Periodic Reporting for period 2 - MarinePlan (Improved transdisciplinary science for effective ecosystem-based maritime spatial planning and conservation in European Seas (MarinePlan))
Berichtszeitraum: 2024-04-01 bis 2025-09-30
Human pressures and climate change are increasing risks to marine ecosystems, prompting global and regional goals to protect 30% of marine areas by 2030, including 10% under strict protection. Meeting these targets requires stronger alignment between marine spatial planning (MSP), conservation, and restoration, making an ecosystem-based approach to MSP essential. The MarinePlan project supported this transition by developing a stakeholder-informed Decision Support System (DSS) to provide practical guidance for ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (EB-MSP).
The project developed the conceptual framework, tools, guidelines, and best-practice recommendations for the DSS, alongside quantitative metrics to operationalise Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) in conservation planning. The DSS was tested and applied across eight diverse European planning sites, covering coastal to deep-sea and local to transboundary contexts. Each site developed realistic planning scenarios to achieve the 2030–30–10 conservation targets. Finally, MarinePlan delivered policy-relevant recommendations identifying governance challenges and opportunities to strengthen the effective implementation of EB-MSP across Europe.
The project developed the conceptual framework, tools, guidelines, and best-practice recommendations for the DSS, alongside quantitative metrics to operationalise Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs) in conservation planning. The DSS was tested and applied across eight diverse European planning sites, covering coastal to deep-sea and local to transboundary contexts. Each site developed realistic planning scenarios to achieve the 2030–30–10 conservation targets. Finally, MarinePlan delivered policy-relevant recommendations identifying governance challenges and opportunities to strengthen the effective implementation of EB-MSP across Europe.
We developed an operational ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (EB-MSP) framework with clear, practice-oriented guidance to support real-world implementation. The framework follows a step-by-step structure with defined stages, tasks, and a compliance checklist, demonstrating across planning sites that meaningful progress toward EB-MSP can be achieved when conservation and restoration objectives are embedded within planning goals.
Operational EBSA metrics were developed across multiple spatial and temporal scales to better capture biodiversity patterns and connectivity between hotspots, MPAs, and EBSAs under climate change. All planning sites ranked EBSA criteria by relevance and produced EBSA maps. To support connectivity-informed planning, both two-dimensional Lagrangian tracking models and three-dimensional biophysical models incorporating biological processes were adapted and applied.
An integrated and flexible suite of decision-support tools was developed to advance EB-MSP. These tools support robust prioritisation of biodiversity, connectivity, socio-economic trade-offs, and climate risks, including depth-explicit and connectivity-based network design, corridor identification, and assessment of OECMs. Connectivity metrics were aligned with physical oceanographic modelling, enabling graph-based indicators such as source–sink dynamics and clustering. All tools were tested in planning sites and refined through participatory workshops to ensure operational relevance.
A forward-looking scenario analysis explored alternative futures for marine biodiversity conservation to 2030. Four contrasting scenarios were co-developed through global expert input, analysed across ecological, political, and socio-economic dimensions, and translated into site-specific planning options. Plain-language factsheets supported stakeholder engagement and climate-smart, participatory decision-making.
Institutional and policy audits were conducted for each planning site, analysing legislative frameworks, governance structures, stakeholder participation, and adaptive capacity. Standardised guidance for stakeholder identification and engagement was developed, knowledge gaps were identified, and tailored recommendations were communicated through story maps and policy briefs.
Strong alignment between tool development and application was ensured through dedicated workshops, continuous partner exchanges, practical guidelines, and a shared decision tree. All planning sites implemented realistic scenarios reflecting local objectives, MSP progress, ecological criteria, and economic trade-offs, contributing toward the 30x30 target. Robust data management, transparent governance, and active internal and external communication further supported collaboration, data sharing, and knowledge exchange across the project. MarinePlan engaged with other EU projects and participated in initiatives and workshops for knowledge exchange.
Operational EBSA metrics were developed across multiple spatial and temporal scales to better capture biodiversity patterns and connectivity between hotspots, MPAs, and EBSAs under climate change. All planning sites ranked EBSA criteria by relevance and produced EBSA maps. To support connectivity-informed planning, both two-dimensional Lagrangian tracking models and three-dimensional biophysical models incorporating biological processes were adapted and applied.
An integrated and flexible suite of decision-support tools was developed to advance EB-MSP. These tools support robust prioritisation of biodiversity, connectivity, socio-economic trade-offs, and climate risks, including depth-explicit and connectivity-based network design, corridor identification, and assessment of OECMs. Connectivity metrics were aligned with physical oceanographic modelling, enabling graph-based indicators such as source–sink dynamics and clustering. All tools were tested in planning sites and refined through participatory workshops to ensure operational relevance.
A forward-looking scenario analysis explored alternative futures for marine biodiversity conservation to 2030. Four contrasting scenarios were co-developed through global expert input, analysed across ecological, political, and socio-economic dimensions, and translated into site-specific planning options. Plain-language factsheets supported stakeholder engagement and climate-smart, participatory decision-making.
Institutional and policy audits were conducted for each planning site, analysing legislative frameworks, governance structures, stakeholder participation, and adaptive capacity. Standardised guidance for stakeholder identification and engagement was developed, knowledge gaps were identified, and tailored recommendations were communicated through story maps and policy briefs.
Strong alignment between tool development and application was ensured through dedicated workshops, continuous partner exchanges, practical guidelines, and a shared decision tree. All planning sites implemented realistic scenarios reflecting local objectives, MSP progress, ecological criteria, and economic trade-offs, contributing toward the 30x30 target. Robust data management, transparent governance, and active internal and external communication further supported collaboration, data sharing, and knowledge exchange across the project. MarinePlan engaged with other EU projects and participated in initiatives and workshops for knowledge exchange.
Realistic planning scenarios were developed across all planning sites to support the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 targets of protecting 30% of marine areas, including 10% under strict protection. All scenarios applied ecosystem-based management, treating regions as interconnected ecological systems despite fragmented governance and, in transboundary areas, limited cross-border coordination. EBSAs and ecological connectivity were incorporated using shared principles but adapted methods reflecting regional priorities and data availability. Most sites applied EBSA criteria using species, habitat, and life-history layers, with variations in scoring and proxies. Connectivity approaches ranged from advanced modelling tools (e.g. PriorCON and Lagrangian dispersal models) to pragmatic, data-driven approximations where data were limited. Together, these approaches illustrate multiple regional pathways toward ecological coherence in marine planning.
Analysis of governance barriers revealed common challenges across sites, including limited resources and political will, fragmented governance and data systems, weak cross-border cooperation, insufficient stakeholder engagement, outdated management measures, and inadequate monitoring. Practical, site-specific recommendations were communicated through policy briefs and story maps, highlighting the need for stronger leadership, improved coordination, and better integration of knowledge, resources, and people to enable transformative ecosystem-based marine spatial planning.
Analysis of governance barriers revealed common challenges across sites, including limited resources and political will, fragmented governance and data systems, weak cross-border cooperation, insufficient stakeholder engagement, outdated management measures, and inadequate monitoring. Practical, site-specific recommendations were communicated through policy briefs and story maps, highlighting the need for stronger leadership, improved coordination, and better integration of knowledge, resources, and people to enable transformative ecosystem-based marine spatial planning.