All rights reservedMusco, FrancescoGissi, ElenaAppiotti, FedericaBianchi, IreneMaragno, Denis2024-01-102024-01-102015978-80-01-05782-7https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14235/1159Book of proceedings: Annual AESOP Congress, Definite Space – Fuzzy Responsibility, Prague, 13-16th July, 2015Over the last decade, in response to the increasing demand for maritime spaces an 2012), a growing attention has been paid to Maritime Spatial Planning, identifi promoting a rational allocation of maritime uses and for balancing the demand for maritime activities with the need to preserve the integrity marine ecosystems (Ehl tough spatial planning is not a formal EU competence, the European legislator has develop a common approach to maritime spatial management across all Member States COM(2008)791 final). In particular, with the entering in force of the new Directive be ratified within 2016, all Member States will have to identify competent authori boundary maritime spatial management plans within 2021. The development of trans-boundary MSP and its integration with existing planning s of specific challenges, mainly in terms of cooperation efforts, which are required adaptive planning schemes in marine spaces (Ehler & Douvere, 2009). The first on boundary cooperation. The adoption of an ecosystem-based approach to MSP (Dir. 200 necessity to stimulate neighbouring countries to embed their marine spatial plans context that takes into account ecosystem issues beyond their national boundaries. the same time, the cross-border nature of maritime affairs requires a stronge barriers imposed by administrative borders and international framework agreements also be fostered among subjects with authoritative power on maritime spaces a planning authorities, in order to promote a multi-scalar approach to MSP and to ove national and sub-national scale. A second, important, organizational challenge con coordination: it is indeed necessary to promote the cooperation among public bodi the sectoral development of those maritime activities, whose management has to be MSP umbrella. Finally, MSP should be based on a continuous process of institution based on mixing expert, scientific and sectoral knowledge and ultimately aimed at planning process. The guiding question to be answered in this work concerns the role that planners sh On the one hand, it is argued that spatial planners could guide this coordinat organization of collaborative and adaptive MSP, also contributing to foster the in existing .land planning systems. (Smith & Maes, 2011). On the other hand, it is m will have to significantly update their professional skills and competences to p challenges posed by trans-boundary MSP issues. As an example, the case of the ADRIPLAN Project (ADRIPLAN.eu) will be present supported by the DG Mare - is setting the first example of maritime spatial plan Ionian Macroregion, involving 6 countries in the basin (Italy, Slovenia, Croati Greece). It will test a transboundary MSP example for the AIR and for two focus .realistic scenario at 2020. and proceeding with the definition of an actions por programs 2014-2020, local land and coastal planning, regulative and legal system planning .test. for AIR will terminate by July 2015.EnglishopenAccessconferenceObject1706-1714