In Conversation: Dr. Krisztina Tilinger, Expert and advisor at the Institute of Aerospace and Telecommunications Law of the Ludovika University of Public Service.

Introduction

Maritime spatial planning (MSP), blue-economy expansion and ecosystem-based management now underpin the governance of densely used marine spaces. Offshore renewable energy, decarbonised shipping, biodiversity conservation, and coastal development increasingly overlap, generating spatial conflicts and cumulative impacts that challenge traditional management tools. As marine activities become more diverse and climate pressures intensify, legal frameworks must evolve to coordinate competing uses while safeguarding ecological integrity.

To explore these themes, SPIL Mumbai engages in a conversation with Dr. Krisztina Tilinger, a leading authority whose work on maritime spatial planning, sustainable oceans governance, EU marine policy and integrated coastal management has contributed significantly to understanding how legal systems can harmonise economic development with ecosystem protection. Her expertise offers an essential vantage point for evaluating the structural and doctrinal challenges inherent in spatial governance at sea. The questions below are tailored to the contemporary issues emerging from MSP and integrated maritime regulation.

The Q&A is curated by Lavanya Hajare for the SPIL Blog.

1. To begin, maritime spatial planning increasingly operates as the central mechanism for coordinating offshore wind energy, shipping corridors, biodiversity conservation and fisheries. How should MSP frameworks integrate cumulative impact assessment beyond sector-by-sector analysis, particularly when ecological thresholds are poorly defined and impacts extend across jurisdictional boundaries?

Stakeholders involved in MSP need to improve their planning processes with the assistance of the MSP framework, which includes cross-border coordination and cooperation. National MSP policies are encouraged to promote the sustainable development of maritime and coastal economies, but with an approach of sustainable use of marine and coastal resources. Therefore, the lack of definition of exact thresholds should not prevent such stakeholders from setting up feasible and effective MSP frameworks: quite the opposite, it gives flexibility and allows the Member States to take into account and safeguard regional or local interests and traditional methods.

Cumulative impact assessments should be taken into account at the start of the decision-making process via setting up environmental management plans related to the ongoing and planned activities, in order to ensure prevention, mitigation and management of potential adverse effects. This obligation is generally stipulated in the relevant national legislations.

2. The rapid expansion of offshore renewable energy has intensified conflicts with migratory species protection, traditional fishing routes and marine cultural areas. Should MSP incorporate legally binding ecological priority zones insulated from economic pressures, and how can such zones be reconciled with States’ energy-security objectives?

Ecological priority zones are already existing: Horizon 2000, MPAs, and these definitely shall be respected by MSP. Proper and effective communication, acquisition and collection data originating from the already existing environmentally sensitive areas (both marine and land) is essentially important, followed by a professional analysis on which MSP can build enforceable measures. In this context the integration of relevant data into the planning processes and synthetizing the results of the analyses with the energy-security objective might be a key element of the successful MSP. In practice so called no-take zones already exist: these are highly vulnerable marine areas where the exploitation of marine resources is not only restricted but strictly prohibited, and therefore human activities are practically impossible.

3. EU MSP legislation increasingly requires cross-border cooperation, yet neighbouring States often apply incompatible planning methodologies. Should the EU adopt mandatory harmonised baselines for ecological data, socio-economic evaluation, and zoning methodologies to ensure functional regional coherence?

While marine plants and animals – regulated by the common fisheries policy – belongs to the exclusive competence of the EU, in other areas like environment, energy and transport, both the EU or the national governments can legislate. However, after the Draghi Report (a strategic analyses, published in 2024, about the future of competitiveness of the European Union that has been prepared with the purpose of regaining the economic strength of the EU) the European Commission has been committed itself to cut red tape, meaning to simplify rules and reduce costly administrative burdens on competitiveness for the benefit of citizens and businesses.  Also, the European Commission has launched recently a public consultation on revising the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) aiming to strengthen marine environmental protection, simplify implementation, and reduce administrative burden, as well for a more integrated ocean governance considering the European Ocean Act.

Keeping in mind the above, my opinion is that a sensitive balance needs to be followed by the EU administration when prescribing mandatory rules and emphasize should rather be placed on softer coordination and diplomatic tools by, for example, giving guidance or promoting good and best practices with the purpose of fostering trans-boundary cooperation. Carefully defined indicators might be more effective than mandatory baselines. Also, because the EU has the largest Exclusive Economic Zone, how the 22 coastal Member States are coordinating and cooperating regarding their MSP policies and strategies can serve as a global example (e.g. trough “MSP Global” initiative launched by UNESCO-IOC and the European Commission). The EU MSP Directive give the freedom for the Member States to interpret the Directive in line with their national planning traditions and policy priorities and allocate maritime space in a form and format of their choice.

My opinion is that emphasize should be placed on identifying best practices among those EU Member States that have already successfully implemented the MSP Directive, and to make sure that lessons learned are taken into consideration during the continuous MSP monitoring, reviewing and adapting processes.

4. As climate change alters oceanographic conditions and species distribution, MSP plans risk rapid obsolescence. Should maritime spatial plans incorporate dynamic zoning mechanisms triggered by environmental indicators, and how could legal certainty be preserved under such adaptive approaches?

I agree, that legal certainty is essential for businesses. In case that certainty is anyhow altered or jeopardized by the MSP, public trust in relation to MSP planning and measures is the way how this can be accepted by investors. The EU MSP Directive handles the issue in question by prescribing that the national MSPs need to be revised every ten years. Beyond that I think a dynamic zoning approach would rather jeopardizing the certainty that the already existing MSPs are providing, not to mention the lengthy decision-taking process, including public consultation for example, that needs to be followed during the course of the marine spatial planning.

5. Data-driven MSP increasingly relies on satellite imagery, ecological modelling, and digital twins. How should governance frameworks address data sovereignty, access rights, privacy, and the accountability of algorithmic modelling used to allocate marine space?

The general data protection and privacy legislations, even when the MSP might not be addressed in them expressly, shall be followed; this - in case of compliance - should provide enough protection and the ensure the necessary access rights respectively. Let’s take the BBNJ Agreement as an example, where it is stated that the data sharing shall be done in accordance with current international practice and open and responsible data governance. In case all interested stakeholders follow the general data protection and privacy laws applicable to their operations, compliance would be ensured.

6. Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) aims to unify land–sea planning but frequently results in fragmented authority. Should ICZM evolve toward a legally binding governance model that compels cross-ministerial alignment, or is flexible coordination preferable given diverse national administrative cultures?

Recently I am more in favor of flexibility and soft law tools taking into consideration the rapidly changing economic and geopolitical environment. It is true that many European MSPs resulted in regulatory plans, which is binding in terms of spatial arrangements, some government favored strategic planning, which can be both binding or non-binding. In the latter case the flexibility is undoubtedly advantageous, its effectiveness might depend on other sectors’ willingness to follow it.  However, in any case the sustainability should be addressed appropriately in any policy issues arisen during the MSP processes.

7. Large-scale undersea infrastructure including pipelines, data cables and CO2 sequestration networks creates long-term spatial lock-in. How should MSP evaluate irreversible spatial commitments whose environmental and security consequences may outlast current policy horizons?

The key is again the effective cooperation via information exchange among the interested stakeholders. Undersea cable, pipeline owners should be asked and potential safety corridors might be discussed together with those engaged in fishing activities and not only current but future scenarios should be put on the table when setting up, reviewing, monitoring and adapting maritime spatial plans. In such a way it can be ensured that all stakeholders are heard and the interests are taken into consideration and the plans put in place are efficient and successful.

8. Maritime spatial planning plays an increasing role in decarbonised shipping through the designation of green corridors and fuel-supply hubs. Should MSP be used as a regulatory tool to steer shipping behaviour, or does such use risk conflict with international navigation rights?

MSP should promote coherence between different frameworks and bodies, so their objectives can be reached, therefore it is much more a coordination and execution tool rather than a regulatory instruments. But even if some jurisdiction might use it as a legislative tool in case of conflicting with the navigation rights the lex specialis derogate generali doctrine might provide adequate solution for such situations.

9. Given the expanding role of MSP across environmental, economic and security domains, do you foresee the emergence of a specialised body of “marine spatial law,” or will spatial governance remain embedded within broader frameworks of environmental and maritime regulation?

I neither foresee nor see it necessary to establish a legal branch of “marine spatial law”, since there is already a natural swift from the political and strategic thinking towards a more coordinated and centralized regulatory approach in the maritime governance. Best example is the preparation of the European Ocean Act, that is awaiting for adoption by the end of 2026, which aims to review and update the MSP Directive and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to ensure a more coherent and effective use of the maritime space and the ocean resources and to serve as a single refence legislation for maritime governance in the EU. It also needs to be emphasized that MSP aims to integrate into and rely on the already existing structural and regulatory frameworks, rather then setting up a completely new one.