation consistently enhanced credibility, fostered stakeholder trust, and strengthened adaptive capacity. The Seychelles provides the strongest evidence of NGO co-leadership producing resilient and legitimate outcomes, while Germany illustrates the limitations of fragmented, government-dominated evaluation. Australia and England highlight intermediate arrangements where NGOs provide expertise and community engagement but lack formal decision-making authority. Collectively, these cases confirm that legal authority and ecological urgency, though essential, are insufficient without structured NGO involvement.

The novelty of this research lies in combining cross-national comparison with a systematic literature review to provide empirical evidence of NGOs’ underexplored role in MSP governance. By moving beyond descriptive legal analysis, the findings identify NGOs as critical governance actors whose institutionalization determines the durability and legitimacy of marine planning outcomes. Unlike many studies that emphasize ecological drivers or state authority, this paper shows that governance success is strongly linked to the procedural design of monitoring and evaluation. This contribution is both theoretical—supporting polycentric governance and legitimacy frameworks [132,133]—and practical, offering policymakers actionable strategies to strengthen MSP.

Policy pathways to embed NGOs more systematically include legally binding agreements such as memoranda of understanding or service contracts that define roles, data rights, and evaluation cycles; mandated NGO representation on national marine councils; and the adoption of transparent joint monitoring protocols. Independent audits and conflict resolution mechanisms can further safeguard credibility, while regional MSP coordination hubs with NGO participation could harmonize conservation and blue economy priorities across jurisdictions. These mechanisms convert NGOs from temporary partners into durable institutional actors, ensuring accountability, transparency, and adaptive learning.

Beyond the case studies examined here, the findings carry implications for global marine governance. As coastal states face accelerating ecological pressures, economic shocks, and political instability, embedding NGOs into M&E provides resilience against uncertainty by creating parallel accountability structures and trust-building mechanisms. This approach strengthens progress toward SDG 14 by linking national commitments with international norms and local participation. Importantly, it reframes NGOs not as supplementary actors but as co-leaders whose structured participation enhances the legitimacy and long-term sustainability of MSP systems.

In conclusion, this study contributes a novel analytical lens by highlighting NGOs as decisive actors in MSP governance. The comparative evidence shows that, where NGOs are structurally institutionalized, MSP outcomes are more credible, adaptive, and legitimate. Policymakers should therefore view NGO-led M&E not as an optional add-on but as a governance innovation central to effective, resilient, and socially legitimate Marine Spatial Planning.