The topic for the workshop, Marine Spatial Planning (MSP), is just one of several approaches to more or less ambitious attempts of integration. The essence of MSP is the allocation of ocean space, preferably in 3D. This may be a reductionist approach to the needs for intgegration in ocean management. I therefore will reason along the difference between Integrated ocean management, Ecosystem-based management (EBM), MSP and the allocation of Marine protected areas. EBM was embraced as a prominent approach in the 1990s and early 2000s, but has been hard to put into practice. That may partly explain why MSP has received more attention the last years. There is a risk that MSP may be a simple tool for allocating ocean space between old and emerging ocean industries, without proper recognition of the impacts on the ecosystem and the allocation of measures that are non-spatial (fishing quotas, discharge permits etc.).

Norway has a dual system for ocean management:

In the oceans (outside the baseline + 1 nm, ref EU’s Water framework directive), management plans putting EBM into practice have been institutionalised since their introduction in 2002. The plans build on political needs and are driven by the national government without any statutory basis. Scientific input and advice is ensured via the organisation of government agencies across the sectors in a joint Management forum. MSP across sectors is weak in the oceans.

In the coastal areas inside the referred boundary, management is much more fragmented. MSP has gradually been introduced the last 30 years as “coastal zone planning” by extention of land-based legislation for planning, including land-use, into the oceans. A major driver has been the need for allocating space for aquaculture. Attempts at EBM are in an early stage through the national implementation of EU’s Water Framework directive. The major actors for these attempts at integration are regional and local authroities, interacting with i.a. the government’s sectoral bodies.