Marine spatial planning is an important tool to achieve a more ecosystem-based governance approach to marine ecosystems. Marine ecosystems often transcend national jurisdictional boundaries, so the compatibility of national policies and legal structures are important prerequisites for transboundary marine spatial planning. This article explores marine spatial planning in the North Sea ecosystem and analyses whether national policies and legal structures in the Netherlands and Norway are compatible enough. Both countries have an extensive body of law regulating the different uses of the North Sea and have also developed integrated management approaches for ‘their’ respective parts of the North Sea. The article demonstrates that marine spatial planning in regional sea areas is complicated when national legal frameworks and governance structures and traditions are very different.
Marine spatial planning (
an integrated, policy-based approach to the regulation, management and protection of the marine environment, including the allocation of space, which addresses the multiple, cumulative and potentially conflicting uses of the sea and thereby facilitates sustainable development.1
As a policy tool,
Marine and coastal ecosystem dynamics can transcend administrative boundaries.
[c]oastal states sharing a common approach to the management of maritime areas, an approach that takes into account its own cross-border impacts, will find it easier to avoid conflicts between competing interests, to coordinate the use of limited space and resources for the greater benefit of all, and finally to reduce the economic costs of non-coordination.6
Transboundary cooperation is thus advanced as a necessary component of effective
mspis viewed, inter alia, as a process which allows for: greater integration and harmonisation between existing management frameworks to facilitate the implementation of an ecosystem-based approach; the protection of valuable ecosystem services; effective fisheries management; addressing marine pollution issues; the planning of cross-border Marine Protected Areas; and the selection of the most appropriate sites in the region for development.7
Though necessary, transboundary
The 2015 report of the European Union Committee of the House of Lords, entitled ‘The North Sea under pressure: is regional marine cooperation the answer?’ also drew attention to the concern over the different approaches by Member States to the implementation of single pieces of
the appointment of a European Commissioner responsible for both environmental policy and maritime affairs. An important priority for the new Commissioner should be to ensure that
eulegislation affecting the marine environment is consistent. We recommend that the Commission publish guidance for Member States on implementation of such legislation at national level, to improve consistency both between Member States and within the Member States.14
Indeed, a degree of convergence in policy and legislative arrangements across borders is a critical element of successful transboundary
This article analyses the possibilities for transboundary marine spatial planning in the North Sea ecosystem, with a particular focus on the policy and legislative divergence between Norway (a non-
The North Sea
While transboundary cooperation is viewed as a critical element of sustainable planning and development in shared marine regions, it is not possible to develop an ideal governance framework for transboundary planning initiatives. Transboundary initiatives need to be designed to suit the issue(s) at hand and to fit within the unique context of the region.18 This section provides a short introduction to the North Sea ecosystem, its ecological importance and human pressures.
The North Sea ecosystem is a semi-enclosed sea situated on the continental shelf of north-western Europe, in the Atlantic Ocean. It covers an area of about 750 000 km2 and has an average depth of 90 meters, with depths not exceeding 700 meters19 and is surrounded by densely populated, highly industrialised countries such as England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France. The North Sea is characterised by its great ecological variety of habitats including fjords, estuaries, deltas, banks, beaches, sandbanks and mudflats, marshes, rocks and islands.20 The North Sea ecosystem is of a particular high ecological value because it is a highly complex and open marine ecosystem, shallow and rich in nutrients, that is “defined by a subtle interaction between climate, sea currents, nutrients, sediments, flora and fauna and human use”.21 The North Sea is also of great socio-economic value and is actually one of the busiest seas in the world. Considerable pressure on the ecosystem is caused by inputs from industry, agriculture, and 184 million people in the catchment area.22 Impacts mainly derive from agriculture and recreation in the coastal zones; extensive fisheries;23 offshore industry;24 intense shipping use;25 and growing aquaculture activities.26
Over time, these pressures and impacts have caused a number of challenges.
To find the right balance between nature conservation and sustainable human use within this diverse and intensively used marine ecosystem is not an easy task. For the protection of the North Sea, the two most important conventions are the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (
Pursuant to Article 2 of
In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds.36 The coastal State also has sovereign rights over the continental shelf for the purpose of exploring it and exploiting its natural resources.37 The rights that the coastal State enjoys in the exclusive economic zone and over the continental shelf may be relevant for marine spatial planning purposes.
For all three zones, Article 194(2)
With regard to the need for regional cooperation, Article 197
An example of the latter can be found in Article 3(9) of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which provides that ‘regional cooperation’ means “cooperation and coordination of activities between Member States and, when possible, third countries sharing the same marine region or sub-region, for the purpose of developing and implementing marine strategies”. As will be shown below, the Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning has a similar provision.
In sum, coastal states surrounding an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea, such as the North Sea, should thus be influenced by the exhortation to cooperate in the manner in which they exercise their rights and duties under the
The adoption of the
Work under the
The Bergen Declaration has also been highly important for the issue of
to investigate the possibilities for further international cooperation in planning and managing marine activities through spatial planning of the North Sea States taking into account cumulative and transboundary effects.49
In January 2004, at the first Workshop on Spatial Planning in the North Sea (
showed that there was a wide range of spatial controls in all North Sea States covering most, if not all, relevant human activities. However, no North Sea State (except possibly Belgium) had clear arrangements to demonstrate that consistent approaches were being applied in the many different fields, though no doubt in practice there was much informal cooperation to ensure consistency.50
With regard to the
[w]ithin the framework of international laws and obligations (including the
losc), it is for each State to define its priorities for the use of the marine resources available to it. The main focus of spatial planning of the North Sea should therefore be at the national level.51
From the 2010s,
The 2010 Bergen Statement, which mainly focused on the contribution by
From a regional policy and legal perspective, Maes and Cliquet conclude that the
osparseems to have no strong ambition to play an active role in supporting cross-border cooperation on mspbetween its members. Its contribution to mspis mainly focused on collecting scientific data and the assessment of the impacts of human activities on the marine environment, as a contribution to the implementation of the eu msfdby its Parties.57
Drankier however argues that “[a]lthough there is no legal framework for
As an illustration, the Secretariat of the
Despite the aim to improve strategic cooperation in the North Sea region, Drankier notices that the examples mentioned of possible joint strategic initiatives by
[w[hile some cross-border consultation takes place, it is often ad hoc with little or no evidence of joint planning. Transitioning to transboundary
mspwill be challenging. It will be difficult, for example, for neighbouring states to effectively cooperate on transboundary planning decisions without each state having explicit efforts on msp. Furthermore, cooperation is impeded as neighbouring jurisdictions have different msptimeframes, with some nations having considerably more developed mspprocesses than others.63
Another complicating factor, identified by Hey (2002) is that the process of change is a long-term process, which implies that results cannot be expected over a period of a few years. It is important to realise that the transition process is in fact about achieving changes in perception that are often deeply ingrained in society and may differ among societies. It is about changing our perceptions of the environment and its resources and of the role that science, technology and economic aspects can play in determining the manner in which we use the environment and its resources.64
Policy and legislative structures are often a reflection of these diverse national perceptions and circumstances. To what extent transboundary
eu Legal Framework for the Protection of the North Sea
In addition to the
eu Habitats Directive and the eu Birds Directive
The Habitats and Birds Directive apply within the territory of the
The Habitats and Birds Directives are a means by which the European Union meets its obligations under the Bern Convention69 and Bonn Convention.70 The Bern Convention, which covers most of the natural heritage of the European continent, aims to conserve wild flora and fauna and their natural habitats and to promote European co-operation in that field. The Convention places a particular importance on the need to protect endangered natural habitats and endangered vulnerable species, including migratory species.71 The Bonn Convention aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. Parties acknowledge the importance of migratory species being conserved, and also of the need to take action to avoid any migratory species becoming endangered.72 Though the Habitats and Birds Directives do not apply to Norway, both international conventions have been ratified by Norway.
With regard to the issue of the geographical scope of the directives, it has become clear that the Directives also apply to waters under the Member State’s jurisdiction and in waters where they exercise sovereign rights. The Directives thus apply to internal waters and the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, and the continental shelf.73 In the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf though, the coastal State only has certain sovereign rights and therefore the Directives only apply in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf to the extent of the coastal State’s rights.
Initially, a number of states reasoned that their obligations were restricted to the territorial waters. The European Commission has however consistently challenged this by arguing that the protection of marine habitats and species cannot be adequately ensured in such a limited area. After a number of years, the Council recognised the need for implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives in the exclusive economic zone as a key element for the protection of the marine ecosystems. This opinion was also confirmed by the position of the European Court of Justice in its Judgment of 20 October 2005 (case C-6/04).74
The network of Special Protected Areas that has been established in accordance with the Birds Directive together with a community-wide network of Special Areas of Conservation established in accordance with the Habitats Directive constitutes a coherent European ecological network to be called ‘Natura 2000’. The most important legal consequence of the designation of sites under the Habitat Directive and Birds Directive is that the condition or quality of these areas should not deteriorate. Plans and projects in these areas likely to have significant effect must undergo an appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives.75 Impact assessments thus have to be carried out for any project that may have a significant effect on the site.76
As Norway has not implemented the Habitats and Birds Directives, no protected areas have been established in Norway pursuant to these Directives. Although a number of protected areas have now been established in accordance with other national legislation,77 these areas do not constitute part of the Natura 2000 network and are not subject to the strict rules of the Habitats and Birds Directives regulating human activities that potentially may adversely affect these areas.
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (
Besides the Habitats Directive and the Birds Directive, another important directive for the protection of the North Sea’s ecological integrity is the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (
For the purpose of establishing and implementing marine strategies, Member States shall, within each marine region or sub region, make every effort, using relevant international forums, including mechanisms and structures of Regional Sea Conventions, to coordinate their actions with third countries having sovereignty or jurisdiction over waters in the same marine region or sub region.
In this context, the
setting and coordinating ecological objectives and associated targets and indicators;
ongoing management; and
regular update of ecosystem knowledge, research and advice.
The Strategy notes that monitoring and assessment, as well as adaptive management, are essential elements for implementing the ecosystem approach and that adaptive management requires the application of the precautionary principle so that measures are taken when cause-effect relationships are not yet fully established scientifically, and modified when more knowledge becomes available.89 So far, collaboration with Norway has mainly consisted of the development of joint indicators for the monitoring of the state of the marine environment.90
Apart from the development of joint indicators, Schmidt et al. (2015) concluded that so far transboundary cooperation among
More specifically, lack of data and knowledge and the difficulty to integrate existing information due to different standards and formats has been identified as a major challenge for implementing a consistent ecosystem-based approach. In the Member States’ reports on their initial assessments for the
The Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (
On 23 April 2014, the
An important aim of the
Similar to the
Member States shall endeavour, where possible, to cooperate with third countries in their actions with regard to maritime spatial planning in the relevant marine regions and in accordance with international law and conventions, such as by using existing international fora or regional institutional cooperation.
Through this provision, Norway may become involved in spatial planning strategies in the North Sea ecosystem. So far, perhaps because the Directive is relatively recent, negotiations with Norway in the context of this Directive have not yet taken place.97
The Road towards the
shall foster coordinated and coherent decision-making to maximize the sustainable development, economic growth and social cohesion of Member States, in particular with regard to coastal, insular and outermost regions in the Union, as well as maritime sectors, through coherent maritime-related policies and relevant international cooperation.100
Article 3 of the Regulation further states that:
The program established by the Regulation shall foster the development of Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management, which are both important tools for the sustainable development of marine areas and coastal regions and both contributing to the aims of ecosystem-based management […].101
The European Commission emphasises that even though a great deal of
The 2008 Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning includes ‘cross-border cooperation and consultation’ as one of its guiding principles: cooperation across borders is necessary to ensure the coherence of plans across ecosystems.107 Furthermore, according to the 2010 Communication on Achievements and Future Development, consultation and cooperation with neighbouring States needs to take place at an early stage and the development of a joint vision should be based on exploration of common interests.108 In the European seas, due to the proximity of adjacent or opposite states and the jurisdictional fragmentation of the marine space thereof, it soon became evident that small-scale
Taking into account the fragmented legal and institutional landscape in the
Procedural Legal Requirements
An important requirement pursuant to Article 5
Cooperation among Member States should be part of the planning and management process. Member States bordering the North Sea “shall cooperate with the aim of ensuring that maritime spatial plans are coherent and coordinated across the marine region concerned. Such cooperation shall take into account, in particular, issues of a transnational nature”.117 In addition to the cooperation among Member States, there needs to be cooperation with non-
Member States shall endeavour, where possible, to cooperate with third countries on their actions with regard to maritime spatial planning in the relevant marine regions and in accordance with international law and conventions, such as by using existing international forums or regional institutional cooperation.118
In short, pursuant to the
Although the responsibility for
The above overview demonstrates that coordinated governance of the North Sea ecosystem is complicated by the fact that many of the
Even among the Member States, achieving a more ecosystem-based governance approach to the North Sea ecosystem is not assured. Marine spatial planning as required by the
Most coastal states have developed their own set of policies, laws and regulatory instruments governing the use of their seas, which are often sectoral-based and complex.123 Transboundary marine spatial planning, interfacing with these frameworks operating at different levels, requires a very a good understanding of the regulatory frameworks and the administrative structures and responsibilities in question, at international, national and sub-national levels.124 The challenge is also that there may be different policy and planning practices and different maritime priorities, leading to individual
The following part of the article provides an overview of the policies and legal structures of Norway and the Netherlands as an illustration of the divergence that may exist among countries sharing a marine region.
The Compatibility of National Policies and Legal Structures: A Comparison between Norway and the Netherlands
The following sections provide an overview of
National Policies for the North Sea in Norway
In Norway, governance of the North Sea has been influenced by a number of policy documents, most importantly the White Paper ‘Rent og Rikt Hav’ of 2002,129 and the Management Plan for the North Sea and Skagerrak of 2013.130
The first document, Rent og Rikt Hav, strongly emphasises the need for an ecosystem approach. The White Paper stresses that the North Sea is one of the most productive seas and that it is important to develop governance strategies that approach the ecosystem as a whole. The White Paper recognises that it is not possible or appropriate to expect that all sectors and users will have a complete overview over how their activities affect other sectors and activities in the ecosystem. The government is tasked with ensuring that activities and interventions in the coastal and marine environment are in accordance with a comprehensive plan, where interventions and impacts are assessed together.131 The government states that coordination between the different authorities needs to be strengthened if the objective of clean and rich sea areas is to be achieved. They therefore encourage a comprehensive governance approach of coastal and marine areas based on an ecosystem approach.132 The ecosystem approach is necessary in order to ensure that the cumulative environmental effects do not outweigh the maintenance of ecosystem structure, functioning and biodiversity on the long term.133
The establishment of management plans for the three seas that Norway borders: the Barents Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea is one way that Norway has moved forward with an ecosystem approach. The Management Plan for the North Sea that was finalized in 2013 is the most recent. The Management Plan for the Barents Sea and Lofoten area was released in 2006,134 and the Management Plan for the Norwegian Sea in 2009.135 These management plans have been approved by the Norwegian Parliament and have the status of non-legally binding ‘white papers’. Importantly, these management plans represent inter-sectoral agreement on the governance of the particular marine areas. The Management Plan of the North Sea is intended to provide an overall framework for both existing and new activities in these areas and to facilitate the coexistence of industries and activities that affect the marine environment. The overall purpose of the plan is to
facilitate wealth creation through the sustainable use of natural resources and ecosystem services in the North Sea and the Skagerrak and simultaneously to maintain ecosystems’ structure, functioning, productivity and biological diversity.136
In the Management Plan, the Government laid down a number of objectives for the governance of the North Sea and the Skagerrak areas under Norwegian jurisdiction. These objectives reflected relevant national and international aims for the environment. In addition, they supported the objective of the Management Plan and provided clear direction to any work on the improvement of the environmental status of the North Sea and the Skagerrak. Objectives in the Management Plan apply to all activities within its area. For the environment and the ecosystem in the North Sea and Skagerrak, the Government laid out the following objectives for ecosystem status and sustainable use (present-2020):
The marine environment in the North Sea and Skagerrak shall be governed in a manner in which the diversity of ecosystems, nature types, species and genes, are being conserved, and in which the ecosystem’s productivity is maintained and improved. Human activity shall not harm ecosystems’ functioning, structure, productivity or nature diversity.
Governance shall take due consideration to the need to conserve and protect vulnerable nature types and species within particularly valuable and vulnerable areas. Human activities shall exercise due caution and be conducted in a manner that does not threaten the ecological functions, productivity or nature diversity.
Naturally occurring species shall exist in viable populations that ensure reproduction and long-term survival. Species which are important for the ecosystem’s functioning, structure and productivity shall be governed so that they can fulfil their role as key species in the ecosystem. Threatened and vulnerable species and nationally important species shall be maintained or restored to viable levels. The establishment of marine protected areas in the Norwegian coast and marine environmental shall contribute to an internationally representative network of marine protected areas.
Living marine resources shall be governed in a sustainable manner through an ecosystem-based approach, and based on the best available knowledge. Harvesting shall not have significant negative effects on other parts of the marine ecosystem or the ecosystem’s structure. Bycatch of marine mammals and seabirds should be reduced to the lowest possible level. The harvesting of living marine resources shall be conducted with the best available techniques to minimize the adverse effects on other parts of the ecosystem, such as on marine mammals, seabirds and the sea floor.
The anthropogenic introduction and spread of organisms that do not occur naturally in ecosystems should be avoided.137
The Management Plan could be considered as an important tool to ensure that the marine environment contributes to long-term prosperity. The Management Plan also contributes to increasing predictability with regard to allocating space to different users and to strengthening the coordination between sectors that use the marine environment and exploit the natural resources in these areas.138
Environmental Law in Norway
Though the Management Plan for the North Sea attempts to implement an integrated governance approach for the Norwegian part of the North Sea, environmental law in Norway is still very fragmented. Environmental governance and law is influenced by the Environmental Policy Integration (
Environmental law applicable to the Norwegian part of the North Sea mainly consists of a number of general laws which apply to terrestrial territory and out to 1 nautical mile from the baseline; a large number of sector laws; and the cross-sectoral 2009 Nature Diversity Act. For spatial planning, the most general legal act on land use is the 2008 Planning and Building Act (
Spatial planning of human activities in the North Sea are generally subject to permits, which are granted on the conditions specified in sectoral legislation. For example, the Marine Resources Act148 of 2008 regulates how, where, when and how much can be harvested of living marine resources. It provides a broad basis for the exploitation and management of living marine resources and lays down objectives and principles for the harvesting and other exploitation of all wild living resources in the sea, including fish, marine mammals, and other marine organisms and plants in the sea water as well as on the bottom, and including their genetic material. It also provides the Norwegian authorities with the necessary authority to regulate in detail the exploitation of wild living marine resources.149
A major use of the marine environment in Norway is aquaculture. Over the last couple of decades, aquaculture or fish farming has become a major industry in Norway. Fish farming can pose serious environmental threats which make it necessary to regulate it.150 The Aquaculture Act151 of 2005 is an instrument that shall facilitate the industry players’ creation of value, through profitable operations, in a socio-economically optimal manner. The purpose of the Aquaculture Act is “to promote the profitability and competitiveness of the aquaculture industry within the framework of sustainable development and contribute to the creation of value on the coast”.152 Under the Aquaculture Act, aquaculture is prohibited without a licence from public authorities (Article 4).
Another major activity in the Norwegian marine environment is petroleum exploitation. The 1996 Petroleum Act153 provides the general legal basis for the licensing system governing Norwegian petroleum activities. According to the Petroleum Act and its regulations,154 licences can be awarded for the exploration, production, and transport of petroleum. Official approvals and permits are necessary in all phases of petroleum activities, from award of exploration and production licences for acquiring seismic data and conducing exploratory drilling, to plans for development, operation, and field cessation.155
Most sector laws contain provisions stipulating that environmental considerations must be taken into account when making decisions for permitting. For example, the 2010 Offshore Energy Act156 which provides the legal framework for issuing licences and otherwise regulating conditions related to planning, constructing, operating and removing facilities for producing renewable energy and for transforming and transmitting electricity at sea,157 requires the authorities granting licences to consider whether actions need to be taken to avoid or minimise damages to nature, biological diversity, cultural heritage, or other uses of the area.158 Also the more general Pollution Control Act159 of 1981, which aims to prevent pollution and to protect the environment—mainly from stationary sources, stipulates that “[w]hen the pollution control authority decides whether a permit is to be granted and lays down conditions pursuant to section 16, it shall pay particular attention to any pollution-related nuisance arising from the project as compared with any other advantages and disadvantages so arising”.160 These disadvantages encompass also environmental aspects.
Although many sector laws have provisions that require environmental considerations to be taken into account when making decisions or plans, the major legislation for nature protection in Norway is the Nature Diversity Act of 2009 (
In practice, this means that when decision-making authorities are making decisions on things like the issuing of a permit pursuant to a sector law, the decision-making principles of the
As mentioned above, the cross-sectoral
National Policies for the North Sea in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, governance of the North Sea has been mainly described within three policy documents: The 2016–2021 National Water Plan,167 the 2016–2021 North Sea Policy Document (which is an integral part of the National Water Plan),168 and the 2050 North Sea Spatial Agenda.169
Pursuant to the Dutch Water Act,170 which entered into force in 2009, the government is required to draft a formal water plan every six years. Accordingly, the first National Water Plan (
Sand extraction and replenishment: sufficient space for sand extraction for protecting the coast, counteracting flood risk and for fill sand on land;
Renewable (wind) energy: space for 6,000
mwof wind energy on the North Sea in 2020 (at least 1,000 km2), creating conditions for further (international) growth after 2020);
Oil and gas recovery: as much natural gas and oil as possible is to be recovered from Dutch fields in the North Sea so that the resource potential in the North Sea is used to the full;
co2 storage: sufficient space for the storage of co2 in empty oil and gas fields or in underground water-retentive soil strata (aquifers);
Sea shipping: a system of traffic separation schemes, clearways and anchoring areas allowing safe and prompt handling of shipping;
Defence areas at sea.172
In the 2016–2021 North Sea Policy Document, North Sea policy has been further elaborated. The North Sea Policy Document describes the changing use of the North Sea and emerging interests in the North Sea. The following issues are described: sand extraction, energy, shipping, fisheries, defence, tourism and recreation, cables and pipes, and relevant spatial development on land and the marine ecosystem. In addition, this North Sea Policy Document provides for an integrated assessment framework for all activities occurring within the North Sea.
This integrated assessment framework is the mechanism that the decision-making authorities use to ascertain whether activities at sea are permitted. The integrated assessment framework combines relevant policies and outlines how decisions on new activities should be made within the European and international frameworks. It also outlines which action to take if various activities of national importance conflict. The assessment framework is a policy regulation and obliges the competent decision-making authority to act in accordance with this framework when issuing permits. The assessment framework applies to all activities in the North Sea that require a permit under all laws and regulations governing the North Sea, both in the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone (Water Act, Earth Removal Act, Nature Conservation Act, Flora and Fauna Act, Environmental Management Act, Wind Energy at Sea Act, a number of shipping acts and the Mining Act).173 As such, it is particularly important for North Sea users who want to apply for a permit and for licensing authorities. It is also instrumental in achieving and maintaining good environmental status under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.
An innovation of the integrated assessment framework is that it moves from a reactive towards a proactive approach for the authorisation of activities. Whereas the implementation of spatial policy earlier began with a formal application for a permit, the process now often begins with consultation between stakeholders and ends with a formal decision on (spatial) management frameworks and/or permits. The formal granting of the permit is actually the end of the process. An important result of this change is the designation of particular activities of national importance, in order to ensure protection of the marine ecosystem and for the implementation of Natura 2000.174 Three important examples are: management plans for Natura 2000 sites; a sand extraction strategy within the 12-mile territorial zone; and space allocation within the designated wind power areas.175
The integrated assessment framework requires the following five assessments to be carried out when a permit is to be issued:
The spatial claim has to be defined and the precautionary principle has to be applied. The spatial claim contains the area needed for the activity. The precautionary principle applies to all North Sea activities.176 This principle entails that a user should take preventive measures when there is reasonable doubt about the possibility that the activity could cause irreversible damage to the marine environment, human health, or other legal uses of the area. The causal relationship between the cause and the damage does not need to be proven by scientific evidence in order for the precautionary principle to apply.
The assessment of choice of location and use of space is a fixed part of all location-based activities subject to permitting everywhere in the North Sea, regardless of whether the activity is for a new or an existing function. This assessment is intended to prevent fragmentation and inefficient use of space. In principle, it also prevents conflicts arising between functions. With regard to oil exploitation, there usually is little margin with regard to the choice of the boring location given the fact that the drilling site needs to lie as much as possible directly above the underground.
The usefulness and necessity assessment is intended to prevent undesirable use. The initiator must clarify why the activity has to take place in the North Sea. In the case of new permit applications for existing functions, applicants can usually refer to existing policy in which the government sets out clear guidelines about usefulness and necessity. For instance, as explicitly stressed in the IMP2015 and the National Water Plan, the exploration and exploitation of oil and natural gas takes place for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Being designated as such, a usefulness and necessity assessment is therefore not required.
When an activity has significant negative effects, the initiator has to take mitigating measures to reduce these effects. The initiator has to submit a plan providing details about these mitigating measures.
The assessment regarding the reduction of negative effects and compensation applies to all activities subject to permitting. First and foremost, effects on ecological features must be limited. If there is a significant impact, there must be compensation in the form of restoration of comparable ecological features elsewhere. However, there is a threshold: in the case of activities for which an environmental impact assessment is not obligatory, the competent authority assumes that the impact is insignificant. In the case of activities that do require an environmental impact assessment report, the effects on ecological features and the environment will be set out in that report.177
From the European perspective, the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive requires use of space at sea to be planned. International cooperation is key in this regard, and special attention is paid to the connection between land and sea. Although the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive does not legally have to be implemented before 2016 and an initial maritime spatial plan will be established by March 2021 at the latest, the National Government has already acted in accordance with the requirements of the
Environmental Law in the Netherlands
Environmental law applicable to the Dutch part of the North Sea is fragmented though a process of harmonisation has been going on in the last decade. This body of environmental law consists of a number of general laws, sector laws and nature conservation laws.
Two important general acts which apply within the territorial zone are the 1993 Environmental Management Act179 and the 2008 Environmental Licensing Act.180 The Environmental Management Act provides for an integrated approach to environmental management in the Netherlands as it intended to integrate different types of pollution and nuisance control under one statute. It regulates the use environmental plans, the establishment of environmental quality criteria for emissions and discharges of harmful substances, the execution of environmental impact assessments as a prerequisite for the construction of major infrastructure such as oil refineries, nuclear power plants, chemical plants, roads, railways, and oil and gas pipelines and the issuing of environmental permits, among others.181
The 2008 Environmental Licensing Act combines 25 previous permit systems that relate to the physical social environment under one single act.182 These systems regulate building permits, demolition permits, mining permits, environmental permits and permits relating to monuments and historic buildings plus various exemptions from zoning plans and permits based on the Nature Conservation Act 1998. Therefore, this Act goes beyond the scope of coordination as it integrates decision-making into one procedure and under the responsibility of one competent authority, even though the standards of the specific permit systems are still listed separately.183 Instead of various parallel permits from various government agencies, there is now only one umbrella permit required: the local environment permit. Such an umbrella permit makes the procedure much more transparent and simple.184 Even so, there is no substantive integration; the individual checks and balances to which individual permits are subject—and which are currently embedded in various laws—remains intact.185 The Environmental Licensing Act only applies to the territorial zone. Licences required for activities taking place outside of the territorial zone have to be granted pursuant to the relevant sector legislation.186
For spatial planning, the 2008 Spatial Planning Act187 and the Crown Decree on Spatial Planning188 are important. The Spatial Planning Act aims to achieve more efficient decision-making, improved enforcement and more simplified legal protection in spatial planning. In addition, the Act allows for designing spatial zoning plans including for the North Sea.189 The Spatial Planning Act has widened the scope of what may be covered in spatial plans. Earlier, the limitations on what may be regulated by the spatial planning legislation were fairly strict. This made co-ordination between spatial planning and some other policy sectors (in particular, environmental policy) difficult. In this Act, those limitations are reduced and there is more room for taking into account policy concerns from other sectors. For example, environmental norms can be included in a land-use plan. Those changes should make it easier to integrate spatial planning with policies from other sectors.190 The Spatial Planning Act also applies to the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone.191
Besides these general acts, a large number of sector acts exist that regulate different activities in the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone such as mining,192 fisheries,193 excavation,194 and offshore wind energy production.195 In contrast to Norway, the principle of environmental policy integration has not been implemented as strongly in the Netherlands. Most sector laws do not contain any provisions that refer to the need to take environmental considerations into account, nor do they explicitly refer to any environmental principles. The argument against codiﬁcation of environmental principles is that it would have little added value since they are codiﬁed by the legislation of the European Union, are acknowledged in international environmental law, and will therefore have legal eﬀect in the Dutch legal order.196
Environmental law in the Netherlands could perhaps be better described as following the principle of environmental policy disintegration. The tradition of not regulating any matters that are already regulated in other existing legislation results in the protection of nature being mainly regulated by the nature conservation legislation. As will be shown, nature conservation legislation in the Netherlands is rather strict.
Nature areas and flora and fauna in the Netherlands are protected under the 1998 Nature Conservation Act197 and the 1998 Flora and Fauna Act.198 Both can be regarded as the Netherlands’ implementation of the European Birds and Habitats Directives. The Nature Conservation Act lays down requirements for the preservation of nature areas, while the Flora and Fauna Act focuses specifically on the protection of plant and animal species. The Nature Conservation Act establishes rules for the designation of nature areas of outstanding national or international importance as nature reserves and Natura 2000 areas,199 respectively. It also regulates which activities are allowed in protected nature areas and under which conditions. The Flora and Fauna Act stipulates protection regimes for certain plant and animal species regardless of whether they occur in nature reserves or not. It contains a general duty of care for all wild living animals and plants, including their direct living environment.200 If an activity will affect any of these protected animals or plants or their habitat, an exemption from the general prohibitions may be applied for. The Nature Conservation Act and the Flora and Fauna Act have been under amendment and their geographical scope was extended out to the exclusive economic zone beginning 1 January 2014.201
Currently, the Dutch government is working on a legislative project that will fundamentally change the structure of Dutch environmental law: the Environment and Planning Act (hereafter
Findings and Reflections on the Need for Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning—Reason to Worry?
Although Norway and the Netherlands are both North Sea neighbouring states, they are very different in terms of demography and geography, geopolitical interests, policy strategies and legislative structures. The Netherlands is a low-lying country, which necessitates a focus on the protection of dikes through excavation activities. The Netherlands has also a relatively shallow North Sea area, which provides opportunities for offshore wind energy production. The North Sea Policy Document 2016–2021 emphasizes that these two activities are of primary national importance. In contrast, the seafloor under Norwegian jurisdiction is much deeper, making it much more complex and expensive for wind energy. In addition, the Norwegian seabed contains huge amounts of petroleum, which has resulted in a political and industrial focus on the exploitation of petroleum. These geographical and geopolitical differences have led to different priorities and interests for the North Sea in the two counties.
Another important difference between Norway and the Netherlands is related to the body of law applicable to their ‘parts’ of the North Sea. As mentioned above, most of the
Environmental law and governance in Norway can be characterized by the principle of Environmental Policy Integration, which requires environmental issues moving from the periphery to the centre of decisionmaking, integrating them in the very design and substance of sectoral policies.203 Though this might contribute to sustainable development, there is also a risk of a variety of approaches across sectors, which might practice environmental integration differently. As Bugge notes
The different authorities weigh and balance their sector objectives against the related environmental effects differently. Environmental values are not treated consistently across sectors. The environment becomes a ‘consideration’ which is given different weight by different authorities, on a case-by-case basis.204
At first glance this case-by-case approach appears to be difficult to align with the more proactive approach practiced in the Netherlands. Jay and others correctly suggest that transboundary
To conclude, this article has shown that transboundary cooperation in marine regions might be challenging when common national and supranational legal frameworks are lacking. Norway and the Netherlands do have a divergence in national policies and legal structures for
P Gilliland and D Laffeley, ‘Key elements and steps in the process of developing ecosystem-based marine spatial planning’ (2008) 35(5) Marine Policy 787–796, at p. 787.
AJ Gilbert et al., ‘Marine spatial planning and Good Environmental Status: a perspective on spatial and temporal dimensions’ (2015) 20(1) Ecology and Society 64, at p. 3. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol20/iss1/art64/
N Schaefer and V Barale, ‘Marine spatial planning: opportunities & challenges in the framework of the
Ibid., p. 239.
W Flannery, AM O’Hagan, C O’Mahony, H Ritchie and S Twomey, ‘Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland’ (2014) Marine Policy 86–95, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.07.021.
S Jay et al., ‘Transboundary dimensions of marine spatial planning: Fostering inter-jurisdictional relations and governance’ (2016) 65 Marine Policy 85–96, at p. 85.
F Maes and A Cliquet, ‘Marine Spatial Planning: Global and regional conventions and organizations’ in: D Hassan, T Kuokkanen and N Soininen (eds), Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning and International Law (Routledge, Abingdon, 2015) 85–100, at p. 86.
European Commission, Green Paper: Towards a Future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European Vision for the Oceans and Seas,
Maes and Cliquet 2015 (n 10).
House of Lords Committee, European Union Committee, The North Sea under Pressure: Is Regional Marine Co-operation the answer?, 10th Report of Session 2014‒15, House of Lords paper 137 (10 March 2015), at paras. 94–95.
Ibid., at paragraph 97.
Flannery et al. 2014 (n 7) at p. 89.
Ibid., at p. 90.
Flannery et al. 2014 (n 7) at p. 88.
Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, Policy Document on the North Sea 2009–2015 (22 December 2009) paragraph 2.9;
M Walday and T Kroglund, Europe’s Biodiversity—Biogeographical Regions and Seas. Seas around Europe: The North Sea—Bottom Trawling and Oil/Gas Exploitation (European Environment Agency, 2002).
European Commission (n 17); see also European Commission, ‘Facing the Challenge of the Safety of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities’ (Communication)
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Opened for signature on 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994) 1833
P Drankier, ‘Embedding Maritime Spatial Planning in National Legal Frameworks’ (2012) 14(1) Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7–27, at p. 9.
Article 56 (2)
The Convention on Biological Diversity (adopted 22 May 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993) 1760
Drankier 2012 (n 33) at p. 13.
Ibid., at p. 9.
C Whomersley, ‘Regional Cooperation in the North Sea under Part ix of the Law of the Sea Convention’ (2016) 31 The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 339–358, at p. 344.
Ibid., at p. 352.
Ibid., at p. 354.
S Schmidt et al., Technical paper on the ecosystem based approach in marine and coastal policies (13 November 2015), at p. 29.
Schmidt et al. 2015 (n 44) at p. 30.
Maes and Cliquet 2015 (n 10) at p. 86.
Maes and Cliquet 2015 (n 10) at p. 93.
Council Directive 2008/56/
Schmidt et al. 2015 (n 44) at pp. 30–31.
Maes and Cliquet 2015 (n 10) at p. 97.
Drankier 2012 (n 33) at p. 15.
Drankier 2012 (n 33) at p. 15.
Flannery et al. 2014 (n 7) at pp. 87–88.
E Hey, ‘The International Regime for the Protection of the North Sea: From Functional Approaches to a More Integrated Approach’ (2002) 17(3) The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 325–350, at pp. 348–350.
Council Directive 92/43/
Council Directive 2009/147/
Agreement on the European Economic Area between the European Community, its individual Member State and the
The Habitats Directive (n 65) preamble.
The Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (opened for signature 19 September 1979 entered into force 1 June 1982) 1284
The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (opened for signature 23 June 1979, entered into force on 1 November 1983) 1651
Article 1 Bern Convention (n 69).
Article 2 Bonn Convention (n 70).
European Commission, ‘Guidelines for the Establishment of the Natura 2000 Network in the Marine Environment. Application of the Habitats and Birds Directives’ (May 2007) 18; Case C-6/04 Commission of the European Communities v The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 
MA Heldeweg and RJGH Seerden, Environmental Law in the Netherlands (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2012) at p. 171.
Article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive (n 65).
Three protected areas in Norway’s coastal area have recently been designated pursuant to the Nature Diversity Act.
Council Directive 2008/56/
See further Annex 1 to the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (n 78); see also European Commission, ‘Relationship between the initial assessment of marine waters and criteria for good environmental status’ (Working Paper)
Article 3 (5) of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (n 78).
Article 1.2 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (n 78).
Article 5.2 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (n 78).
Article 3.9 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (n 78).
Schmidt et al. (n 44) at p. 31.
Personal communication, 19.12.2016.
Schmidt et al. 2015 (n 44) at p. 47.
Ibid., at p. 47.
Council Directive 2014/89/
Ibid., Preamble (1).
Ibid., Preamble (9).
Ibid., Preamble (22).
Personal communication, 19.12.2016.
Council Regulation 1255/2011 of 5 November 2011 establishing a Programme to support the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy,
Ibid., Article 3(a) and 3(b).
Ibid., Article 1.
Ibid., Article 3.
European Commission, ‘An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union’ (Blue Paper)
European Commission, ‘Maritime Spatial Planning in the EU—Achievements and future development’
European Commission, ‘Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common principles in the EU’
European Commission, ‘Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common principles in the EU’
Drankier 2012 (n 33) at p. 8.
A Zervaki, ‘Introducing Maritime Spatial Planning legislation in the EU: Fishing in Troubled Waters?’ (2015) 1 Maritime Safety and Security Law Journal 95–114, at 98.
Ibid., at p. 104.
AJ Gilbert et al., ‘Marine spatial planning and Good Environmental Status: a perspective on spatial and temporal dimensions’ (2015) 20 (1) Ecology and Society 64.
Zervaki 2015 (n 109) at p. 104.
Ibid., at p. 105.
Articles 11 and 12,
Zervaki argues that this
European Parliament, ‘European Parliament legislative resolution of 17 April 2014 on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management’
Gilbert et al. 2015 (n 111) at p. 64.
Zervaki 2015 (n 109) at p. 111.
Maes and Cliquet 2015 (n 10) at p. 97.
SJ Boyes and M Elliot, ‘The excessive complexity of national marine governance systems: has this decreased in England since the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009?’ (2015) 51 Marine Policy 57–65.
S Jay et al., ‘Transboundary dimensions of marine spatial planning: Fostering inter-jurisdictional relations and governance’ (2016) 65 Marine Policy 85–96, at p. 93.
Ibid., at p. 86.
J Brennan et al., ‘EU marine strategy framework directive (MSFD) and marine spatial planning (MSP): Which is the more dominant and practicable contributor to maritime policy in the UK?’ (2014) 43 Marine Policy 359–366, at p. 362.
Jay et al. 2016 (n 124) at p. 89.
N Schaefer and V Barale, ‘Marine spatial planning: opportunities & challenges in the framework of the EU integrated maritime policy’ (2011) 15 Journal of Coastal Conservation 237–245, at p. 244.
Stortingsmelding nr. 12 [Storting White Paper nr. 12] (2001–2002) Rent og Rikt Hav [Protecting the Riches of the Seas].
Stortingsmelding nr. 37 [Storting White Paper nr. 37] (2012–2013) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Nordsjøen og Skagerrak (forvaltningsplan) [Integrated Management of the Marine Environment in the North Sea and Skagerak (Management Plan)].
Protecting the Riches of the Seas (n 129) paras. 2.1.3 and 2.2.1.
Ibid., para. 2.2.3.
See Stortingsmelding nr. 8 [Storting White Paper nr. 8] (2005–2006) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Barentshavet og havområdene utenfor Lofoten (forvaltningsplan) [Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Barents Sea and the Sea Areas off the Lofoten Islands (Management Plan)].
Stortingsmelding nr. 37 [Storting White paper nr. 37] (2008–2009) Helhetlig forvaltning av det marine miljø i Norskehavet (forvaltningsplan) [Integrated Management of the Marine Environment of the Norwegian Sea (Management plan)].
Management Plan for the North Sea (n 130) at p. 123.
Management Plan for the North Sea (n 130) at pp. 123–124.
Ibid., at p. 127.
European Environment Agency, Environmental policy integration in Europe. State of play and an evaluation framework (26 May 2005) Technical Report No. 2–2005, at p. 12.
Act of 27 June 2008 No. 71 relating to Planning and Building Applications.
Ibid, Article 1–1.
IL Backer, Innføring i naturressurs og miljørett (5th edn, Gyldendal akademisk, Oslo, 2012) at p. 170.
HC Bugge, Environmental Law in Norway (2nd edn, Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan de Rijn, 2014) at p. 287.
Article 1–8 of the Planning and Building Act.
Bugge 2014 (n 143) at p. 288.
Articles 1–2 of the Planning and Building Act.
Articles 1–3 of the Planning and Building Act.
Act of 6 June 2008 No. 37 on the management of wild living marine resources.
Bugge 2014 (n 143) at p. 229.
Ibid., at p. 234.
Act of 17 June 2005 No. 79 relating to aquaculture.
Article 1 of the Aquaculture Act.
Act of 29 November 1996 No. 72 relating to petroleum activities.
Regulations of 27 June 1997 No. 653 relating to refunding of expenses in connection with regulatory supervision of safety, working environment and resource management in the petroleum activities.
Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy and the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Facts 2012. The Norwegian Petroleum Sector (March 2012) at p. 14.
Act of 4 June 2010 No. 21 relating to offshore renewable energy production.
Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, ‘Concerning an Act on Offshore Renewable Energy Production (The Offshore Energy Act). Summary in English: Proposition No. 107 (2008–2009) to the Storting’, at p. 3.
Articles 3–4 of the Offshore Energy Act.
Act of 13 March 1981 No. 6 concerning protection against pollution and concerning waste [Pollution Control Act].
Article 11 Pollution Control Act.
Act of 19 June 2009 no. 100 relating to the Management of Biological, Geological and Landscape Diversity [Nature Diversity Act].
Article 1 of the Nature Diversity Act.
OK Fauchald and LH Gulbrandsen, ‘The Norwegian reform of protected areas management: A grand experiment with delegation of authority?’ (2012) 17(2) Local Environment 203–222, at p. 207.
Article 2, third paragraph, states that the Articles 1, 3 to 5, 7 to 10, 14 to 16, 57 and 58 apply on the continental shelf and the economic zone of Norway to the extent they are appropriate.
Article 7 of the
FM Platjouw, ‘An illustration of the problem: offshore petroleum exploitation in the North Sea ecosystem’ in FM Platjouw, Environmental Law and the Ecosystem Approach- Maintaining ecological integrity through consistency in law (Routledge, Abingdon, 2016) 143–183.
The Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and the Ministry of Economic Affairs, National Water Plan (December 2015), https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2015/12/14/national-water-plan-2016-2021.
The Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Policy Document on the North Sea 2016–2021 (December 2015), https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2015/12/15/policy-document-on-the-north-sea-2016-2021-printversie.
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and Ministry of Economic Affairs, North Sea 2050 Spatial Agenda (July 2014), https://www.noordzeeloket.nl/en/Images/North%20Sea%202050%20Spatial%20Agenda_LO%20RES_3562.pdf.
Act of 29 January 2009, Water Act, Official Journal 2009, 107.
State Secretary for Transport, Public Works and Water Management and the Ministers for Housing, Regional Development and the Environment and for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, National Water Plan 2009–2015 (22 December 2009) p. 16.
National Water Plan 2016–2021 (n 167) at p. 47.
Policy Document on the North Sea 2016–2021 (n 168) at p. 11.
Interdepartmental Directors’ Consultative Committee North Sea ‘Integraal Beheerplan Noordzee 2015 -herziening’ [The Integrated Management plan for the North Sea 2015—revision] (11 November 2011) pp. 4–5.
Ibid., para. 3.1.
Policy Document on the North Sea 2016–2021 (n 168) at pp. 97–103.
Policy Document on the North Sea 2016–2021 (n 168) at pp. 97–103.
Policy Document on the North Sea 2016–2021 (n 168) at p. 16.
Act of 2 July 1992, Environmental Management Act, Official Journal 1992, 551.
Act of 6 November 2008 ‘Environmental Licensing (General Provisions) Act, Official Journal 2008, 496 (first text) and Official Journal 2010, 231 (entry into force).
See further Government of the Netherlands, ‘Environmental Management Act’ available at: http://www.government.nl/issues/environment/roles-and-responsibilities-of-central-government/environmental-management-act; accessed 13 October 2016. Chapter 7 of the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment also applies to the exclusive economic zone.
This also comprises permit systems of the Environmental Management Act and the Spatial Planning Act.
MA Heldeweg and RJGH Seerden, Environmental Law in The Netherlands (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2012) at p.46.
A Blomberg, T de Gier and J Robbe, ‘The integration of the protection of nature conservation areas in Dutch spatial planning law and environmental management law’ (2009) 5(1) Utrecht Law Review 132–157, at p.153.
P Drankier and AG Oude Elferink, Identificatie en analyse van relevante regelgeving en beleid in het kader van het project “Beleid en regelgeving informatiesysteem Noordzee” (BREIN); Herziening 2011 (Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea (
Act of 1 July 2008, Spatial Planning Act, Official Journal 2008, 227.
Crown Decree of 21 April 2008 on spatial planning, Official Journal 2008, 145.
Article 10.3 of the Spatial Planning Act.
B Needham, ‘The New Dutch Spatial Planning Act: Continuity and Change in the way in which the Dutch regulate the practice of spatial planning’ (2004) 12 University of Nijmegen Working Paper Series, at p. 11.
Article 1.1, paragraph 2 (a) Spatial Planning Act.
Act of 31 October 2002 concerning Mining Activities, Official Journal 2002, 542.
Act of 30 Mai 1963 concerning fisheries, Official Journal 1963, 312.
Act of 27 October 1965 concerning the extraction of minerals, Official Journal 1971, 520.
Act of 01 July 2015 concerning the production of offshore wind energy, Official Journal 2015, 261.
K de Graaf, FM Platjouw and HD Tolsma, ‘The future Dutch Environment and Planning Act in light of the ecosystem approach’ (2017) 23 Ecosystem Services part A.
Act of 25 Mai 1998 containing rules for the protection of nature and landscapes, Official Journal 1998, 403.
Act of 25 May 1998 containing rules for the protection of wild living plants- and animal species, Official Journal 1998, 402.
The European Natura 2000 network consists of Special Protected Areas (
Art 2 of the Flora and Fauna Act.
Act of 9 October 2013 amending the Nature Conservation Act 1998 and the Flora and Fauna Act in connection with the expansion of the scope of these laws to the exclusive economic zone’  Official Journal 2013, 412.
De Graaf, Platjouw and Tolsma (2017) (n 196) at p. 1.
European Environment Agency, Environmental policy integration in Europe. State of play and an evaluation framework (26 May 2005) Technical Report No. 2–2005, at p. 12.
HC Bugge, ‘Environmental law’s fragmentation and discretionary decision-making. A critical reflection on the case of Norway’ in E Røsæg, HB Schäfer and E Stavang (eds), Law and Economics: Essays in Honour of Erling Eide (Cappelen Damm Akademisk, Oslo, 2010) 8–12, at p. 9.
Jay et al. 2016 (n 124) at p. 87.
A Kannen, ‘Challenges for marine spatial planning in the context of multiple sea uses, policy arenas and actors based on experiences from the German North Sea’ (2014) 14 Regional Environmental Change 2139–2150, at p. 2147.