This chapter applies a policy coherence lens to three blue priority areas in Portugal: maritime spatial planning, aquaculture, and flag state. For each area, the analysis highlights sustainability interlinkages, synergies and trade-offs and presents practical considerations for enhancing policy coherence for sustainable development. The chapter also highlights good practices and lessons learned from other countries, with a view to inform co-ordinated and sustainable ocean management in Portugal across its many uses and functions.
Improving Policy Coherence for Portugal’s Ocean Economy
A Strategic Plan for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services
Abstract
Early project discussions with the Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services (Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos, DGRM) and other stakeholders selected three pilot areas under DGRM’s remit for more in-depth analysis:
Pilot area 1 – Maritime spatial planning: To strengthen the DGRM’s capacities and stakeholder engagement on spatial and marine protection planning processes to increase public trust around innovative and sustainable ways of using marine resources.
Pilot area 2 – Aquaculture: To address administrative bottlenecks in the licensing process and strengthen evidence on the interlinkages between aquaculture and ecosystems/food security/decarbonisation that can ease the licensing process.
Pilot area 3 – Flag state: To explore improved administrative mechanisms (issuing flag permits, inspections, etc.) to control the ships under Portugal’s State Flag in view of ensuring that flag activities are balanced in their contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
This chapter reviews practical experiences and lessons learned in these three areas with a view to drawing some useful conclusions to feed into a broader set of recommendations (see Chapter 5).
Sustainability interlinkages in maritime spatial planning
Maritime spatial planning (MSP) is an instrument of critical importance that has the potential to promote the growth of Portugal’s blue economy, making new areas available for different emerging traditional activities while ensuring the Good Environmental Status (GES) of the ocean. In this context, it is crucial to understand potential conflicting uses of marine areas – for example, between offshore wind energy and fisheries – and to assess how new uses could provide opportunities for upskilling workers from traditional sectors. Table 3.1 applies the methodology introduced in Chapter 2 to map policy interlinkages that can be minimised or promoted through strategic spatial allocations and regulatory measures.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Key trade-offs to be addressed across Portuguese sectors within maritime spatial planning
Marine spatial resources are in high demand by different Portuguese economic activities. The spatial planning exercise integrates complementary information, such as data on MPAs, to ensure biodiversity conservation while accommodating economic activities. Challenges might arise in terms of the following:
Renewable energy projects, like offshore wind farms, require areas with specific wind conditions, which overlap with shipping routes or fishing grounds. Deprioritising fishing in certain marine areas made available for renewable energy (SDG 7.1) might impact jobs linked to these traditional activities. The trade-offs associated with phasing out this activity must be examined, including in terms of the workforce that needs to be reallocated or reskilled.
Potential trade-offs could emerge between making marine areas available for cables for communication, power transmission and data logistics and damaging sensitive marine habitats. Where the transatlantic cables might land, a detailed seabed mapping is required to minimise ecological disruption (i.e. vulnerable ecosystems, fishing grounds, etc.) and consider potential rerouting.
Making new areas available for renewable energy activities (SDG 7.1) can negatively impact the management and protection of maritime and coastal ecosystems (SDG 14.2), creating trade-offs with the National Ocean Strategy (NOS) objective “to classify 30% of the national maritime area as protected by 2030, approving the respective management and conservation plans, and ensuring that one-third is strictly protected.”
Coastal areas are crucial for tourism, recreation and aquaculture in transitional waters. Coastal zones also provide ecosystem services like storm protection and carbon sequestration. Activities leading to pollution, such as industrial discharges or agricultural runoff, negatively impact these sectors, demonstrating the need for integrated water quality management for coastal zones, particularly concerning the Tejo estuary.
Key synergies to be fostered across Portuguese sectors within maritime spatial planning
Exploring synergies within maritime spatial planning is important for maximising the benefits of shared marine resources and minimising conflicts between different uses. Synergies involve situations where the combined effects of different activities or policies are greater than the sum of their individual effects. The following examples illustrate synergies in the context of maritime spatial planning, especially relevant to sectors under the DGRM’s remit:
Aquaculture and renewable energy: Combining offshore renewable energy installations, such as wind or wave energy, with aquaculture operations could lead to synergistic benefits. For example, the infrastructure for wind turbines can provide sheltered areas that reduce wave action, creating more favourable conditions for aquaculture. These combined zones can also reduce spatial competition between energy and food production sectors. Several demonstration projects involve Portuguese stakeholders, such as the EU-funded AquaWind project, an innovative multi-use prototype combining offshore renewable energy and aquaculture in the Atlantic Basin, which should share results by mid-2025 (European Commission, 2024[1]).
Marine conservation and tourism: Establishing MPAs serves biodiversity conservation objectives and can enhance tourism opportunities. Well-managed MPAs can attract eco-tourists interested in diving, snorkelling and experiencing rich marine environments, providing economic benefits to local communities while protecting marine ecosystems (Fonseca et al., 2014[2]). The Marine Park of the Azores is a good example of managing pressures and preserving the environment (Maestro et al., 2020[3]). In addition, to ensure marine conservation, the deployment of renewable power should always be set up in areas of low ecological sensitivity and avoid the most ecologically sensitive areas (OECD, 2025[4]).
Shipping routes and marine wildlife observations: Portugal is a major international hub for marine wildlife and birdwatching, acting as a key corridor during species’ spring and autumn migrations (AIMM, 2024[5]). Synergies can be found in routing shipping lanes in a way that minimises environmental impact while offering opportunities for marine wildlife observation. Some companies offer special packages for long trips, while others offer small discovery tours (McDarris, 2024[6]). By carefully planning routes to avoid critical habitats and migration paths, shipping companies can also contribute to citizen science by reporting wildlife sightings, thus contributing valuable data to marine conservation efforts (Fraisl et al., 2020[7]).
Coastal protection and recreation: Synergistic approaches to coastal protection, such as the creation of living shorelines or the restoration of mangroves and salt marshes, can provide critical habitats for marine species, become blue carbon sinks and also enhance recreational opportunities and protect against erosion and storm damage, as found in the Ria de Aveiro coastal lagoon and the Ria Formosa wetlands (Sousa et al., 2020[8]); (Sousa et al., 2017[9]). These natural defences can be more sustainable and cost-effective over the long term than hard infrastructure solutions.
What can be learned from other countries?
Setting up and managing MSP presents countries with a complex array of challenges that are critical to address for the effective use and conservation of marine resources (European Commission, 2024[10]). Three main challenges encompass multi-faceted issues around stakeholder integration; balancing competing uses; and adapting to environmental changes and uncertainties. Thus, implementation varies across countries, reflecting their unique maritime needs, governance structures and environmental conservation goals. France, Ireland, Spain, Denmark, and Norway each offer distinct approaches that are valuable for informing Portugal’s MSP strategies.
France has been at the forefront of integrating MSP into its broader maritime strategy for sustainable management. The French MSP framework is characterised by a strong central government role, emphasising integrating marine policies across different sectors and regions. Initiated with the Grenelle de la Mer in 2009, France’s MSP process emphasises ecological protection and sustainable development, underscored by the National Strategy for the Sea and Coast adopted in 2017, in the course of being updated by mid-2024 (SGMer, 2024[11]). France’s methodical and participatory approach involves stakeholders throughout the planning process, showcasing the importance of inclusivity and comprehensive policy integration.
Ireland embarked on formalising its MSP framework more recently, culminating in the National Marine Planning Framework (NMPF) published in 2021. Ireland’s MSP approach is future-oriented, emphasising an evidence-based methodology that carefully balances various marine activities with environmental stewardship. The NMPF’s foundation on ecosystem-based management principles and the precautionary approach aims to ensure the sustainable utilisation of marine resources while enhancing marine biodiversity.
Spain, with its decentralised governance structure, faces unique challenges in co-ordinating MSP across its various autonomous communities. Spain’s approach to MSP is characterised by efforts to harmonise regional and national planning initiatives to achieve coherent management of its marine spaces, which has evolved over the last decade, with key developments including the approval of the Spanish Maritime Spatial Planning Directive in 2014. The country has focused on developing sectoral plans (e.g. for fisheries, aquaculture and tourism) within an overarching framework that promotes sustainable development, biodiversity conservation and the integrated management of coastal and marine areas. Spain’s experience highlights the challenges and opportunities of implementing MSP in a decentralised context and the importance of co-ordination and collaboration across different levels of government.
Denmark has utilised MSP as a strategic tool, especially in promoting renewable energy sources like offshore wind, within an environmentally responsible framework (DMA, n.d.[12]). Denmark’s early adoption of MSP principles, with significant policies in place by the early 2000s and further encapsulated in the 2014 Maritime Spatial Planning Act, demonstrates a streamlined, government-led approach that efficiently aligns economic development with environmental and navigational safety concerns.
Norway, with extensive maritime areas, has been implementing MSP to support both traditional and emerging maritime industries since the early 2000s. Its management strategy, detailed in integrated management plans for the Barents Sea (2006), the Norwegian Sea (2009) and the North Sea and Skagerrak (2013), emphasises ecosystem-based management (Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment, n.d.[13]). Norway’s MSP approach is notable for its reliance on scientific research, stakeholder engagement and adaptive management to address the dynamic marine environment.
For the DGRM, examining these countries’ MSP timelines and methodologies highlights several best practices. Key lessons include the importance of adopting a flexible and adaptive MSP with an integrated, ecosystem-based management approach; ensuring active stakeholder participation; grounding decisions in solid scientific evidence; and maintaining a balance between economic, social and environmental priorities.
Sustainability interlinkages in aquaculture
With a production value of EUR 160 million in 2022 (Statistics Portugal, 2023[14]), aquaculture plays a significant role in Portugal’s economy. The total aquaculture production in Portugal in 2021 grew to about 18 800 tonnes, with 18 400 tonnes from offshore and transitional waters (marine aquaculture) and 0.4 tonnes from inland waters.
Portugal’s aquaculture production has been shifting from inland water to transitional waters,1 representing most of the aquaculture production (95.2% in 2021). The amount of Portugal’s aquaculture production in transitional waters is unique in Europe; in 2018, it accounted for a little over 0.5% of Europe’s total aquaculture production (Rocha et al., 2022[15]). The aquaculture sector holds the potential to maintain and create employment, representing around 1 650 direct jobs in 846 enterprises, with only 12 enterprises having more than 10 employees (DGRM, 2022[16]).
The largest Portuguese production of bivalve molluscs (clams, oysters and mussels) and fish occurs in transitional waters in the centre and south of the country with extensive and semi-intensive rearing methods. On the other hand, offshore aquaculture is situated in deeper, open ocean waters. This method usually involves cultivating marine species in cages or systems anchored to the ocean floor or floating. Offshore aquaculture is aimed at species suited to open water conditions and often focuses on scalable, industrial production. Overall, in Portugal, like most countries, aquaculture production tends to be dominated by one or two key species groups, which often account for over 80% of total production value alone.
The Strategic Plan for Portuguese Aquaculture 2021-2030 (PEA) aims to increase marine aquaculture production for internal consumption and export (DGRM, 2022[16]), with a willingness to explore more opportunities for offshore aquaculture (INE (Instituto National Estatistica), 2023[17]), particularly in the Algarve. However, the latter has been negligible, resorting to some farming cages and longline systems for bivalve molluscs’ production on the south coast of Algarve. In fact, aquaculture requires basic water quality parameters that will impact the development of most species2 and heavy investment. It also entails increased risk due to strong Atlantic currents and possible storms at sea, mainly on the west coast.
There is growing pressure in Portugal to balance space competition and commercial opportunities to develop new offshore aquaculture activities while respecting and enforcing further environmental conservation policies and regulations for coastal areas. Evidence from key studies on sustainable practices3 and funding seems to align with the objective of producing more, contributing to optimising the selection of possible sites and species for transitional and offshore aquaculture establishments. However, the sector’s development still depends on the capacities of the DGRM and other entities participating in the licensing process to facilitate smooth administrative processes that encourage sustainable development.
In terms of public funding, building on previous EU funds, further funding for offshore and transitional waters aquaculture developments has become available, as the European Commission adopted the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund (EMFAF) programme for Portugal in 2022. The total financial allocation for the Portuguese programme 2021-2027 is EUR 539.9 million, with EUR 140.5 million (35.8% of the total) going to aquaculture. The expected outcome is that by 2027, the Portuguese fisheries and aquaculture sectors should become more resilient through the adaptation and restructuring of the fleet and investments in infrastructure aiming to improve working conditions; setting up infrastructure to support aquaculture; digitalising fishing ports; and introducing innovative solutions for the processing and marketing of fish.
The main open issues for Portugal include the choices of adequate species and positioning of future aquaculture installations that will need to be based on scientific, unbiased assessments, as well as issues related to improving water quality in transitional waters and the licensing and overall regulatory regime to further develop Portugal’s aquaculture.
Table 3.2 applies the methodology introduced in Chapter 2 to mapping policy interlinkages that need to be considered when the DGRM allocates aquaculture permits.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Key trade-offs associated with aquaculture in Portugal
Environmental impacts: Aquaculture must take direct and indirect environmental impacts into account. These include the rising likelihood of disease tied to the intensification of production (DeWeerdt, 2020[21]), which correlates with potential overuse of antimicrobials (Schar et al., 2018[22]) and poses a risk to public health as well as the sustainability of production (Reverter et al., 2020[23]). Other challenges include securing sustainable feed sources and water management with the risk of pollution, the impacts of climate change on coastal zones (i.e. erosion, stronger storms), local biodiversity loss and general environmental degradation. Other direct and indirect environmental impacts, such as biodiversity and habitat loss, greenhouse gas emissions and increased pressure on wild fish stocks, as well as impacts on human health and animal welfare.
Competition with capture fishery: Aquaculture development can influence capture fisheries through increased competition, market share shifts and price impacts. These factors should be considered in policy design to balance sectoral interests and minimise trade-offs.
Spatial competition: In view of growing offshore and transitional production and transformation, the lack of available space is an issue mainly for inland aquaculture facilities (i.e. including for accessory inland facilities and infrastructure, such as fish hatcheries and pre-fattening, logistics, suitable ports, etc.). These sites must be balanced with competition for marine and land space across sectors (tourism, fishery, offshore renewable energy, etc.). Spatial planning must weigh their benefits and risks while acknowledging commercial activities’ impacts on local biodiversity loss and general environmental degradation. This is also relevant for transitional waters, many of which are in environmentally protected areas and where 95% of Portuguese aquaculture production currently occurs (DGRM, 2022[16]).
Key synergies associated with aquaculture in Portugal
New technologic innovations that may contribute to reducing aquaculture externalities: The feasibility and sustainability of offshore aquaculture are heavily influenced by technological advancements in containment systems, remote monitoring and automated feeding technologies, which can reduce environmental impacts and operational risks.
Positive environmental impacts: It seems that the reconversion of artificialised areas in aquaculture farms may enhance ecosystem services to capture CO2 and promote biodiversity in transitional waters, as argued by a study conducted in the Algarve region (Furtado et al., 2021[24]). Ecosystem approaches also foster a balance between economic activities and nature conservation, according to a study conducted on the Rio Formosa coastal wetlands (Sousa et al., 2020[8]).
Transfer of practices from the agriculture sector: In many respects, aquaculture shares common features with agriculture (in particular livestock production) – such as a need to regulate the use of land and water; the potential role of research and innovation in driving productivity and sustainability; and the challenges posed by climate change adaptation and mitigation (FAO, 2020[25]). Similarities with agriculture production systems suggest there is potential to apply lessons learned from that sector when designing aquaculture policy.
Covering the social and supply chain aspects of aquaculture can help maximise benefits and create an aquaculture industry resilient to shocks.
Beyond the consideration of trade-offs and synergies for aquaculture, the analysis in Table 3.2 indicates two longer-term trends that require the DGRM’s particular attention:
Climate-change-related challenges: The anticipated growth in aquaculture is likely to be influenced by climate change, which has already begun to detrimentally affect aquaculture yields (Klinger et al., 2017[26]); (Maulu et al., 2021[27]). The situation is expected to worsen in future decades, with rising sea temperatures impairing the cultivation of key finfish and shellfish, and ocean acidification hindering shellfish development in certain areas (Maulu et al., 2021[27]); (IPCC, 2019[28]). Additionally, climate change may lead to decreased available freshwater resources for inland aquaculture, more frequent harmful algal blooms and a potential decline in the populations of small pelagic fish that serve as crucial feed for finfish farming. The degree of impact climate change will have on aquaculture’s expansion is contingent on the severity of climate change itself and the success of adaptation measures implemented, such as early warning mechanisms.
Demand uncertainties for aquaculture: The surge in aquaculture output is significantly driven by an increasing demand for aquacultural products, which differs greatly across various products and regions (OECD/FAO, 2023[29]); (Gephart et al., 2020[30]); (Kelling et al., 2023[31]); (Asche et al., 2022[32]); (Costello et al., 2020[33]); (Brækkan and Thyholdt, 2014[34]). When demand for a specific product is lacking, growth may stagnate or not occur at all. National demand limitations mean that export markets are vital for significant growth, whereas global demand constraints could restrict the expansion of specific sectors. In the People’s Republic of China (hereafter, “China”), domestic demand has spurred aquaculture growth (Asche et al., 2022). In contrast, in OECD countries and partner economies, where fish consumption growth is more modest, the reliance on export markets has been crucial for achieving high growth in aquaculture sectors: less than a quarter of China’s (OECD, 2023[35]).
What can be learned from other countries?
Many stakeholders recommended that Portugal’s aquaculture vision be more holistic and consequential, comparable, for instance, to Spain’s aquaculture policy framework (SGP-MAPA, 2022[36]). Spain is developing measures to minimise the environmental impact of aquaculture practices, such as implementing Best Available Techniques (BATs) and promoting eco-friendly aquaculture systems (e.g. IMTA). The latter is also incentivised in Portugal mainly by including IMTA projects when submitting applications for EU funding, such as Mar 2030.
Fisheries and aquaculture policy making often falls under the remit of both agriculture and environment ministries in OECD countries. Many of the administrations oversee agriculture in 80% of cases, with fisheries and aquaculture as a secondary domain, and only 15% focus on the ocean economy. Managing aquaculture licensing is often a responsibility of lower-level institutions in charge of fisheries management in all OECD countries and partner economies (i.e. partners involved in the OECD Committee on Fisheries; see Table 3.3). Very few countries have administrations in place to co-ordinate ocean-related matters with a whole-of-government approach, like the DGRM and the General Directory for Maritime Affairs, Fishery and Aquaculture (DGAMPA) in France.
Source: OECD (2023[37]), “Fostering Sustainable Aquaculture, a Workshop from OECD Committee on Fisheries”, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/post_workshop_update_to_cofi_workshop_background_n.
When comparing the aquaculture strategies of different countries, their approaches include a range of policy priorities: research, environmental protection, economic growth, knowledge transfer, fish health and trade policy (Figure 3.1). Some of the less common areas, appearing in only a few of these strategies, refer to social impact and job creation. It is important to note that subnational/regional policies may focus on different areas (e.g. priority on employment).
Specific regulations are required to mitigate the potential negative environmental externalities of production, reduce the potential for diseases and, more generally, ensure sanitary and phytosanitary security and control environmental impacts. The OECD report, Green Growth in Fisheries and Aquaculture, discusses the different areas of aquaculture regulation and notes that strong regulation of aquaculture production has been an essential feature of supporting a stable and productive industry (OECD, 2015[38]).
At the same time, over half of OECD countries and partner economies have an objective to reduce the administrative burden from aquaculture regulation in their aquaculture strategies, like the DGRM. These strategies commonly cite long application processes with approvals from multiple government bodies and a lack of digitisation in reporting as two key areas where administrative efficiency could be improved.
Note: This figure covers 45 policy documents identified through desk research conducted in October 2023 by the OECD Committee on Fisheries (COFI), including one for the European Union and 44 for COFI members and partners.
Source: OECD (2023[37]), “Fostering Sustainable Aquaculture, a Workshop from OECD Committee on Fisheries”, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/post_workshop_update_to_cofi_workshop_background_n.
Sustainability interlinkages in flag state
Portugal has set a goal to increase the number of ships in international maritime transport (particularly merchant vessels) flying the Portuguese flag. By fostering a more efficient, transparent and responsive maritime administration, the DGRM can attract the necessary private sector investments to support decarbonisation in the maritime sector, driving Portugal’s commitment to sustainability and economic growth in the maritime industry. Ensuring that the services provided to ships registered under the Portuguese flag, such as consular services, certification and inspection, are efficient, user-friendly and of high quality, as well as developing tax incentives, are essential priorities arising from discussions with Portuguese stakeholders.
The obligations related to the flag state (such as ensuring that a vessel with a Portuguese flag and its crew are fit for their tasks), as described in the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),4 rely mainly on the DGRM. These have increased since 1989 with the creation of the Madeira International Shipping Register (MAR) and the establishment of more favourable national tax regimes. The number of ships using the Portuguese flag state increased from a few 100 to over 900 ships in a few years. Portugal is required to regularly inspect all its ships (incurring European fines when they do not do so), and Portuguese shipowners are required to have regular inspections to prove they are compliant with International Maritime Organization (IMO) and EU regulations (e.g. environment, social).
Table 3.4 applies the methodology introduced in Chapter 2 to mapping policy interlinkages that the DGRM needs to navigate and find solutions for when promoting and monitoring the flag state in Portugal.
Key trade-offs associated with flag state in Portugal
Creating an appealing flag state through incentives (competitive fees) and regulations (efficient registration processes) might conflict with ensuring that marine businesses are responsible and ensuring high standards for safety, environmental protection and crew welfare.
Key synergies associated with flag state in Portugal
Synergies between healthy port infrastructure, maritime services, and the legal and business environment, which can indirectly boost flag registrations.
Synergies between promoting the state flag and developing green shipping initiatives or advanced safety standards. For example, offering incentives for environmentally friendly ships can attract registrations while advancing Portugal’s sustainability goals.
What can be learned from other countries?
Flag-state policies vary significantly across countries, influenced by their maritime traditions, economic priorities, regulatory frameworks and commitment to international maritime standards. There is strong competition among countries, as they often aim to increase their fleet registry, assuming that it will lead to more economic activity, notably the employment of ship workers (ITF-OECD, 2019[39]). “Flags of convenience” exist, with a race to the bottom, as mentioned in ITF-OECD (2019[39]).
Countries like France, Spain, Denmark and Norway each have distinct approaches to managing their flag-state responsibilities, reflecting their unique positions and objectives within the global maritime sector. Understanding these differences can offer valuable insights for Portugal in refining its flag-state policies and practices.
France’s flag-state policy emphasises the balance between maintaining high standards for safety, environmental protection and crew welfare while enhancing the competitiveness of the French registry (DGAMPA, n.d.[40]). France has implemented measures to attract more shipowners to its flag, such as tax incentives and streamlined administrative procedures, without compromising its stringent compliance with international conventions (see Box 3.1). The French International Ship Register (RIF), allowing for more flexible crewing arrangements, is a strategic initiative to combine the benefits of a European flag with the competitiveness of international registries.
Since its development in 2005, RIF has been part of a public policy characterised by regulatory and fiscal stability for shipowners. The RIF is the French registry for commercially operated vessels in maritime transport (shipping), maritime services (offshore services) and commercial yachting. The RIF’s single window is a public service by the French government that offers free registration processes for shipowners under the French flag, covering ship registration, maritime mortgages, foreign professional title recognition visas and document reissuance.
Despite being free, the service maintains high quality, focusing on meeting shipowners’ expectations through accessible information (via a dedicated website, a LinkedIn page and email), simplified procedures and quick service, with ship registration, including maritime mortgages, often completed in under two hours.
France’s advantages in ship registries are partly due to its geography, with the world’s second-largest exclusive economic zone (EEZ). It includes 66 commercial ports, with 11 major maritime ports managed by the state, 9 regional operational centres for monitoring and rescue (CROSS) within the mainland and overseas, 23 submarine telecommunications lines entering and leaving France (ranking first in Europe), a Cospas-Sarsat alert reception centre (French mission control centre [FMCC] Toulouse), and a medical teleassistance centre for sailors (Centre de consultation médicale maritime [CCMM] Toulouse), among others.
Source: French International Ship Register (RIF) (2024[41]), “Le guichet unique du RIF : Service simple et gratuit”, https://www.rif.mer.gouv.fr/le-guichet-unique-du-rif-service-simple-et-gratuit-a500.html.
Spain, with its strategic geographical location and extensive maritime history, has also focused on strengthening its flag-state policies to bolster its maritime sector. Spain’s approach includes rigorous enforcement of safety and environmental standards alongside efforts to make the Spanish flag more attractive to international shipowners through competitive fees and efficient registration processes. Spain also places a strong emphasis on the quality of ships under its flag, aiming to avoid the negative connotations associated with flags of convenience.
Denmark’s flag-state policy is notably proactive and business-friendly, designed to support the growth of its maritime cluster. The Danish International Ship Register (DIS) offers competitive conditions for shipowners, such as no restrictions on crew nationality and tax schemes beneficial for seafarers (DMA, n.d.[12]). Denmark’s approach is characterised by a high degree of digitisation, making interactions with authorities efficient and user-friendly via an integrated customer portal that facilitates easy access to a range of services. Denmark actively works to maintain a high-quality fleet by ensuring that ships flying the Danish flag adhere to strict safety and environmental standards.
The Norwegian Maritime Authority has jurisdiction over Norwegian-flagged ships and foreign-flagged ships in Norwegian waters. It also maintains the Norwegian International Ship Register (NIS) and the Norwegian Ordinary Ship Register (NOR). Norway offers an interesting model with its dual registry system. This system provides flexibility and economic advantages while maintaining a strong commitment to high standards of vessel safety, environmental protection and seafarer rights. Norway’s policy also focuses on innovation and sustainability, encouraging the adoption of green technologies and practices in the maritime industry. The Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) has also successfully implemented digital solutions for ship registrations and certifications, offering maritime operators an efficient and user-friendly interface (NMA, n.a.[42]).
From these varied approaches, Portugal could draw several best practices. The emphasis on maintaining high standards while offering competitive incentives, as seen in France and Denmark, can help Portugal enhance the attractiveness of its registry. Similar to Denmark’s practices, adopting digital solutions for administrative efficiency could significantly improve interactions with maritime stakeholders. Furthermore, Norway’s focus on sustainability and innovation aligns well with Portugal’s maritime ambitions, especially in promoting green shipping and technological advancement.
Various policy tools can be applied to make Portuguese maritime strategies more conscious of sustainability impacts. The DGRM has a key role to play in supporting the economic development of ocean-based industries while ensuring they respect environmental regulations and are socially conscious (e.g. seafarers’ conditions). The DGRM is responsible for several policy instruments that govern pressures on the ocean and marine ecosystems (Annex Table 3.A.1).
Notes: EIA is an environmental impact assessment; SEA is strategic environmental assessment; ITQ is an individual transferable quota. In this table, 0 implies the instrument is unable to address this pressure; 1 implies it has the potential to help address this pressure (depending on the instrument and context); and 2 implies it has significant potential to address pressure.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2017[43]), Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276208-en.
The systematic mapping of critical interactions (synergies and trade-offs) among SDGs “here and now”, “elsewhere”, and “later” that need to be considered in the ocean economy could be streamlined in different steps of the DGRM’s policy formulation and operations.
This report proposes two policy coherence tools from policy coherence for sustainable development (PCSD) literature that could help ensure compatibility of the various uses of the maritime space, making it possible to translate sustainability interactions into day-to-day activity.
References
[5] AIMM (2024), Southern Portugal Species: Associação Para A Investigação Do Meio Marinho, https://www.aimmportugal.org/species-guide/southern-portugal-species/.
[32] Asche et al. (2022), China’s seafood imports—Not for domestic consumption?, Science, 375(6579), 386-388, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4756.
[34] Brækkan, E. and S. Thyholdt (2014), The Bumpy Road of Demand Growth - An Application to Atlantic Salmon, Marine Resource Economics, 29(4), 339-350, https://doi.org/10.1086/678927.
[18] Buck et al. (2018), State of the art and challenges for offshore Integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA), Frontiers in Marine Science, https://doi.org/10.3389/FMARS.2018.00165.
[20] Carballeira et al. (2021), Towards Environmental Sustainability in Marine Finfish Aquaculture, https://doi.org/10.3389/FMARS.2021.666662.
[44] Core Writing Team, H. (ed.) (2023), Summary for Policymakers, in Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://doi:10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.001.
[33] Costello et al. (2020), The future of food from the sea, Nature, 588(7836), 95-100, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y.
[21] DeWeerdt, S. (2020), Can aquaculture overcome its sustainability challenges?, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03446-3.
[40] DGAMPA (n.d.), Direction generale des affaires maritimes de la peche et de l’aquaculture, https://mer.gouv.fr/direction-generale-des-affaires-maritimes-de-la-peche-et-de-laquaculture-dgampa.
[16] DGRM (2022), Plano Estratégico Para A Aquicultura Portuguesa 2021-2030, https://www.dgrm.mm.gov.pt/documents/20143/45612/PT_PEA_2021_2030.pdf/37c9c077-f248-ff56-3de9-0ffe12c89f89.
[12] DMA (n.d.), Danish Maritime Authority Website, https://www.dma.dk/.
[1] European Commission (2024), AQUAWIND - Innovative multi-use prototype combining offshore renewable energy and aquaculture in the Atlantic Basin, https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/featured-projects/aquawind-innovative-multi-use-prototype-combining-offshore-renewable-energy-and-aquaculture-atlantic_en.
[10] European Commission (2024), The European Maritime Spatial Planning Platform, https://maritime-spatial-planning.ec.europa.eu/.
[25] FAO (2020), “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020 in Brief”, Sustainability in Action, 2020.
[2] Fonseca et al. (2014), Coastal and marine protected areas as key elements for tourism in small islands, https://doi.org/10.2112/SI70-078.1.
[41] French International Ship Register (RIF) (2024), Le guichet unique du RIF : Service simple et gratuit, https://www.rif.mer.gouv.fr/le-guichet-unique-du-rif-service-simple-et-gratuit-a500.html.
[24] Furtado et al. (2021), Áreas artificializadas nas zonas estuarinas e lagunares, região hidrográfica RH8, Levantamento cartográfico e sugestões para a recuperação/reconversão de áreas artificializadas degradadas (p. 19) [Relatório técnico]. Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, Administração da Região Hidrográfica do Algarve.
[30] Gephart et al. (2020), Scenarios for Global Aquaculture and Its Role in Human Nutrition, Reviews in Fisheries Science; Aquaculture, 29(1), 122-138., https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2020.1782342.
[17] INE (Instituto National Estatistica) (2023), Fishery Statistics - 2022.
[28] IPCC (2019), IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/12/SROCC_FullReport_FINAL.pdf.
[39] ITF-OECD (2019), Maritime Subsidies: Do They Provide Value for Money?, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.itf-oecd.org/maritime-subsidies-do-they-provide-value-money.
[31] Kelling et al. (2023), Transforming the seafood supply system: challenges and strategies for resilience, Food Security, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01400-5.
[26] Klinger et al. (2017), The growth of finfish in global open-ocean aquaculture under climate change, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28978724/.
[3] Maestro et al. (2020), Analysis of marine protected area management: The Marine Park of the Azores (Portugal), Marine Policy, 119, 104104, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MARPOL.2020.104104.
[27] Maulu et al. (2021), Climate Change Effects on Aquaculture Production: Sustainability Implications, Mitigation, and Adaptations, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.609097.
[19] Mosqueira et al. (2022), Potential for Coastal and Offshore Aquaculture in Portugal: Insights from Physico-Chemical and Oceanographic Conditions, https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052742.
[42] NMA (n.a.), Norwegian Maritime Authority - Sjøfartsdirektoratet - Website, https://www.sdir.no/sjofart/.
[13] Norwegian Ministry of Climate and Environment (n.d.), Norway’s integrated ocean management plans - Barents Sea-Lofoten area - the Norwegian Sea; and the North Sea and Skagerrak - White paper, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/5570db2543234b8a9834606c33caa900/en-gb/pdfs/stm201920200020000engpdfs.pdf.
[4] OECD (2025), Mainstreaming biodiversity into renewable power infrastructure: Pursuing a biodiversity-aligned transition to low-emissions electricity, OECD Publishing, Paris, Forthcoming.
[37] OECD (2023), “Fostering Sustainable Aquaculture, a Workshop from OECD Committee on Fisheries”, OECD Policy Note, https://issuu.com/oecd.publishing/docs/post_workshop_update_to_cofi_workshop_background_n.
[35] OECD (2023), OECD data: aquaculture production, https://data.oecd.org/fish/fish-landings.htm.
[43] OECD (2017), Marine Protected Areas: Economics, Management and Effective Policy Mixes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276208-en.
[38] OECD (2015), Green Growth in Fisheries and Aquaculture, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264232143-en.
[29] OECD/FAO (2023), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023-2032, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/08801ab7-en.
[6] Popular Science (ed.) (2024), How ordinary travelers can become citizen scientists, https://www.popsci.com/diy/vacation-citizen-science/.
[9] reports, S. (ed.) (2017), ’Blue Carbon’ and Nutrient Stocks of Salt Marshes at a Temperate Coastal Lagoon (Ria de Aveiro, Portugal), https://doi.org/10.1038/SREP41225.
[23] Reverter et al. (2020), Aquaculture at the crossroads of global warming and antimicrobial resistance, Nature Communications, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15735-6.
[15] Rocha et al. (2022), A Global Overview of Aquaculture Food Production with a Focus on the Activity’s Development in Transitional Systems - The Case Study of a South European Country (Portugal), Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 10(3), 417., https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030417.
[22] Schar et al. (2018), Surveillance of antimicrobial consumption in animal production sectors of low- and middle-income countries: optimizing use and addressing antimicrobial resistance, PLoS Med, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002521.
[11] SGMer (2024), Secrétariat général de la mer (SGMer), https://www.gouvernement.fr/organisation/secretariat-general-de-la-mer-sgmer.
[36] SGP-MAPA (2022), Spain’s Contribution to the Strategic Guidelines for a More Sustainable and Competitive EU Aquaculture 2021-2030, https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/pesca/temas/acuicultura/esacui_2021_2030_tcm30-636188.pdf.
[8] Sousa et al. (2020), Tracking 130 years of coastal wetland reclamation in Ria Formosa, Portugal: Opportunities for conservation and aquaculture, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104544.
[14] Statistics Portugal (2023), Fishery Statistics - 2022, https://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=66322600&PUBLICACOESmodo=2.
[7] Sustainability Science, 1. (ed.) (2020), Mapping citizen science contributions to the UN sustainable development goals, https://doi.org/10.1007/S11625-020-00833-7.
← 1. In areas where freshwater from rivers mixes with seawater, such as estuaries and coastal lagoons. These environments provide unique conditions that can support diverse aquaculture activities, including the farming of species that thrive in brackish water.
← 2. The actual determination for any new offshore aquaculture facilities would have to be based on many physical and biochemical factors that would influence the installations, such as water temperature, salinity, pH, or suboptimal concentrations of dissolved oxygen, ammonia nitrogen, and nitrite. Ordinance No. 280/2017 Legislation regarding the Use of Water Resources, the Water Law, the Maritime Spatial Planning and the Environmental Impact Assessment - National Law.
← 3. The Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) and the scientific community are contributing key studies on this to provide evidence on sustainable practices. The “Aquimar project – General characterisation of aquaculture areas for the establishment of marine cultures” is ongoing to study and optimise the selection of possible sites and species for coastal and offshore aquaculture. It aims to characterise the oceanographic, physico-chemical, geochemical and biological conditions of Portuguese coastal waters (Mosqueira et al., 2022[19]).
← 4. The UNCLOS of 1982 sets out the regulation of ships and the provision of maritime transport services. It also lays out the basic rights and obligations of states over vessels that fly their flag. A key element of the UNCLOS, as well as an earlier 1958 Convention on the High Seas, is that there should be a genuine link between the state and the ship.