Transboundary Management of a Common Sea in the Gulf of Venice: Opportunities from Maritime Spatial Planning in Italy and Slovenia
Charles François Boudouresque
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTransboundary management of a common sea in the Gulf of Venice: opportunities from Maritime Spatial Planning in Italy and Slovenia
Authors: Gregor Čok, Martina Bocci, Fabio Carella, Emiliano Ramieri and Manca Plazar
General comments
The authors describe recently adopted Maritime Spatial Planning (MSPs) in Slovenia and two neighbouring regions of Italy (Adriatic Sea). This description is very (too?) detailed and is useful, although it sometimes sounds like administrative blah blah, identical everywhere in the world, and like an accumulation of good intentions.
The authors juxtapose the MSPs of the two countries and attempt to compare them. The figures for Italy and Slovenia are organized completely differently. This can be explained by a difference in scale, as well as by the fact that they are taken from administrative documents prepared without coordination. This profound disparity between the maps for Slovenia and Italy raises the question: are the approaches really so incompatible? Does the article simply juxtapose them? Or is it a clumsiness on the part of the authors? They should have redrawn the maps to better highlight the similarities and differences. In any case, at least for Italy, the maps are illegible and must be redrawn (see below).
A critical approach is outlined in the discussion; it deserves to be greatly developed, with a focus on implementation of the MSPs.
The figures are of very poor quality, sometimes completely illegible: they all need to be redrawn according to the objectives of the article (see above).
Minor comments
Lines 17-18. MS Plans. Please define MSP above (line 15); MSP, not MS.
Line 40. European. Please specify ‘European Union (EU)’.
Line 40. MSPD. Please specify ‘Maritime Spatial Planning Directive’.
Line 42. Slovenia: SI? Or SLO? Please check. See also Lines 441 and 696. On figures (e.g. Fig. 9), you use SLO.
Line 57. The Directive à the EU Directive.
Line 58. Please avoid using both MS plans and MSP plans (e.g. line 63). MSP seems better. Also see Lines 98, 102, 109, 113, etc., throughout the text.
Line 79. European -- > EU. Also see Line 92.
Lines 158-159. Figure 1. Please make the place names significantly larger. The same goes for the legend at the bottom right of the figure. The same goes for the metric scales. Please note that KM in not a SI unit: you probably mean ‘km’. It's all completely illegible. The boxes (top left and bottom right) are illegible: Please enlarge them and add a metric scale within the boxes. I suggest two figures rather than this single illegible figure. Obviously, your source of data is inadequate (which is worrying for other data): please redrawn.
Lines 195-196. A fourth phase should be a critical analysis of the plans. Are these plans just administrative constructs with no connection to the reality on the ground? Are you checking that the bureaucrats' blah blah isn't just a construction on paper? Are protected areas (or aren't they) paper parks? You may not have the answer, but at least thank you for asking these questions.
Lines 221-222. European? Or EU? Please specify.
Line 233. Directive -- > EU Directive.
Line 249. MSFD. Please provide a reference.
Line 269. Why ‘A’ for ‘Other measures’?
Lines 274 and 278. ‘I’ for two typologies?
Lines 286 and 308. UP or PU? Please standardize.
Line 310. nautical mile is not a SI unit. You can use customary units, but you must give the translation into a SI unit (here: kilometre). I note that in the Slovenian chapter, SI units (e.g. metre) are correctly used, in the sea as on land (e.g. line 371).
Line 313. ‘nm’ is a SI unit, but means nanometre (10-9 m), not the customary nautical mile. Please use a SI unit (metre or kilometre). Add a space between the value and the unit.
Lines 314-316. Figure 2. The words on the figure are too small, gray, and blurry. Please enlarge them and make them black. KM is not a SI unit; you probably mean km? Indicate what the numbers in figure a mean: ‘number of ...’?
Lines 323-324. Table1. ‘Pus’ for Planning Units? Or PUs? (See line 308).
Lines 373-379. Figure 3. The words on the figure (a) are too small, gray, and blurry. Please enlarge them and make them black. The map (b) is missing a metric scale. The map (b) is blurry. In the box (bottom right, b), please remove anything that is not useful in the context of the article, for example 'Map 1' (!), municipality boundary, or not visible (e.g. international port of Koper). You can use Italian (‘e.g. Golfo di Trieste) and Slovenian (e.g. Jadransko Morje) names, but you must add English names.
Line 462. ‘promote sustainable fishing practices’ (also lines 466-469): The reader is interested in knowing what are these practices, and especially if these practices are effectively implemented (or just administrative blah blah on a piece of paper or on a website).
Line 477. What percentage of fishers turn off their AIS? Is this percentage decreasing?
Lines 482-485. ‘contribute to the achievement of sustainable natural resource management goals’. This statement is interesting: a concrete example of a positive effect (e.g. on fish stocks) would be welcome. However, further on (line 488) you seem to indicate the opposite (' the decrease in revenue due to the decrease in catches ').
Lines 493-495. Figure 4. KM is not a SI unit; please use ‘km’. The written text is completely illegible; furthermore, what is the meaning of e.g. ‘A/2_03|P(mt)’? This map must be redrawn. The source (MSP of Italy, 2024) is missing in the reference section.
Lines 502-508. What about ballast waters?
Lines 504-514. You use many acronyms that are not defined (PSSA, ATBA, TTS, LNG, PERS, etc.).
Lines 524. ‘protection of marine mammal corridors (e.g., cetaceans)’: Concretely, how are cetaceans protected, for example against collisions and accidental captures?
Lines 534-538. Figure 5. KM is not a SI unit; please use ‘km’. The written text is completely illegible; furthermore, what is the meaning of e.g. ‘A/2_03|P(mt)’? This map must be redrawn. The source (MSP of Italy, 2024) is missing in the reference section.
Lines 547-548. ‘monitoring of marine megafauna using sonobuoys and satellite surveys’. How do you define megafauna? There are several definitions.
Lines 571-574. Figure 6. KM is not a SI unit; please use ‘km’. The written text is completely illegible; furthermore, what is the meaning of e.g. ‘A/2_03|P(mt)’? This map must be redrawn. The source (MSP of Italy, 2024) is missing in the reference section.
Lines 643-645. Figure 7. Caption: add ‘in Slovenia’. Remove ‘Map 5’ (!). Nautical mile is not a SI unit: please add the metric value. A metric scale is missing. Do not abbreviate IT, SLO and CRO. The source (MSP of Slovenia, 2021) is missing in the reference section.
Line 646. Table 4. In Slovenia? Please specify.
Lines 673-674. Figure 8. Caption: add ‘in Slovenia’. Remove ‘Map 6’ and ‘Map 7’ (!). A metric scale is missing. Do not abbreviate IT, SLO and CRO. The source (MSP of Slovenia, 2021) is missing in the reference section.
Line 676. Table 5. In Slovenia? Please specify. meters -- > metres (you use UK English in the rest of the manuscript).
Lines 700-701. Figure 9. Caption: add ‘in Slovenia’. Remove ‘Map 8’, ‘Map 9’ and ‘Map 10’ (!). A metric scale is missing. Do not abbreviate IT, SLO and CRO. The source (MSP of Slovenia, 2021) is missing in the reference section.
Line 702. Table 6. Add ‘in Slovenia’.
Conclusion
The article is interesting. However, the form, the figures and the text should be greatly improved, shortening the results and developing a more critical approach in the discussion, especially about implementation.
I suggest major revision.
Author Response
Comments 1: The authors describe recently adopted Maritime Spatial Planning (MSPs) in Slovenia and two neighbouring regions of Italy (Adriatic Sea). This description is very (too?) detailed and is useful, although it sometimes sounds like administrative blah blah, identical everywhere in the world, and like an accumulation of good intentions.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comprehensive review and detailed comments. We have considered them all carefully.
As you write, we really wanted to compare both plans in the article and see what new opportunities they actually offer in the field of management of the Common Sea. The individual comments are listed below. Please find attached the revised manuscript (separately with visible changes and a clean copy). The list of revised lines refers to the line numbering of the first manuscript. These lines are renumbered in the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: The authors juxtapose the MSPs of the two countries and attempt to compare them. The figures for Italy and Slovenia are organized completely differently.
This can be explained by a difference in scale, as well as by the fact that they are taken from administrative documents prepared without coordination. This profound disparity between the maps for Slovenia and Italy raises the question: are the approaches really so incompatible? Does the article simply juxtapose them? Or is it a clumsiness on the part of the authors? They should have redrawn the maps to better highlight the similarities and differences.
In any case, at least for Italy, the maps are illegible and must be redrawn (see below).
Response 2: Thank you for your comment. The maps from Italy and Slovenia are reproduced from the official files approved by the two countries with the plans. We did not redraw the maps on purpose, instead we have opted to maintain the original features. This was done to keep the paper aligned with official information and representations and allow the reader to see how we have compared the two publicly available source of data. We don’t think this is hampering the possibility to highlight similarities and differences.
Regarding the maps from Italy, we agree with your comment, and we have redrawn the maps to make them readable and understandable (please see above all listed corrections).
Comments 3: A critical approach is outlined in the discussion; it deserves to be greatly developed, with a focus on implementation of the MSPs.
Response 3: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the discussion, introducing more elements focusing on implementation of the MSPs (lines 725 – 997).
Comments 4: The figures are of very poor quality, sometimes completely illegible: they all need to be redrawn according to the objectives of the article (see above).
Response 4: Agree. Therefore, we have modified all the figures/maps according to your detailed suggestion (see below, line by line).
Comments 5: Lines 17-18. MS Plans. Please define MSP above (line 15); MSP, not MS.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. The reason we used "MS Plans" is the similarity of the abbreviations for Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) and Marine Spatial Plans (MSP). But if it seems unclear, we agree with the comment. Therefore, throughout the article we have taken this comment into account and changed it to MSP (lines 15, 18, 58, 98, 102, 113, 163, 165, 192, 198, 200, 204, 205, 253, 302, 309, 316, 318, 324-325, 413-414, 451, 459, 498, 541, 544, 554, 564, 580-581, 704, 726, 756, 757, 774, 780, 794, 807, 812, 885, 921, 935, 948, 957, 974, 999, 1033, 1039).
Comments 6: Line 40. European. Please specify ‘European Union (EU)’.
Response 6: Agree. Therefore, we have added: “European Union (EU)”. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (line 40).
Comments 7: Line 40. MSPD. Please specify ‘Maritime Spatial Planning Directive’.
Response 7: Agree. Therefore, we have added: “Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD)”. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 40, 41).
Comments 8: Line 42. Slovenia: SI? Or SLO? Please check. See also Lines 441 and 696. On figures (e.g. Fig. 9), you use SLO.
Response 8: Agree. Thank you for the warning. “SI” is correct, it corresponds to the ISO standard (ISO 3166-A2), so we have used the following codes: Italy (IT), Slovenia (SI), Croatia (HR), we have also removed abbreviations in figures 7, 8 and 9 according to your comment no. 35, 37 and 39.
Comments 9: Line 57. The Directive à the EU Directive.
Response 9: Agree. Therefore, we have made changes according to your comment and used “MSPD” instead of “EU MSP Directive” in the full manuscript. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 57, 233, 237, 421, 937, 1017).
Comments 10: Line 58. Please avoid using both MS plans and MSP plans (e.g. line 63). MSP seems better. Also see Lines 98, 102, 109, 113, etc., throughout the text.
Response 10: Agree. We have already taken this comment into account above and corrected the entire article (please see comment/response no. 5).
Comments 11: Line 79. European -- > EU. Also see Line 92.
Response 11: Agree. Therefore, we have corrected “European” with “European Union” and changed “European“ to "EU”. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (line 79).
Comments 12: Lines 158-159. Figure 1. Please make the place names significantly larger. The same goes for the legend at the bottom right of the figure. The same goes for the metric scales. Please note that KM in not a SI unit: you probably mean ‘km’. It's all completely illegible. The boxes (top left and bottom right) are illegible: Please enlarge them and add a metric scale within the boxes. I suggest two figures rather than this single illegible figure. Obviously, your source of data is inadequate (which is worrying for other data): please redrawn.
Response 12: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the figure (lines 158 – 159).
Comments 13: Lines 195-196. A fourth phase should be a critical analysis of the plans. Are these plans just administrative constructs with no connection to the reality on the ground? Are you checking that the bureaucrats' blah blah isn't just a construction on paper? Are protected areas (or aren't they) paper parks? You may not have the answer, but at least thank you for asking these questions.
Response 13: Thank you for your comment. In fact, the fourth phase was not intended as a critical analysis of the plans, but as a synthesis of the research on the new tools and possibilities of the two plans.
Comments 14: Lines 221-222. European? Or EU? Please specify.
Response 14: Thank you for your remark. We have changed into European Union (lines 221 – 222).
Comments 15: Line 233. Directive -- > EU Directive.
Response 15: Agree. We have therefore used the abbreviation “MSPD” instead of “Directive”. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (line 233).
Comments 16: Line 249. MSFD. Please provide a reference.
Response 16: Thank you for your remark. A reference has been provided in the text to the Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) (line 249).
Comments 17: Line 269. Why ‘A’ for ‘Other measures’?
Response 17: Thank you for your remark. This is the official code used in the definition of the typology of measure provided in the Italian MSP. A = ‘altre’ = ‘others’. We have opted to keep the original codes to allow for cross-check and comparison with the official MSP documents.
Comments 18: Lines 274 and 278. ‘I’ for two typologies?
Response 18: Thank you for your remark. Indeed, incentives, measures aimed at promoting specific objectives, are coded with a lower-case “i” in the Italian plans. This has been corrected in the text (line 278).
Comments 19: Lines 286 and 308. UP or PU? Please standardize
Response 19: Thank you for your remark. We have standardized this abbreviation to PU = Planning Unit (line 286).
Comments 20: Line 310. nautical mile is not a SI unit. You can use customary units, but you must give the translation into a SI unit (here: kilometre). I note that in the Slovenian chapter, SI units (e.g. metre) are correctly used, in the sea as on land (e.g. line 371).
Response 20: Agree, but let us explain: there is some confusion in the use of the International System of Units (SI) in the field of nautical charts and maritime spatial plans. Our plans are based on data from different sectors, which is why the metric system (SI units) and imperial units occasionally appear in the plans. Example: for the regulation of maritime traffic, databases from the field of nautical charts have been used, which must be drawn in nautical miles (and sea depths in metres) in accordance with the instructions or standards of the IHO (International Hydrographic Organisation). The situation is similar in the field of fishing regulations, where fishing zones are defined in nautical miles. In the field of shipping, the traffic regulations are defined in metres.
To simplify: in accordance with the comment, we have decided to add SI units where miles are indicated (lines 310, 313).
Comments 21: Line 313. ‘nm’ is a SI unit, but means nanometre (10-9 m), not the customary nautical mile. Please use a SI unit (metre or kilometre). Add a space between the value and the unit.
Response 21: Agree. Therefore, we have corrected the text also in line with the previous explanation (no. 20) and added metric SI units (1 nautical mile (M) = 1.852 metres (m)). Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 310, 313).
Comments 22: Lines 314-316. Figure 2. The words on the figure are too small, gray, and blurry. Please enlarge them and make them black. KM is not a SI unit; you probably mean km? Indicate what the numbers in figure a mean: ‘number of ...’?
Response 22: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 2. according to your detailed suggestion. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 314-316).
Comments 23: Lines 323-324. Table1. ‘Pus’ for Planning Units? Or PUs? (See line 308).
Response 23: Thank you for your remark. We have standardized this abbreviation to PU = Planning Unit (lines 323 - 324).
Comments 24: Lines 373-379. Figure 3. The words on the figure (a) are too small, gray, and blurry. Please enlarge them and make them black. The map (b) is missing a metric scale. The map (b) is blurry. In the box (bottom right, b), please remove anything that is not useful in the context of the article, for example 'Map 1' (!), municipality boundary, or not visible (e.g. international port of Koper). You can use Italian (‘e.g. Golfo di Trieste) and Slovenian (e.g. Jadransko Morje) names, but you must add English names.
Response 24: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 3. according to your detailed suggestion. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 373-379).
As for the blurring of the graphic basis (map) in Figure 3b, it should be explained that this is the original cartographic basis and that we wanted to show the official image of the plan in at least in one example (the other maps (Figures 7, 8, 9) were adapted for the article).
Comments 25: Line 462. ‘promote sustainable fishing practices’ (also lines 466-469): The reader is interested in knowing what are these practices, and especially if these practices are effectively implemented (or just administrative blah blah on a piece of paper or on a website).
Response 25: Thank you for your comment. In lines 465-477 some examples of measures addressing sustainable fishing practices are presented. We made clearer this reference just including a note in line 462 (as exemplified in the following). Regarding the question on whether these practices are effectively implemented, we cannot address the discussion on the effectiveness of the implementation: this falls outside the scope of our study. Moreover, the Italian MSP plan has been adopted one year ago only, and results from monitoring and assessment are not available yet.
Comments 26: Line 477. What percentage of fishers turn off their AIS? Is this percentage decreasing?
Response 26: Thank you for pointing this out. We understand your comment but we would like to explain that the effectiveness of the measures foreseen by the MSP plans are not within the scope of our article, especially at the level of detail of a single type of measure for a single sector. In our opinion to answer to you questions a different, dedicated study would be needed.
Comments 27: Lines 482-485. ‘contribute to the achievement of sustainable natural resource management goals’. This statement is interesting: a concrete example of a positive effect (e.g. on fish stocks) would be welcome. However, further on (line 488) you seem to indicate the opposite (' the decrease in revenue due to the decrease in catches ').
Response 27: Thank you for your comment. We have included (line 485) a concrete example, as you suggest (actually, it is really the recovery of fish stocks that is expected). The sentence in line 488 refers to the present conditions where a decline of catches is observed. This has been clarified (line 488). The two types of effects, direct and indirect ones, are exacted to act synergistically.
Comments 28: Lines 493-495. Figure 4. KM is not a SI unit; please use ‘km’. The written text is completely illegible; furthermore, what is the meaning of e.g. ‘A/2_03|P(mt)’? This map must be redrawn. The source (MSP of Italy, 2024) is missing in the reference section.
Response 28: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 4. according to your detailed suggestion (including added source). Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 493-495).
Comments 29: Lines 502-508. What about ballast waters?
Response 29: Thank you for pointing this out. Let us explain: ballast waters are not targeted by the Italian MSP plan. Italy is already compliant with international and European Union ballast water regulation (European Regulations). International regulation: IMO MARPOL Convention: Italy is a signatory to this convention, which sets the main international rules for the prevention of pollution from ships. Annex I: Concerns the prevention of pollution by oil (and oil-derived substances). Annex IV: Concerns the prevention of pollution from sewage discharges from ships.
European Union regulation: Regulation (EU) 2023/2053: This regulation is the main legal framework for Italy and implements the IMO international rules on the prevention of marine pollution caused by ships. Directive 2005/35/EC (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2023/2053): Establishes rules to prevent and reduce pollution from ships, including provisions on the management of bilge water.
Comments 30: Lines 504-514. You use many acronyms that are not defined (PSSA, ATBA, TTS, LNG, PERS, etc.).
Response 30: Thank you for your comment. We have provided definitions for the acronyms (lines 505, 506, 511, 516, 517, 533).
Comments 31: Lines 524. ‘protection of marine mammal corridors (e.g., cetaceans)’: Concretely, how are cetaceans protected, for example against collisions and accidental captures?
Response 31: Thank you for your comment. The identification, monitoring and management of hot spots of maritime pressures will provide the basis for the identification of joint specific measures. Such measures can consist in definition of areas where reduced vessel velocity is requested, as well as the operation of systems for monitoring and sharing cetaceans’ position in real-time. For the fishing sectors, specific measures can be adpted such as the adoption of acoustic deterrent devices, modified fishing gears, real-time monitoring systems. Such measures are not included in the present version of the MSP plan but could be defined as a result of the identification of hotspot areas of maritime pressures.
Comments 32: Lines 534-538. Figure 5. KM is not a SI unit; please use ‘km’. The written text is completely illegible; furthermore, what is the meaning of e.g. ‘A/2_03|P(mt)’? This map must be redrawn. The source (MSP of Italy, 2024) is missing in the reference section.
Response 32: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 5. according to your detailed suggestion (including added source). Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 534-538).
Comments 33: Lines 547-548. ‘monitoring of marine megafauna using sonobuoys and satellite surveys’. How do you define megafauna? There are several definitions.
Response 33: Thank you for your remark. We have included a definition with a reference (line 548). ‘Marine megafauna comprises all large-bodied organisms (body mass, ≥45 kg) inhabiting the coastal and open oceans, including bony fishes, elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), mammals (whales, seals, sea cows, and the polar bear), reptiles (sea turtles), a species of sea bird (i.e., the emperor penguin), and a few species of mollusks (clams, squids, and octopuses)’. J. A. Estes, M. Heithaus, D. J. McCauley, D. B. Rasher, B. Worm, Megafaunal impacts on structure and function of ocean ecosystems. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 41, 83–116 (2016).
Comments 34: Lines 571-574. Figure 6. KM is not a SI unit; please use ‘km’. The written text is completely illegible; furthermore, what is the meaning of e.g. ‘A/2_03|P(mt)’? This map must be redrawn. The source (MSP of Italy, 2024) is missing in the reference section.
Response 34: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 6. according to your detailed suggestion (including added source). Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 571-574).
Comments 35: Lines 643-645. Figure 7. Caption: add ‘in Slovenia’. Remove ‘Map 5’ (!). Nautical mile is not a SI unit: please add the metric value. A metric scale is missing. Do not abbreviate IT, SLO and CRO. The source (MSP of Slovenia, 2021) is missing in the reference section.
Response 35: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 7. according to your detailed suggestion (including added source). Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 643-645).
Comments 36: Line 646. Table 4. In Slovenia? Please specify.
Response 36: Agree. Therefore, we have added “(SI)”. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (line 646).
Comments 37: Lines 673-674. Figure 8. Caption: add ‘in Slovenia’. Remove ‘Map 6’ and ‘Map 7’ (!). A metric scale is missing. Do not abbreviate IT, SLO and CRO. The source (MSP of Slovenia, 2021) is missing in the reference section.
Response 37: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 7. according to your detailed suggestion (including added source). Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 673-674).
Comments 38: Line 676. Table 5. In Slovenia? Please specify. meters -- > metres (you use UK English in the rest of the manuscript).
Response 38: Agree. Therefore, we have added “(SI)” and replaced “meters – metres”. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 646, 676).
Comments 39: Lines 700-701. Figure 9. Caption: add ‘in Slovenia’. Remove ‘Map 8’, ‘Map 9’ and ‘Map 10’ (!). A metric scale is missing. Do not abbreviate IT, SLO and CRO. The source (MSP of Slovenia, 2021) is missing in the reference section.
Response 39: Agree. Therefore, we have modified the Figure 7. according to your detailed suggestion (including added source). Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 700-701).
Comments 40: Line 702. Table 6. Add ‘in Slovenia’.
Response 40: Agree. Therefore, we have added “(SI)”. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (line 702).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is about the MSPs that have been adopted respectively by Italy and Slovenia. You compare and contrast them and discuss how they can be reconciled to constitute a viable spatial plan to cover the cross-border area of the Gulf of Venice. You conclude optimistically that “Regardless of individual differences, the adoption of both plans represents a major step towards achieving the common goals of sustainable spatial development in the shared marine area of the Gulf of Venice” (lines 30-33). In my view, your paper is potentially publishable as a useful contribution to the literature on MSPs. However, before I recommend its publication, I would like to see your responses to the following five issues:
First, your Figures are not very clear or informative. In some of them the font size is too small: in others the writing is too faint.
Second, on lines 437-439 you say:
“In both countries…the new plans take a different approach to conventional planning and define the sea as its own spatial development entity”
Can you explain what this “different approach to conventional planning” is?
Third, in section 3.2.1: The Italian plans, you list in detail the contents of the Italian spatial plans which comprise 80 measures, and you conclude with regard to fisheries that:
“Overall, these measures foster a sustainable, competitive, and well-regulated fisheries sector, balancing economic growth with marine conservation… the regulation of fisheries on individual fish species, in line with the EU and national plans, and the international cooperation in fisheries management contribute to the achievement of sustainable natural resource management goals in the study area.” (lines 478-485)
On what evidence do you base this favourable verdict? MSPs are notoriously controversial exercises which often provoke fierce reaction from aggrieved fishers who claim their interests are sacrificed to benefit the interests of other marine users such as offshore wind energy developers. How can you substantiate your claim that the fisheries sector is “well-regulated” in the Italian spatial plans?
You conclude with regard to nature conservation that:
“These measures support a science-based, integrated approach to marine conservation and restoration, ensuring sustainable maritime development while protecting biodiversity” (lines 557-559).
Again, where is the evidence on which you base this favourable verdict of “ensuring sustainable maritime development”? Surely the Italian plans are aspirations rather than concrete achievements?
Fourth, in section 3.2.2: The Slovenia plan, you list the contents of the Slovenian plan which comprise 33 measures, and you conclude on fisheries that:
“we can highlight the following key measures that have the following effects: a) Direct transboundary effects: the regulation of fisheries on individual fish species ensures the achievement of international sustainable natural resource management goals” (lines 636-639)
Where is your evidence for the claim that the proposed “regulation of fisheries on individual fish species ensures the achievement of international sustainable natural resource management goals”?
Likewise, you conclude on maritime transport that:
“The permanent existence of the separate navigation system and the measures for the coordinated implementation of all other nautical activities ensure the necessary standards for safe navigation in the Gulf of Trieste (lines 664-666)
Again, on what evidence do you base this claim?
You yourselves admit on lines 738-739 that “The actual impact of these plans will only be assessed over time”, and on lines 855-858 you acknowledge in relation to the Slovenian MSP that:
“Despite its achievements, the effective implementation of the MSP remains a challenge. It requires sustained political commitment, adequate institutional capacities, and financial resources. Continuous stakeholder engagement—particularly with coastal communities and sectoral actors—is essential to ensure the plan’s long-term relevance and legitimacy”.
Fifth, your paper is very long: I recommend you prune it because a shorter version would be more attractive to the general reader.
Author Response
Comments 1: This paper is about the MSPs that have been adopted respectively by Italy and Slovenia. You compare and contrast them and discuss how they can be reconciled to constitute a viable spatial plan to cover the cross-border area of the Gulf of Venice. You conclude optimistically that “Regardless of individual differences, the adoption of both plans represents a major step towards achieving the common goals of sustainable spatial development in the shared marine area of the Gulf of Venice” (lines 30-33). In my view, your paper is potentially publishable as a useful contribution to the literature on MSPs. However, before I recommend its publication, I would like to see your responses to the following five issues.
Response 1: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. As you write, we really wanted to compare both plans in the article and see what new opportunities they actually offer in the field of management of the Common Sea. We admit that we have made some claims in the last chapter for which there is no direct reference (empirical evidence), but we would like to point out here that the co-authors of the article are also co-authors of the two plans and are therefore well informed about their content and wider issues in this field. We have therefore made numerous assertions or expressed information, particularly in the discussion, that we believe will be of interest to readers, but to avoid ambiguity we have removed them (shortened the text - chapter Discussion) in the revised manuscript. Below we provide responses to your comments.
Please find attached the revised manuscript (separately with visible changes and a clean copy). The list of revised lines refers to the line numbering of the first manuscript. These lines are renumbered in the revised manuscript.
Comments 2: First, your Figures are not very clear or informative. In some of them the font size is too small: in others the writing is too faint.
Response 2: Agree. Such comment was also made by another reviewer, so we have improved all the images to make them more readable, clearer and more descriptive. Please note the correction in the revised manuscript (lines 158, 314, 367, 493, 534, 571, 643, 673, 700).
Comments 3: Second, on lines 437-439 you say:
“In both countries…the new plans take a different approach to conventional planning and define the sea as its own spatial development entity”
Can you explain what this “different approach to conventional planning” is?
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. This means that the plans introduce changes to conventional spatial planning as we know it in terrestrial space. This planning was characterised by a typical sectoral approach, where sectoral needs were only coordinated according to the principle of priorities (mainly based on zoning and intended land use). Planning for our common sea was also carried out in this way before the new plans. The new plans introduce the so-called ecosystem approach, in which the ecosystem aspect is checked and taken into account for all sectoral needs. In addition, time-coordinated arrangements for the shared use of the sea for various activities and uses are introduced. Furthermore, in accordance with the MSP Directive, the planning instruments, the importance of international cooperation and numerous other elements of spatial planning at sea that we did not know or practise before have been greatly standardised.
Comments 4: Third, in section 3.2.1: The Italian plans, you list in detail the contents of the Italian spatial plans which comprise 80 measures, and you conclude with regard to fisheries that: “Overall, these measures foster a sustainable, competitive, and well-regulated fisheries sector, balancing economic growth with marine conservation… the regulation of fisheries on individual fish species, in line with the EU and national plans, and the international cooperation in fisheries management contribute to the achievement of sustainable natural resource management goals in the study area.” (lines 478-485). On what evidence do you base this favourable verdict? MSPs are notoriously controversial exercises which often provoke fierce reaction from aggrieved fishers who claim their interests are sacrificed to benefit the interests of other marine users such as offshore wind energy developers. How can you substantiate your claim that the fisheries sector is “well-regulated” in the Italian spatial plans?
Response 4: Thank you for your comment. This is actually the aim of all the measures introduced and coordinated (the already existing ones) by the plan. The effectiveness of implementation has not been proved yet, and we cannot assess it in the frame of this article. We have modified the text clarifying that this is an objective, not a result (Line 478).
Comments 5: You conclude with regard to nature conservation that:
“These measures support a science-based, integrated approach to marine conservation and restoration, ensuring sustainable maritime development while protecting biodiversity” (lines 557-559).
Again, where is the evidence on which you base this favourable verdict of “ensuring sustainable maritime development”? Surely the Italian plans are aspirations rather than concrete achievements?
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. Here the same considerations of the point before can be applied. This is actually the aim of all the measures introduced and coordinated. We have modified the text clarifying that this is an objective, not a result (Line 563).
Comments 6: Fourth, in section 3.2.2: The Slovenia plan, you list the contents of the Slovenian plan which comprise 33 measures, and you conclude on fisheries that:
“we can highlight the following key measures that have the following effects: a) Direct transboundary effects: the regulation of fisheries on individual fish species ensures the achievement of international sustainable natural resource management goals” (lines 636-639). Where is your evidence for the claim that the proposed “regulation of fisheries on individual fish species ensures the achievement of international sustainable natural resource management goals”?
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. Let us explain: as far as fisheries are concerned, the “fisheries regulations", as the plan states, are based on two documents at national level: the Fisheries Management Plan (FMP, Slovenian: NUR – Nacionalni Načrt Ribištva) and the Marine Environment Management Plan (MEMP, Slovenian: NUMO – Načrt Upravljanja Morskega Okolja). These two plans have been provisionally prepared as separate documents that take into account or/and implement all relevant international obligations of the Republic of Slovenia, including sectoral EU policies and various directives in the field of marine environmental management (nature conservation, water, fisheries, etc.). In all these documents, the aspect of sustainable management of natural resources is also formally taken into account. In this sense, we can say that the aspect of sustainable management of natural resources is implemented as formally as possible in the MSP. However, it is difficult to prove what concrete effects all this has in practise or in space. This can be the subject of further research.
REF: Vlada Republike Slovenije Uradni List RS, Št. 41/17: Načrt Upravljanja z Morskim Okoljem Za Obdobje Od 2017 Do 2021. Available online: http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=URED6974#
Comments 7: Likewise, you conclude on maritime transport that:
“The permanent existence of the separate navigation system and the measures for the coordinated implementation of all other nautical activities ensure the necessary standards for safe navigation in the Gulf of Trieste (lines 664-666)
Again, on what evidence do you base this claim?
Response 7: The same clarification also applies in this case: the system of separate navigation as defined by the MSP (textual and cartographic provisions) is based on: (a) the previously created tripartite Memorandum on the Common Navigation System and a Separate Navigation Scheme (SI-IT-HR), which takes maximum account of all safety aspects, and (b) the Maritime Code/Law (national document), which is the most detailed document for the management of safe navigation, harmonised with all applicable international standards.
REF.: Law on the ratification of the Memorandum of understanding between the government of the Republic of Slovenia, the government of the Republic of Croatia and the government of the Republic of Italy for the implementation of a Common Navigation System and a Separate Navigation Scheme in the northern part of the Northern Adriatic Sea (MHITSPS). Official Gazette: 27/2000, 19.10.2000.
Comments 8: You yourselves admit on lines 738-739 that “The actual impact of these plans will only be assessed over time”, and on lines 855-858 you acknowledge in relation to the Slovenian MSP that:
“Despite its achievements, the effective implementation of the MSP remains a challenge. It requires sustained political commitment, adequate institutional capacities, and financial resources. Continuous stakeholder engagement—particularly with coastal communities and sectoral actors—is essential to ensure the plan’s long-term relevance and legitimacy”.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. As we noted at the beginning, the authors take certain positions based on a good knowledge of the actual situation both in terms of administrative procedures and the content of spatial planning documents. However, we have revised the entire "Discussion" chapter in line with the comments (lines 725 – 998).
Comments 9: Fifth, your paper is very long: I recommend you prune it because a shorter version would be more attractive to the general reader.
Response 9: Thank you for your comment. Agreed. We have revised the entire document and shortened it accordingly, especially in the Results and Discussion chapters (lines 204 – 998).
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised ms is OK
