Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

SEAENERGY 2020 Report


Published on

The SEAENERGY 2020 final report highlights the fact that currently there is little in the way of maritime spatial planning (MSP) in Europe’s maritime states. However, Member States sharing the same …

The SEAENERGY 2020 final report highlights the fact that currently there is little in the way of maritime spatial planning (MSP) in Europe’s maritime states. However, Member States sharing the same sea basin could benefit from cooperation. The European Commission could provide MSP through a European Directive.

SEANERGY2020 was a 26 months project, financed by the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. It focused on maritime spatial planning from the offshore renewable energy perspective. It provided policy recommendations on how to promote a more integrated and coordinated approach to maritime spatial planning and how to facilitate the implementation of the 20% Renewables Directive. (July 2012).

Published in: Technology

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Delivering offshore electricity to the EU Seanergy 2020 454-53520-0312-1413www.seanergy2020.euSeanergy 2020 projectSeanergy 2020 is an EU funded project – Intelligent Energy Europe programme – and runs Delivering offshore electricity to the EUfrom May 2010 to June 2012. It is coordinated by the European Wind Energy Association.The project will provide an in-depth analysis of the national and international Maritime Spatial planning of offshoreSpatial Planning (MSP) practices, policy recommendations for developing existing and renewable energies and electricitypotentially new MSP for the development of offshore renewable power generation, and grid infrastructures in anpromote acceptance of the results. integrated EU maritime policy May 2012
  • 2. Final project report May 2012 Delivering offshore electricity to the EU:spatial planning of offshore renewable energies and electricity grid infrastructures in an integrated EU maritime policy EWEA (coordinator), ECN, 3E, CORPI, CRES, LNEG, SOW, UOB
  • 3. AUTHORSEWEA (coordinator), ECN, 3E, SOWExecutive Summary: ECN: Lachlan Cameron and Karina Veum EWEA: Dorina Iuga, Jacopo MocciaIntroduction: EWEA: Dorina Iuga, Jacopo Moccia ECN: Lachlan Cameron, Michiel Hekkenberg, Karina VeumChapter 2: National MSP regimes EWEA: Dorina Iuga, Jacopo Moccia SOW: Andreas WagnerChapter 3: International MSP instruments 3E: Paul Kreutzkamp, Sophie Jacques, Pieter JosephChapter 4: Transnational MSP ECN: Lachlan Cameron, Michiel Hekkenberg, Karina VeumFinal conclusions ECN: Lachlan Cameron, Michiel Hekkenberg, Karina Veum EWEA: Dorina Iuga, Jacopo MocciaCONTRIBUTORSEWEA: Angeliki Koulouri, Manuela ConconiUoB: Davide TokeSOW: Katharina Segelken, Andreas WagnerLNEG: Ana Estanquiero, Paulo CostaECN: Chris WestraCORPI: Nerijus BlazauskasCRES: Kyriakos RossisMAIN REVIEWERSECN: Lachlan Cameron, Karina Veum, Michiel HekkenbergEWEA: Christian Kjaer, Dorina Iuga, Justin Wilkes, Jacopo Moccia, Julian ScolaEDITINGEWEA: Sarah Azau, Zoë Casey, Tom RoweFreelance proofreader: Adrienne MargolisACKNOWLEDGEMENTSScott Bailey (European Commission - DG ENER), Lanfranco Benedetti (CESA), Charlotte Boensen (DONGEnergy), Brian Britton (NOW Ireland), Anne-Bénédicte Genachte (EWEA), Jan Hensmans (Belgian Federal Ministry ofEconomy), Andrea Hercsuth (European Commission/CENER), Colin Imre (Scottish Government), Titia Kalker (DutchMinistry of Transport, Public and Water Management), Susan Kidd (The Crown Estate), Benoit Loicq (ECSA), HenrikS. Lund (Danish Fishermen Association), Pauli Merriman (WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme), Ludovic Mouffe(Belgian Federal Ministry of Economy), Nathalie Rousseau (EU-OEA), Francisco Royano Gutiérrez (Grupo Sodercan),Remment Ter Hofstede (IMARES), David Tudor (The Crown Estate).Production coordination: Raffaella Bianchin (European Wind Energy Association)Cover photo: PixelioDesign and print: www.artoos.beEWEA has joined a climate neutral printing programme. It makes choices as to what it prints and how, based onenvironmental criteria. The CO2 emissions of the printing process are then calculated and compensated by greenemission allowances purchased from a sustainable project.2 Seanergy 2020
  • 4. COORDINATOR:PROJECT PARTNERS: STIFTUNGSUPPORTED BY:Agreement n.: IEE/09/898/SI2.558294Duration: May 2010 – June 2012Co-ordinator: EWEAThe sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect theopinion of the European Union.Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the informationcontained in this publication.Seanergy 2020 3
  • 5. Photo: Elsam 4 Seanergy 2020
  • 6. Table of contents Executive summary .......................................................................................................................7 The Seanergy 2020 project ..................................................................................................................... 8 What is MSP and why is it necessary? ..................................................................................................... 8 National MSP approaches ....................................................................................................................... 9 International MSP instruments ................................................................................................................ 9 Transnational approach to MSP ............................................................................................................. 10 Overall project recommendations .......................................................................................................... 10 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 13 1.1 Policy context ............................................................................................................................. 14 1.2 Objectives and approach ............................................................................................................. 15 1.3 Maritime Spatial Planning: definition, scope and status ................................................................. 16 1.4 Report structure ......................................................................................................................... 18 2. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations ................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 20 2.2 Current MSP state of play per sea basin ....................................................................................... 21 2.2.1 Current situation in the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea .......................................................... 26 2.2.2 Current situation in the Baltic Sea ..................................................................................... 28 2.2.3 Current situation in the Mediterranean Sea ........................................................................ 31 2.2.4 Current situation in the North Sea ..................................................................................... 32 2.3 Overarching policy recommendations ........................................................................................... 35 2.4 Recommendations per sea basin ................................................................................................. 38 3. International MSP instruments ............................................................................................ 41 3.1 The impact of international MSP instruments on offshore renewables ............................................. 42 3.1.1 Impact of legislation on offshore renewables projects ......................................................... 44 3.2 Offshore renewables electricity infrastructure and international MSP instruments ............................ 46 3.3 Development and/or improvement of international MSP instruments for better offshore renewables deployment ............................................................................................................... 46 4. Transnational MSP ................................................................................................................. 51 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................. 52 4.2 Demand for space: why is transnational cooperation important? .................................................... 54 4.3 The benefits of transnational MSP: a case study ........................................................................... 57 4.4 The barriers to transnational MSP ................................................................................................ 60 4.5 Linking national and transnational approaches ............................................................................. 61 4.5.1 EU role and intervention ................................................................................................... 61 4.5.2 Scale and aggregation ...................................................................................................... 64 4.5.3 Structure and form of possible new MSP instruments ......................................................... 64 4.5.4 Horizon ............................................................................................................................ 66 4.5.5 Process ........................................................................................................................... 66 4.5.6 Content ........................................................................................................................... 68 4.5.7 Interactions with existing EU initiatives .............................................................................. 70 5. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 71 6. References .............................................................................................................................. 73Seanergy 2020 5
  • 7. Photo: NASA; http://visibleearth.nasa.govEXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The Seanergy 2020 project • What is MSP and why is it necessary? • National MSP approaches • International MSP instruments • Transnational approach to MSP • Overall project recommendationsSeanergy 2020
  • 8. Executive Summary The Seanergy 2020 project also wave and tidal - are expected to play an important role in reaching the EU’s 2020 renewable energy tar- Facilitating offshore renewables – wind, wave and gets. According to their national projections, European tidal – through marine spatial planning (MSP) is the Union (EU) Member States are set to achieve around core objective of the Intelligent Energy Europe funded 45 GW of offshore renewable generation capacity by project Seanergy 2020. Seanergy 2020 does this by 2020, which is more than a ten-fold increase of to- formulating and promoting policy recommendations on day’s capacity. Offshore wind energy accounts for the how to best address and remove MSP obstacles to off- majority of this development (approximately 43 GW) shore renewable energy generation, in order to imple- with the remainder (approximately 2 GW) coming from ment the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/ wave and tidal. The European Wind Energy Association EC). In doing so, it seeks to promote a more integrated (EWEA) and the European Ocean Energy Association and coordinated approach to MSP: that is, an approach (EU-OEA) confirm the projected role offshore renewa- that extends beyond national borders. This is particu- bles will play in 2020, with their expectations of 40 larly important since many human activities as well as GW of offshore wind power, and 3.6 GW of wave and ecological concerns at sea have a cross-border dimen- tidal capacity to be installed in the same time frame. sion. The geographical scope of the Seanergy 2020 project includes the Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea, the With an increase of more than ten times today’s ca- Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the North Sea. pacity in Europe in less than a decade, offshore renew- ables will require significant space at sea. As a new- The Seanergy 2020 project has centred its work on comer, offshore renewable energy is competing with three main work packages or phases: firstly, analysis traditional sea users and other emerging activities of existing national MSP practices and their impact on for space. Many of these activities, such as shipping, offshore renewable deployment, and identification of cables and pipelines, coastal tourism and ecological best practices (work package 2); secondly, analysis and environmental protection, are also expected to in- of different international MSP instruments and their crease significantly. With many such growing activities compatibility with offshore renewable deployment at sea, and in general increasing pressures and con- (work package 3); and thirdly, analysis of the challeng- straints, it is becoming urgent to manage the seas ef- es and opportunities of moving from a national to a ficiently and effectively, in a coordinated fashion, not transnational MSP approach (work package 4). This only nationally but also across national borders. This third phase compiles findings and recommendations implies the need for adopting a more plan-based holis- and draws up the overall project recommendations. tic approach whereby objectives of individual sectors are balanced along with the cumulative pressure on This report represents the final publication of the the ecosystem from combined human use, to ensure Seanergy 2020 project and presents findings from that any development is achieved sustainably. This is each of these three sections or phases of the pro- the essence of MSP. ject as well as overall project recommendations. MSP can be understood as a “process of analysing What is MSP and why is it and allocating the spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecologi- necessary? cal, economic and social objectives that are usually The European sea basins host a number of different specified through a political process”1. The starting activities and resource uses, and as such provide im- point for Seanergy 2020 is the observation that good portant economic and social benefits to citizens not MSP practices, be these at the national or transna- only in Europe but also worldwide. As a fairly new en- tional level, will be necessary as a consequence of the trant to the sea, offshore renewables - notably wind but increasing demand for space at sea. 1 Ehler, C. and Douvere, F., 2009, Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management, Inter- governmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme, IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO. 8 Seanergy 2020
  • 9. National MSP approaches International MSP instrumentsThe first phase of the Seanergy 2020 project – work The second phase of the project – work package 3package 2 – analysed and compared the current MSP – analysed existing international MSP instruments, toregimes in Member States with sea basins and the po- identify critical elements that impact on a coordinat-tential for developing offshore renewables. This analy- ed development of offshore renewables. This phasesis and comparison was conducted on the basis of included two additional aspects; firstly, an inconsist-seven criteria – policy and legal framework, data and ency check between national offshore renewable zon-information management, permitting and licensing, ing plans and zones designated as a result of the in-consultation, sector conflict management, cross-bor- ternational MSP instruments in the relevant Memberder cooperation and finally, implementation of MSP. States. Secondly, it comprised an examination of off- shore grid infrastructure and cable routing for a pan-Key findings from this phase of the project, with regard European grid at sea, for which strategic planning atto transnational MSP cooperation, are: international level is necessary. From this work, a• National MSP practices largely reflect traditional number of recommendations and conclusions were planning procedures in EU Member States as well developed with regards to how international MSP in- as national needs and priorities, and national insti- struments could be evolved to support offshore renew- tutional frameworks. able energy.• In practice, three basic models for providing a leg- islative framework for national MSP were identified: The main findings from this phase are: i) extension of the basic (land-use) spatial planning • Existing international MSP instruments do not ex- regime out to sea; ii) creation of a specific legal plicitly consider offshore renewables. framework for MSP within an overall legal framework • International MSP instruments do not have a strong for marine management; and iii) amendment to re- direct influence on offshore renewables, but can lated legislation such as an existing Water Act. have an indirect impact through their translation to• Within these three broad approaches there is no ob- national MSP. Arguably, current international MSP vious ‘winner’. Any of these three approaches can instruments do not stand in the way of the develop- be effective in enabling the deployment of offshore ment of offshore renewables. renewable energy when well designed and managed. • There are limited opportunities to change, modify• There are several sources of soft guidance on MSP or create international instruments with regard to processes and best practices, e.g. the European MSP and offshore renewables. These processes Commission’s MSP Roadmap, the HELCOM-VASAB are lengthy and resource intensive. Additionally, in- Baltic Sea MSP principles, and the UNESCO and In- ternational MSP approaches would have to build a tergovernmental Oceanographic Commission guide- very broad consensus which is likely to ‘water down’ lines on MSP. These have a large degree of over- their efficacy. lap in the basic principles they espouse. Evidently, a • Existing international structures should be used more definitive and detailed set of guidance on na- where possible. For example, current regional en- tional MSP best practices could be of use to Member vironmental conventions should be taken into States. account.• Many of the existing frameworks for national MSP • Finally and most importantly, the numerous barriers approaches do not have an explicit focus on trans- to truly international MSP approaches strongly sug- national cooperation. Furthermore, the available gest that EU level action on transnational coopera- ‘principles’ tend to deal with the issue of transna- tion is the most appropriate way forward. tional cooperation in only a peripheral or basic way, typically by mentioning that it is important but giving few details on how it might best be structured, or when this should be done.Seanergy 2020 9
  • 10. Executive Summary Transnational approach to MSP a) voluntary guidelines encouraging cross-border The third phase of Seanergy 2020 – work package cooperation, 4 – focused on the challenges and opportunities of b) support of individual regional projects and moving towards transnational approaches to MSP in initiatives, support of offshore renewables. There are important c) forming MSP expert working groups, interdependencies between national and transnation- d) using regional sea conventions (OSPAR, HEL- al levels of MSP. National planning decisions can have COM, Barcelona) as coordinating platforms, and an impact on other countries in the same region. Like- e) introducing an MSP Directive that creates a wise, many issues and sea uses transcend national framework for cooperation. An MSP Directive borders and must be discussed cooperatively. MSP could provide the best chance of overcoming the approaches at the national level need to be compat- inertia in moving towards transnational coopera- ible with a cross-border perspective, and vice-versa, to tion on MSP. ensure that together they can deliver the best basis for decision making and planning. Overall project recommendations Although politically challenging, an MSP Directive fo- Key findings from this project phase: cused on encouraging cross-border cooperation – • Although there is strong support for cross-border supported by national MSP – would require Member cooperation on MSP from the European Commis- States to open direct communication, without dictat- sion, there is little to no firm guidance on how this ing outcomes. This option gives cross-border coopera- should be achieved. Related to this, national MSP tion a firm legal footing, whilst leaving implementation initiatives have not sufficiently integrated the inter- to the Member States, and comes closest to satisfy- national context and EU Member States do not have ing the understanding of planning competences that sufficient frameworks in place that will encourage exists within the EU. A longer list of recommendations future cooperation. is summarised below: • For a transnational approach to be embraced by the • A focus on encouraging cooperation, rather than EU Member States, it needs to be set up to over- prescriptive approaches to national practices, is the come or avoid existing barriers. Thirteen specific most appropriate form of EU intervention. barriers to transnational MSP were identified relat- • National MSP is a pre-condition of successful trans- ing to issues of power, interests and capacity. national cooperation on marine planning and should • Longer term planning frameworks are needed to be promoted. deal with the significant increase in demand for • The EU should ideally seek to draft an MSP Direc- space that is anticipated up to 2020 and beyond. tive (or if this cannot be achieved, guidelines or • Transnational approaches to MSP can benefit off- approaches based on regional sea conventions or shore renewables through additional efficiencies working groups) that focuses on two aspects: from cross-border coordination, reduced planning - requiring Member States to adopt national MSP risks for developers and expanded opportunities legislation over an agreed time-frame – the con- for deployment and/or cost savings from shared in- tent and form of this should be decided by each frastructure. This was demonstrated in a German- Member State. Dutch cross-border MSP case study. It highlights - promoting cross-border cooperation and coordina- that MSP has the potential to bring real cost reduc- tion on MSP and maritime development. tions for offshore renewables. • Macro-regional or regional action is the most appro- • The European Commission has limited options for priate starting point for successfully and usefully intervention in MSP as this is, by and large, a Mem- employing transnational MSP practices. ber State competence. Options include: • The Water Framework Directive should be used as a template for promoting cooperation and design- ing cooperative structures. An MSP Directive could 10 Seanergy 2020
  • 11. similarly create regional sea basins to serve as a and offshore grid infrastructure, data formats and forum for planning and cross-border coordination. availability, research methodologies and efforts, and• Regional sea basin forums should have a long term some management measures including elements of perspective in relation to their objectives. permitting.• These forums should be actively used to align na- tional objectives and plans near border areas with The recommendations in this report are aimed at pro- broader regional objectives and neighbouring Mem- viding an appropriate framework for promoting cross- ber State plans. border cooperation on MSP as well as suggesting ,• Regional sea basin forums offer the opportunity to content for discussions that can encourage the de- improve coordination of a number of aspects relat- ployment of offshore renewable energy up to 2020 ed to MSP including: planning time frames, onshore and beyond.Seanergy 2020 11
  • 12. Photo: Alpha VentusINTRODUCTION • Policy context • Objectives and approach • Maritime Spatial Planning: definition, scope and status • Report structureSeanergy 2020
  • 13. Introduction European sea basins host a large variety of activities This led to a questioning of the current approach to or sea-use functions. Activities range from ‘traditional’ allocating marine space. It has highlighted the need ones, such as fisheries and shipping to more mod- to integrate the organisation of human and economic ern pursuits such as oil exploitation, mineral extrac- activities at sea, taking into account ecological, eco- tion, dredging, recreation, and more recently offshore nomic and social values. Such an approach is funda- renewable energy generation and offshore aquacul- mental to the concept of MSP as will be explained lat- , ture. Most activities make spatial claims to certain er in this chapter. parts of the seas, for example to get access to fish- ing grounds, mineral or energy resources, or to cre- The Seanergy 2020 project focuses on MSP and off- ate an efficient transport route between ports. Since shore renewables. This project, financed under the all these activities impact the natural marine environ- EUs Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) programme and ment, part of marine space is also reserved for nature running from May 2010 to June 2012 aims to formu- conservation. late policy recommendations on how best to deal with MSP at national, European, regional3 and/or transna- Spatial claims related to many of these activities have tional level. It also aims to remove policy obstacles been expanding. The spatial claims from sea-use to the deployment of offshore renewable power gen- functions increasingly lead to competition for marine eration in the EU. These recommendations aim to en- space and increase potential for conflicts. A good spa- sure a better management of the marine space and tial management system is therefore required. the deployment of offshore renewable energy in Eu- rope’s four main sea basins: the Atlantic Coast and Until now, the use of marine space has been planned Irish Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and and managed sector by sector, and separately in dif- the North Sea. Additional information is available on ferent jurisdictions. Each sea-use function general- the project’s website: ly has its own interest groups. Its management has largely lacked a plan-based holistic approach, with lit- tle consideration of objectives from other sectors, the 1.1 Policy context cumulative pressure on the ecosystem from all human uses together, or conservation requirements based on The Seanergy 2020 project was inspired by two ma- what the ecosystem can sustain2. Since many of the jor policy developments. Firstly, the 2009 Renewable uses are incompatible, this approach is not well suited Energy Directive4, which introduced binding renewable to manage spatial conflicts. energy targets for all Member States in the European Union (EU). The directive sets the EU’s overall objec- As a newcomer in the marine space, offshore renewa- tive at a 20% share of renewable energy in total gross bles are caught between this multitude of conflicting energy consumption by 2020. The national break- uses. Given that offshore renewables are crucial to down of this overall target ranges from 10% in Malta many countries aiming to reduce carbon emissions, to 49% in Sweden. Moreover, the Directive requires marine space will be needed for their deployment. every Member State to draft a National Renewable En- However, many technically well suited (and relatively ergy Action Plan (NREAP) breaking down the target be- cheap) sites are already being used for other func- tween electricity, heating and cooling, and transport tions. Finding sufficient and suitable space to accom- and, within these sectors, for each renewable energy modate the current and projected post 2020 renewa- technology. bles targets is a challenge. 2 WWF 2010, Future Trends in the Baltic Sea, WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme, Sweden. 3 Regional means in this context sea basin level. 4 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. 14 Seanergy 2020
  • 14. The offshore wind projections presented in the mem- Sea. It looked at the MSP policies of the different re-bers States NREAPs totals around 43 GW, whilst the gions, their effect on offshore renewables project de-ambition for tidal and wave is just over 2 GW5. The na- velopment and the development of offshore electricitytional projections for offshore renewable technologies grids. Based on this analysis, the project emphasisedin Europe to 2020 are similar to the projections made good practices and bottlenecks in the countries whereby the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) and MSP is developed. It also made recommendations onthe European Ocean Energy Association (EU-OEA). MSP for Member States less advanced in the MSPEWEA estimates that 230 GW of wind power will be process.installed in 2020, of which 40 GW will be offshore6,whereas EU-OEA estimates that a further 3.6 GW of b) In a second phase, Seanergy 2020 analysed thewave and tidal capacity will be installed in the same different international MSP instruments and their com-time frame7. This confirms that offshore renewables – patibility with the deployment of offshore renewables.mostly wind, but also wave and tidal – will play an im- Taking current MSP and offshore grid initiatives intoportant role in reaching the 2020 targets. account, the project puts forward recommendations and proposals for an internationally coordinated ap-Secondly, two European Commission (EC) Communica- proach to MSP which favours the deployment of off-tions on MSP highlight the need for an integrated MSP shore renewables.policy in coastal EU Member States. The intensiveuse of maritime space and the increased competition c) In a third phase, the compatibility between differ-amongst sea users – not only offshore wind, wave and ent spatial scales of MSP as well as the opportunitiestidal energy, but also shipping and maritime transport, and challenges of moving from a national to a trans-military, oil and gas, port developments, fisheries and national approach were assessed. The project recom-aquaculture, and environmental protection – underline mended ways to improve MSP coordination amongstthe urgent need to manage this space. In most coun- Member States.tries, the various sea activities and interests are regu-lated according to sector by different agencies and au- d) The final phase of the project focused on the dis-thorities. Each has its specific legislative approach to semination of the results amongst the main stake-the allocation and use of maritime space, which leads holders, including regional and national authorities,to fragmented policy frameworks. EU decision makers, planners and regulators, offshore renewables developers and other users of the sea.1.2 Objectives and approachThe Seanergy 2020 project formulates and promotespolicy recommendations on how to best deal with MSPand remove policy obstacles to the deployment of off-shore renewable power generation in the EU.a) In a first phase, the project focused on existing na-tional MSP practices in 17 EU Member States8, cover-ing four sea basins: the Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea,the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the North5 During the course of 2011, five Member States changed their offshore RES targets, bringing the EU total to just less than 43 GW for wind energy and 2 GW for tidal and wave.6 EWEA 2011, Pure Power: Wind energy targets for 2020 and 2030- A report by the European Wind Energy Association, July 2011.7 EU – OEA 2009, Oceans of Energy: European Ocean Energy Roadmap 2010-2050, 2009.8 Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom.Seanergy 2020 15
  • 15. Introduction 1.3 Maritime Spatial Planning: • EU MSP definition, scope and status Refers to the level at which the EU could be involved, but does not specify any particular role for the Europe- Unlike spatial planning on land, MSP is a relatively an Commission. EU MSP could range from guidelines new concept. There is no internationally accepted defi- to more binding measures11. nition of MSP. However, internationally, the Intergov- ernmental Oceanographic Commission, a UNESCO9 • International MSP body, defines MSP as: Refers to the level at which the international communi- ty maps an area of common interest. This is not a real “a process of analysing and allocating parts of three-di- MSP process. However, if/where international marine mensional marine spaces to specific uses to achieve eco- planning occurs, this is sector specific – for example logical, economic and social objectives that are usually the shipping lanes of the International Maritime Or- specified through the political process… usually results ganisation. However, many international MSP related in a comprehensive plan or vision for a marine region. instruments influence other levels of MSP. For exam- (MSP) is an essential element of sea use management.” ple, the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UN- CLOS) provides the basis for a number of governing This definition indicates that MSP is a process which rules and regulations on different sea uses that must takes a comprehensive approach to human activities at be observed by signatories. It also defines territorial sea, while planning its space. Though such definitions waters (out to 12 nautical miles) and EEZs. lay out the basic principles and objectives of MSP – the mapping or zoning of different parts of a maritime space Offshore renewables and MSP for different uses and purposes – they say little about As stated above, offshore renewables are caught be- the level at which it can be carried out. MSP can be ap- tween a multitude of conflicting uses, interest groups plied to anything from the near shore waters of a local and rules from different sectors and jurisdictions. This municipality to the marine jurisdiction of a given country creates project uncertainty, increases the risk of de- including its economic exclusive zone (EEZ), and further lays or failure of wind, wave and tidal energy projects to transnational/transboundary regions10. Throughout at sea, impairing the sector’s growth potential. These Seanergy 2020, a number of terms are used to give ad- barriers are further aggravated by the absence of a co- ditional clarity to the level of MSP discussed. ordinated approach to MSP within the different Mem- ber States and sea basins. • National MSP Refers to planning processes carried out by a country MSP’s role with regard to offshore renewables is men- in its nationally declared sea space. Typically, this in- tioned in the EU’s Roadmap for MSP and principles12: cludes both territorial waters and the country’s EEZ. “MSP can play an important role in mitigation, by pro- Although these processes may be carried out in con- moting the efficient use of maritime space and renew- sultation with other countries that share a border or able energy”. an interest, it is a nationally governed exercise. Moreover, MSP can enable the development of off- • Transnational MSP shore renewable energy by reducing the risk for devel- Refers to MSP that involves a number of different opers and increasing investment opportunities. This countries, bilaterally or multilaterally. Here the focus is because if MSP includes the designation of zones is not always on a shared MSP process, but rather for the development of offshore renewables, project on cooperation or coordination of aspects of national developers have greater certainty of access to those MSP that have relevance across borders. sites (and have an idea of when they will get access), increasing the project’s appeal to investors. 9 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 10 Backer, H., April 2011, A pilot trans-boundary plan for the Bothnian Sea: description of the project, cited in Cameron. L., Hekkenberg, M., Veum, K., Transnational maritime spatial planning: Recommendations, Seanergy2020, Deliverable 4.4, December 2011. 11 Idem. 12 European Commission 2008, Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU, COM (2008), 791 final. 16 Seanergy 2020
  • 16. Secondly, MSP promotes an efficient use of space by Moreover, MSP has benefits for other sectors and seapotentially allowing offshore renewables projects to be uses, including environmental conservation and plan-developed within a given area through integrated plan- ning. The different benefits are illustrated in Table 1.1.ning, taking nature conservation into account. Although these other benefits are important, they are not the focus of Seanergy 2020, whose primary objec-Thirdly, the marine management measures that tive is to study the impact of MSP on the developmentemerge from MSP can help provide transparency in of offshore renewables14.permitting and licensing procedures for project devel-opers. The required outcomes of the MSP process areclarified at the beginning of the project13.TABLE 1.1: EXAMPLE OF BENEFITS Ecological / Identification of biological and ecological important areas Environmental Biodiversity objectives incorporated into planned decision-making Benefits Identification and reduction of conflicts between human use and nature Allocation of space for biodiversity and nature conservation Establish context for planning a network of marine protected areas Identification and reduction of the cumulative effects of human activities on marine ecosystems Economics Greater certainty of access to desirable areas for new private sector investments, Benefits frequently amortized over 20-30 years Identification of compatible uses within the same area of development Reduction of conflicts between incompatible uses Improved capacity to plan for new and changing human activities, including emerging technologies and their associated affects Better safety during operation of human activities Promotion of the efficient use of resources and space Streamlining and transparency in permit and licensing procedures Social Benefits Improved opportunities for community and citizen participation Identification of impacts of decisions on the allocation of ocean space (e.g., closure areas for certain uses, protected areas) for communities and economies onshore (e.g., employment, distribution of income) Identification and improved protection of cultural heritage Identification and preservation of social and spiritual values related to ocean use (e.g., the ocean as an open space) Source: Ehler and Douvere, 200913 Cameron et all, 2011, Seanergy Deliverable 4.4.14 Idem.Seanergy 2020 17
  • 17. Introduction Status of MSP criteria. It describes the specific arrangements within MSP initiatives are currently focusing on national, re- the different countries and summarises the degree to gional and European/international level. To date, MSP which MSP has been, or will be put in place. A series is implemented at national level in a handful of EU of good practices, specific recommendations and over- coastal countries. At regional level, a number of lo- all recommendations for future MSP initiatives and calised initiatives such as the Helsinki Commission15 policies, including offshore renewables deployment (HELCOM) and Visions And Strategies Around the Bal- are formulated. tic (VASAB)16 Joint Working Group on MSP (HELCOM – VASAB MSP Working Group)17 and the Convention for Chapter 3 gives a brief overview of the main interna- the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North- tional MSP instruments that impact coordinated devel- East Atlantic (the OSPAR Convention) focus on MSP. opment of offshore renewables. It provides key find- These regional instruments foster cooperation be- ings on analysis between current MSP instruments tween countries and provide useful guidance on tools and national zoning plans and existing international/ or concepts related to environmental issues or spatial EU initiatives relating to offshore grid infrastructure. planning, such as Integrated Coastal Zone Manage- This chapter provides suggestions and recommenda- ment (ICZM)18. At EU level, MSP is promoted within tions on future implementation of international MSP the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy, the Marine Strat- for offshore renewables. egy Framework Directive (MSFD)19 and the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region20 as well as the work of the UN Chapter 4 highlights findings on transnational MSP. Convention on the Law of the Seas. The expected degree of conflict arising from future in- creases in demand for space in each sea basin is discussed. A specific case study of the Dutch-German 1.4 Report structure EEZ border is presented, to demonstrate the poten- tial benefits of increased cross-border cooperation on This report summarises Seanergy 2020 main findings MSP. The barriers that arise from possible transna- and recommendations, starting at the national level, tional approaches to planning are identified. The chap- then moving to the international, European and trans- ter ends with recommendations for MSP coordination national levels. amongst Member States to improve conditions for off- shore renewables deployment. Chapter 2 presents the main conclusions of the com- parative analysis carried out at national level for the Conclusions are presented in Chapter 5. 17 countries in the four sea basins based on seven 15 16 17 HELCOM stands for the governing body of the "Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area", known also as the Helsinki Convention; VASAB 2010 stands for Vision and Strategies for the Baltic Sea Region 2010, focusing on cooperation on spatial planning and development between countries in the Baltic Sea Region, OSPAR stands for the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic. 18 These organizations and tools will be further explained in Chapter 4 of this publication: ‘Transnational MSP’. 19 European Commission 2008, Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine envi- ronmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). 20 European Commission 2009, Communication from the Commission to the EU, the Council and the EESC and the CoR concerning the European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region, COM (2009) 248 final. 18 Seanergy 2020
  • 18. Photo: ESPONATIONAL MSP REGIMES: findings and recommendations • Introduction • Current MSP state of play per sea basin • Overarching policy recommendations • Recommendations per sea basin
  • 19. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations This chapter describes the existing MSP regimes, fo- 4. Stakeholder consultation cusing on their effect on offshore renewable energies 5. Sector conflict management in four sea basins. Varying political traditions, physi- 6. Cross-border and regional cooperation cal constraints and legal systems across EU Member 7. MSP implementation States make it difficult to propose a single best prac- tice scheme. However, the chapter provides a few gen- Each of the seven indicators is related to the MSP aim eral policy recommendations to support the develop- of sustainable use of the sea space – including eco- ment of the national MSP regimes – particularly for logical, social and economic issues. offshore renewables – and specific recommendations for sea basins where they differ. A policy and legal framework is considered essential for the promotion of MSP. The aim of indicator 1 is to get an overview of the legislative and political frame- 2.1 Introduction work that already exists (or is in development) for MSP in the different Member States, including appropriate The first part of the Seanergy 2020 project analysed policies providing incentives for offshore renewable existing national MSP practices and how they affect deployment. Permitting and licensing are viewed from the deployment of offshore renewable energy projects the perspective of coordination across sectors, and and the development of offshore electricity grids. transparency. Permits and licenses play a key role in most of the activities in the maritime area. Data and Before providing details of the national MSP regimes, information management are important for MSP not , it is important to understand what a MSP process im- only to create spatial plans but also to help govern- plies at national level. National MSP refers to planning ments assess development plans and to help renew- processes that are carried out by a EU Member State able developers select sites. The ability of MSP to in the context of this project, which covers the nation- make the best use of the maritime space, avoid con- ally declared section of a space. Typically this includes flicts and protect natural resources depends on the both territorial waters and any claimed EEZs. Although availability and quality of the information on which it this process may bring in other countries that share a is based. For offshore renewable developers, as well border or an interest, this is a nationally governed ex- as public authorities, the existence and availability of ercise based on national legislation and any interna- data is essential for decision making and planning. tional instruments a country has adopted. Consultation is essential for ensuring that all sea sec- tor priorities, including offshore renewables, are tak- However, there are currently no international and Euro- en into account and integrated into marine planning pean wide definitions. In its broadest sense, MSP has and management. Cross-border cooperation on MSP been defined as a “public process of analysing and al- in one country may affect, or be affected by, activities locating parts of three-dimensional marine spaces to in a neighbouring country. Cross border activities are specific uses or non-use, to achieve ecological, eco- common in a number of sectors, including grid infra- nomic, and social objectives that are usually specified structure and offshore wind farms. For offshore renew- through a political process”21. ables, this is very important, as the number of broad scale infrastructure projects is increasing, for exam- Over recent years, a number of key indicators have ple the North Sea Offshore Grid, along with the wind been defined22 to assess the level of MSP develop- energy plans necessary to achieve the EUs goal to ment in EU Member States. Seanergy 2020 used the produce 20% of its energy by renewable sources by following indicators: 2020. The aim was to estimate whether MSP systems provide scope for transboundary mechanisms. The fi- 1. Policy and legal framework nal indicator, implementation of MSP evaluates the de- , 2. Permitting and licensing gree to which MSP is translated into law and practice. 3. Data and information management 21 Ehler, C. and Douvere, F., 2009, Op. cit. 22 MRAG 2008, Study on behalf of the European Commission, DG MARE, October 2008. 20 Seanergy 2020
  • 20. The above indicators form the basis of the MSP analy- Policy and legal frameworksis in 17 EU countries with coastlines, covered by the An immediate problem is that there is no internation-Seanergy 2020 project. It should be noted that some ally accepted definition of MSP. Nor is there a formalof these countries have coastlines in more than one EU definition, given that there is no EU legislation onsea basin. The four European sea basins analysed MSP. One broadly accepted definition, proposed byand covered by the Seanergy 2020 project are based UNESCO Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commis-on the definition taken from the European Atlas of the sion (IOC) is that MSP is a public process that takesSeas23. One distinction was made with regards to the a comprehensive approach to human activities at sea,Atlantic Sea Basin. It combines the Celtic Seas (in- while achieving a good balance between ecological,cluding the English Channel, the Irish Sea, the Celtic economic and social objectives.Sea and the waters west of the UK and Ireland) andthe Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast which stretch The adoption of policy incentives and legislation on thefrom southern Brittany to the south of Spain: development of the offshore renewables sector is an important step towards a robust legal and policy frame-• Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea (France, Ireland, Portu- work for the sector. However such instruments cannot gal, Spain, UK) fully address MSP because of their single sector focus.• editerranean Sea (France, Greece, Italy, Spain)24 M Nevertheless, they provide a key prerequisite for the• North Sea (Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Nether- offshore renewable sector by conferring the necessary lands, UK) legal security for investment and avoiding potential neg-• altic Sea (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, B ative impacts from planning related decisions in other Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Sweden) sectors. To date, in most European countries a compre- hensive legal framework for MSP has yet to be devel-The analysis of the MSP current state of play in the oped. The key issue relates to legal certainty: if MSPfour sea basins is based on the national reports pro- does not lead to binding results and the contents of aduced by the Seanergy 2020 project consortium, given plan are not mandatory, then it cannot provide forMRAG report25 and national policy recommendations the legal certainty required by investors. This is a par-documents. These papers produced by the Seanergy ticular issue for investors in offshore renewables given2020 consortium are publicly available on the Sean- the significant costs involved. However the progress inergy 2020 project website, establishing formal legal frameworks for MSP by the Member States has been modest to date.Once the MSP analysis for the four sea basins was fi-nalised, recommendations were made in general and Permitting and licensingfor specific sea basins. These could serve as a basis The issue of permitting and licensing procedures wasfor further implementation of MSP in those basins and tackled by Seanergy 2020 because it has a real im-for the development of transnational MSP. pact on renewable energy planning and investments. In terms of MSP permits and licenses are the means , by which the overall objectives are translated into the2.2 Current MSP state of play rights and duties of individual projects.per sea basin Offshore renewables projects in the four sea basinsBefore going into detail on the extent to which MSP have to obtain numerous permits and licenses. Theis developed, it is useful to outline some general procedures can be lengthy and incur considerableconsiderations. costs, both for the project developer and the authori- ties processing the requests. The extent to which the process is streamlined and coordinated has an impor- tant impact on project costs and speed of deployment.23 The survey did not take Malta or Cyprus into account.25 MRAG 2011, Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regimes, barriers and obstacles, good practices and national policy recommendations, Seanergy2020 Deliverable 2.3.Seanergy 2020 21
  • 21. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations These issues are addressed in more detail by the to select the better sites. How far MSP can make use WindBarriers26 project. of the maritime space, avoid conflicts and protect the eco-system, depends on the availability and quality of Data and information management the information and data provided. Optimally, informa- Data and information is a key factor for a successful tion management for MSP should look at availability MSP exercise. It is important not only to create spatial of data, coverage, and mechanisms for collection and zones, but also for governments to assess develop- dissemination. Table 2.1 lists the key data and infor- ment plans and for renewables developers to be able mation that EU Member States collect. TABLE 2.1: KEY DATA TYPES REQUIRED FOR MSP  Area Key categories Biological/ • Habitat mapping/biotopes ecological data • Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) • Sea pollution/water quality • Species distributions at similar spatial and temporal scales (sea birds, fish, marine mammals, reptiles and benthic species). Listed and threatened species highlighted • Seasonal water column characteristics • Marine substrates/seabed mapping • Environmental impact studies (from previous developments) Socio-economic • Present and future uses of marine environment data • Shipping routes and intensity of use • Location of underwater cables and pipelines • Sector activities (oil and gas aggregates, dredging, disposal, tourism, aquaculture, military, large and small-scale fishing) • Archaeological data • Coastal infrastructure and other built environment including wrecks Geotechnical data • Geological mapping (1:50 000) • Bathymetry • Meteorological conditions including wind speed • Salinity • Tide stress and currents • Wind speed data • Climatic scenarios Source: MRAG 2011 26 The major objective of the IEE funded project, WindBarriers (01 December 2008 – 30 November 2010) was to obtain quantifi- able data on barriers to administrative and grid access affecting the deployment of the wind energy development in the EU countries. This project constituted the first attempt to systematically collect and quantify administrative and grid access data at EU level, http:// 22 Seanergy 2020
  • 22. Environmental and socio-economic data standardised format, that is then made available to allIn many countries environmental data is more com- relevant institutions. It is therefore important to haveprehensive than socio-economic data, and while the clear guidelines on who is responsible for the differentformer is very important in determining all possible en- data sets to be collected, and for the guidelines onvironmental impacts, long-term maritime planning also data formats and sharing.requires knowledge of the current and possible futureactivities and uses of the maritime space. The EU’s INSPIRE Directive (2007/2/EC)29 is a driver for EU Member States to harmonise spatial data col-Geographical cover lection and dissemination. The Directive requires eachIt is important for data sets to cover both the territo- Member State to develop a national web-based appli-rial seas (up to 12 nautical miles) and the EEZ. Gen- cation containing spatial data sets both on land anderally data sets are more complete for the territorial at sea by 2019. However, the sea element is not verywaters and less so for the EEZ. Some countries’ data extensive and should be amended so that it encom-does not cover the EEZ at all, whilst others’ data may passes both the territorial sea and the EEZs.cover it only partially. However some countries, suchas those in the Mediterranean, may not have an EEZ, Finally, to be meaningful, data needs to be up to date.resulting in an absence of data. This requires regular data collection exercises which are fed into an integrated system. For socio-economicCollection and dissemination data, it is also important to understand potential fu-A key part of data and information management for ture uses of the sea area to assist in planning and toMSP is the coordination and integration of data. Many anticipate potential conflicts.different data sets and expertise (ranging from ocean-ographic research to specific species monitoring and Consultationsocio-economic data collection) are required, meaning Cooperation amongst stakeholders is important in or-that there are often numerous institutions involved. der to minimise MSP conflicts. Although stakeholder involvement can be more time consuming initially, par-A large range of data sets might be available, but if ticipatory planning brings numerous advantages andthese are managed by different institutions, and in dif- cost savings by anticipating and avoiding disputesferent formats, there will be limited ability to integrate and legal challenges and improving acceptance by allthem into a spatial platform, such as a Geographic stakeholders. Moreover, stakeholders’ knowledge canInformation System (GIS)27. This will severely limit its bring added value to the process30. How successfullyutility for maritime planning purposes. Data manage- MSP is implemented is largely dependent on stake-ment for onshore planning is often more advanced holders’ willingness to cooperate. Moreover, individualthan for maritime planning. Cadastre systems28, for stakeholder groups seem more inclined to accept anyinstance, can ensure that all involved authorities necessary restrictions if they are involved in the plan-are legally required to feed in data in a regulated or ning process from the outset31. The EU Guidelines for27 A GIS is a system designed to capture, store, analyse, manage, and present all types referenced data. It digitally creates and "manipulates" spatial areas that may be jurisdictional, purpose or application-oriented for which a specific GIS is developed. In the simplest terms, GIS is the merging of cartography, statistical analysis, and database technology.28 A cadastre is a comprehensive register of the metes-and-bounds real property of a country. A cadastre commonly includes details of the ownership, the tenure, the precise location (some include GPS coordinates), the dimensions (and area), the cultivations if rural, and the value of individual parcels of land.29 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) was published in the official Journal on the 25th April 2007. The INSPIRE Directive entered into force on 15 May 2007.30 The Plancoast Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning outlines three major advantages of stakeholder cooperation, particularly: a) better knowledge, b) cost and time efficiency by avoiding possible disputes and legal challenges and c) improved publicity and policy acceptance, PlanCoast Project, 2006-2008, HANDBOOK on Integrated MSP 2008. ,31 Idem.Seanergy 2020 23
  • 23. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations TABLE 2.2: KEY INTEREST GROUPS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE MSP PROCESS • Public/government institutions (cen- • Tourism/recreation/landscape tral, regional and local government) • Cultural Heritage/archaeology • Economy/sustainable development • Project developer • Nature conservation/environment • Shipping/navigation Key interest • Sand/gravel extraction • Ports groups for a • Oil & Gas • Customs/Enforcement agencies comprehensive • Offshore renewables • Fishing and Aquaculture MSP process • NGOs • Energy distribution and pipelines • Local communities • Defence/radar • Air traffic • Research/universities Source: MRAG 2011 an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy32 also em- of workshops to help develop MSPs under its Plano phasise the role and benefits of promoting effective Ordinamento Espaço Maritimo (POEM) and used stakeholder consultation via widespread participation the opportunity to collect spatial data and informa- and through appropriate structures. tion. Updates on the development of the spatial plans were provided through a website and several A review of the stakeholders involved across the EU public information sessions. While initial consulta- countries provides a list of interest groups that may tions are important to develop a plan, they should need to be taken into consideration. These include not be a one-off activity. This has been recognised both intra-governmental stakeholders and civil society in Belgium with stakeholders continually involved or private institutions (Table 2.2). in assisting, reviewing and updating the maritime Master Plan for the Belgian North Sea since 2003. Main types of consultation b) Individual offshore renewable energy projects (per- Stakeholder consultation can take place on two levels, mitting procedure) – the EIA Directive requires all depending on the extent of MSP development: projects that may have an environmental impact to undergo an Environmental Impact Assessment. For Overall MSP plan – during the MSP development a) countries that have not carried out MSPs, and in phase (for example in Germany and Portugal). Ger- which stakeholders are therefore involved, consul- many has a detailed MSP for its EEZ. The initial de- tation is limited to sector plans or programmes. It velopment of the draft MSP was completed with a is important to stress that a robust and inclusive three month public consultation period and public MSP process should not base itself on this sec- hearings for the North Sea and Baltic Sea regions. ond type of consultation and risks for developers It then took another year until the plan came into should be streamlined as far as possible, through force due to the many concerns raised during the clear initial planning. consultation process. Portugal also held a number 32 European Commission, 2008, Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy: Towards best practice in integrated mari- time governance and stakeholder consultation, COM (2008) 395 final. 24 Seanergy 2020
  • 24. Moreover, the Strategic Environmental Assessment Voluntary or binding guidelines(SEA) Directive stipulates the need for stakehold- Defining voluntary or binding guidelines to enable sec-er consultation while drawing up sector plans and tors to operate side by side with minimal conflict is an-programmes. other approach to conflict management. In Denmark, voluntary guidelines for the offshore wind sector haveThere is a clear difference between active consulta- been developed to provide practical measures for re-tions where offshore renewable energy project plans ducing impacts on other sectors. These include light-may be sent to specified stakeholders or where inter- ing requirements for Air Traffic Control, compensationest groups are invited to attend meetings, and passive calculations for fisheries and a requirement for farmsconsultation whereby the project documents are made to be sited at least 200 m from a radio relay link. Ger-available on a government website or announced in a many also has provisions within the MSP such as thenewspaper, but no specific comments are solicited. use of non-glare materials and measures for noise re- duction. Other countries – the UK for example – preferSector conflict management to resolve issues through consultation and do not fa-Addressing potential sector conflicts early on can pre- vour the voluntary guidelines approach.vent objections being raised later in the process and,perhaps, reaching court which can be lengthy, expen- Cross-border cooperationsive or lead to cancellation of the project. Sector con- MSP varies across borders therefore one sea zoneflict management is also a coordination issue and may be governed by a completely different set of rulesfacilitates development by ensuring that government to a neighbouring zone. The need for cooperation willdepartments do not give conflicting advice. tend to arise mainly for economic activities, but the need to coordinate conservation and environmentalConflict prevention protection measures within the context of MSP is alsoConsultation and participation in the MSP exercise important.for offshore renewables development at the earliestpossible stage remains a key factor in conflict preven- As national legislation is limited to a state, it can ad-tion. Cross-border cooperation across government in- dress cooperation and coordination within its bounda-stitutions and authorities involved in maritime issues ries (regions, provinces, and so on), but it cannot ad-appears to be an important feature of sector conflict dress issues with neighbouring countries. Nationalmanagement. legislation can, however, encourage decision makers to take relevant maritime activities and spatial plansZoning in neighbouring countries into consideration and, pos-Zoning (mapping) maritime space is another tool to sibly, negotiate across borders.manage sector conflicts. It rules out areas not avail-able for some sea users that are already designated Complete transnational cooperation mechanisms forfor other activities. In addition to mapping, analysing MSP can be established at international or Europeancompatible and incompatible sea users is a useful ex- level. EU Member States are party to a large numberercise – this has been done in Portugal. It highlights relevant international sectoral agreements, but therewhere activities may be able to coexist in the same is currently no supra-national instrument or body deal-space, for instance aquaculture may be compatible with ing with transboundary aspects of MSP. In Europe’s in-offshore wind, whereas protected fish nursery grounds creasingly congested seas, a sea-basin approach mayare unlikely to be compatible with sand extraction. Nev- be more appropriate. However, this cannot be doneertheless, there is discussion on the extent to which without it being included in national legislation.zoning is always necessary and whether it is also pos-sible to manage maritime space using a criteria-basedapproach, which has also proved effective.Seanergy 2020 25
  • 25. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations Chapter 4 further explores transnational cooperation 2.2.1 Current situation in the highlighting constraints, benefits and possible ways Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea forward. In terms of legislation, little progress was made to- Implementing MSP wards the adoption of a comprehensive MSP policy Implementation of MSP is the translation of policies framework that takes into account all sea users so and plans into practice. The benefits of achieving MSP that it achieves all ecological, economic and social were summarised in a recent UNESCO publication33. objectives. Progress was made by Portugal through the adoption of the POEM, an MSP exercise initiat- Based on a range of guidelines that have been pub- ed in 2008 and recently finalised, taking all sea us- lished recently on best practice for MSP it is possible , ers, including offshore renewables, into account. Pro- to determine a range of linked steps involved in devel- gress in terms of planning has been made in England, oping a MSP management plan: Wales and Northern Ireland with the development of a comprehensive Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCA 1. Defining goals and objectives of MSP and es- 2009) and in Scotland with the Scottish Marine Plan- tablishing legal authority ning Act (2010). The UK approach provides an inter- 2. Pre-planning esting example of establishing a comprehensive le- 3. Obtaining financial support gal framework for marine planning policy, since it does 4. Information and data collection not exclude any zones in the territorial seas (within 5. Defining and analysing conditions and gener- 12 nautical miles of the coast) nor in the EEZ – from ating alternative spatial options the edge of the territorial seas out to 200 nautical 6. Stakeholder participation miles). Ireland has carried out a sectoral MSP exer- 7. Preparing and approving spatial plan cise via its Offshore Renewable Energy Development 8. Implementing and enforcing the spatial man- Plan (OREDP), which includes a number of defined ar- agement plan eas for wind only, wind and wave, and wave and tidal. 9. Monitoring and evaluating performance France has defined zones to tender for offshore wind, 10. Review and update of the MSP process but has not carried out a full MSP process. Spain has designated go and no-go areas for offshore wind, but, All the guidelines stress that many of these activities as in France, this is not part of integrated, forward are likely to be concurrent and the process needs to looking planning. be cyclical. Development of the plan is followed by re- views and updates that will include the need to review information, data analysis and stakeholder consulta- tions. Based on these steps, it is arguable whether MSP is currently fully implemented in any of the EU Member States included in this study. 33 Ehler, C. and Douvere, F., 2009, Op. cit. 26 Seanergy 2020
  • 26. The table below summarises the current state of playas regards spatial planning for offshore renewablesand MSP policy framework in this sea basin.TABLE 2.3: THE MSP PROCESS AND NREAP 2020 TARGETS IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND THE IRISH SEA (END OF 2010) Spatial planning Installed NREAP 2020 EEZ Integrated34 for offshore renewables offshore offshore renewables MSP process capacity target (MW) (MW) Ireland Assessment areas designed through 25.2 555 wind Yes No “Offshore Renewable Energy 75 wave and tidal Development Plan (OREDP)” France Offshore renewables zones/sites 0 6,000 wind Yes No 380 wave and tidal Portugal Current MSP exercise “Planning and 0 75 wind Yes MSP planning ordering of Maritime Space (POEM)” 250 wave and tidal exercise in designates areas for offshore renewables progress Spain Defined offshore renewables areas35 0 750 wind No No 100 wave and tidal UK Criteria based approach 1,34136 12,990 wind Yes No Marine and Coastal Access 1,300 wave and tidal Act (MCA 2009) Scottish Marine Planning Act (2010) Source: Seanergy2020 project, Deliverable D2.3In terms of data and information management, pro- of access to this data other than for developers whogress in countries bordering the Atlantic Coast and have a commercial relationship with TCE. Both FranceIrish Sea is mixed. Portugal and the UK have made and Spain have extensive data sets, but these are notthe most progress towards integrated and compre- always available in a Geographic Information System,hensive information and data management systems. although there have been significant improvements inIn France, Ireland and Spain, the information appears France recently. Ireland’s data sets appear to be sec-more sectoral and less integrated. The information toral and lacking in socio-economic data. Consultationavailable in the latter countries is not always in Geo- seems to take place mostly on individual projects andgraphic Information System format. Although in Por- is not actively sought.tugal the data is not fully comprehensive, efforts arebeing made to extend its coverage and integrate it into However, the UK stands apart, with a system of Stra-a single Geographic Information System. Much of the tegic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) completeddata is publically available within a WebGIS interface. for offshore wind energy and the Scottish SEA com-In the UK there is extensive environmental, geotechni- pleted specifically for wave and tidal around the Pent-cal and some socio-economic data integrated into a land Firth in 2007. In the UK, consultation is generallysingle Geographic Information System known as the sought for sectoral plans, SEAs and individual projectsMarine Resource System (MaRS)37, run by The Crown with a high rate of stakeholder participation and re-Estate (TCE). The main problem seems to be the lack sponsiveness. There is less evidence of consultation34 Comprehensive MSP provides an integrated framework for management in the sense that it is done across sectors and agencies, and moreover, among levels of government, Ehler, C., and Douvere, F. 2009, Marine Spatial Planning: A step-by-step approach toward ecosystem-based management, IOC Manual and Guidelines No. 53, UNESCO.35 Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.36 Most of the UK installed capacity is situated in the North Sea.37‘innovation- and-achievement-return-on-investment’-award.Seanergy 2020 27
  • 27. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations actively reaching out to all relevant stakeholders and On the whole, however, there is not much sectoral zon- comments being incorporated into decisions in the ing for offshore renewables, with the exception of Ger- other countries of this sea basin. France, however, car- many, Denmark and Sweden. In Denmark, offshore ried out a ‘bottom up’ stakeholder consultation exer- renewables zoning is in progress, but far from being cise prior to the designation of its first offshore wind finalised, while in Sweden, the Coherent Swedish Mari- energy zones, in spite of limited MSP development. time Policy adopted in March 2009 has been the legal basis for renewable energy development in both its Within the Atlantic most countries have developed territorial sea and its EEZ. sectoral plans for offshore renewables identifying both opportunity zones with minimal conflicts and areas Looking ahead, Sweden is planning a MSP policy with a high level of potential conflicts. These exercises based on the “eco-system approach”39. The newly es- have often been accompanied by SEAs, which provide tablished Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Man- stakeholders with an opportunity to highlight issues or agement is in charge of drafting a programme and win-win solutions. Nevertheless, no other specific sec- plan. The Agency leads work on MSP with support tor conflict tools were reported within this study. from government county offices, government agencies and municipalities. A MSP should be elaborated for All countries in the Atlantic basin are signatories to each of the three areas: Gulf of Bothnia, the Baltic the most important initiatives in regional cooperation Sea, and Skagerrak and Kattegatt. A commission on on the protection of the marine environment, includ- MSP was set up in November 2009 and started work ing the OSPAR convention. The European Commission in January 2010. It includes experts from ministries recently issued a new Communication on Developing working in close consultation with other authorities, a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area38, in municipalities and county administrative boards. which MSP for the Atlantic is mentioned as an EU tool to reach a sustainable, eco-system based use of the Poland’s legislation has allowed MSP since 2003 via sea basin’s resources. the Act on Maritime Areas of Poland and Maritime Ad- ministration. A pilot MSP was recently launched in the Keeping in mind the 10 linked steps involved in devel- Gulf of Gdansk via the BaltSeaPlan40 project. More- oping and implementing an effective MSP plan (men- over, there are plans to work on a new eco-system tioned above), it can be noted that none of the coun- based policy from 2012. tries have put such measures in place. On the whole, at regional level, two European funded projects, the BaltSeaPlan and Plan Bothnia41 provide a 2.2.2 Current situation in the Baltic useful MSP experience. The regional cooperation ap- Sea proach introduces an important cross-border element of MSP in this basin. Germany and Denmark, who Table 2.4 summarises the current status for policy have gathered useful MSP experience with regards to and legal framework for MSP and spatial planning for offshore renewable energies in the North Sea are ac- offshore renewables in the Baltic Sea. In most of the tively participating in the BaltSeaPlan, which will con- countries, a comprehensive MSP legal framework has tribute to the dissemination of MSP knowledge and yet to be developed. Since 2009, the most advanced the exchange of proven policy experiences with the country in regards to MSP in this sea basin is Germa- other Baltic Sea partners. ny, with an integrated MSP policy in its Baltic EEZ and territorial seas. 38 European Commission, 2011, Developing a Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean Area, COM (2011) 782 final. 39 The eco-system approach calls for a cross-sectoral and sustainable management of human activities as an overarching principle for maritime spatial planning: =DLFE-44104.pdf. 40 BaltSeaPlan Project, 2009 – 2012, “Planning the future of the Baltic Sea”, 41 Plan BOTHNIA project, co-ordinated by the HELCOM Secretariat, will test Maritime Spatial Planning in the Bothnian Sea area as a transboundary case between Sweden and Finland, 28 Seanergy 2020
  • 28. TABLE 2.4: OVERVIEW OF THE MSP PROCESSES AND NREAP 2020 OFFSHORE TARGETS IN THE BALTIC SEA COUNTRIES (END OF2010) Spatial planning Installed NREAP 2020 EEZ Integrated for offshore renewables offshore offshore renewa- MSP process capacity bles target (MW) (MW) Denmark Offshore renewables mapping/ zon- 46742 1,399 wind43 Yes No ing in progress Estonia The BaltSeaPlan project designated 0 250 wind Yes No (MSP Pilot areas for offshore wind farms under tests via the Baltic the Estonian MSP pilot test44 Sea project) Finland No real forward looking planning/ 26 n/a45 Yes No zoning for offshore renewables. 400 (consented The Plan Bothnia MSP pilots test offshore wind, focus on Finnish waters 10 wave and tidal) Germany MSP (2009) for EEZ; MSP for Territo- 2.546 10,000 wind47 Yes Yes rial Sea of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (2005); MSP for Territorial Sea of Schleswig-Holstein (2010) Latvia No specific MSP for offshore re- 0 180 wind Yes No newables, (only experience from the BaltSeaPlan) Lithuania No specific MSP for offshore re- 0 0 No newables, (only experience from the BaltSeaPlan Poland No specific MSP (only experience via 0 500 wind Yes No the BaltSeaPlan)48 Sweden No specific planning for offshore 163 182 wind Yes No renewables (MSP pilot tests under the BaltSeaPlan focus on Swedish waters at Middle Bank) Source: Seanergy2020 project, Deliverable D2.342 Only in the Baltic Sea.43 Including the North Sea.44 Information available on;237/1.45 Subsequent to this study, Finland updated its plan with a target of 900 MW offshore.46 In 2011, the Baltic 1 installed in the TS of sea of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern was commissioned, adding 48.3 MW to the German Baltic Sea.47 Including the North Sea.48 The situation refers to end of 2010; new developments were reported at the end of 2011.Seanergy 2020 29
  • 29. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations In data and information gathering and management, and territorial seas. Poland has conducted voluntary in comparison with other sea basins, the Baltic Sea consultations as part of its pilot MSP for the Gulf countries at regional level appear to be most ad- of Gdansk. Several pilot MSPs have been launched vanced. There is a database run by HELCOM, freely in the Baltic Sea (see Table 2.4), with considerable accessible, containing information on different lay- stakeholder involvement. However, these plans are for ers such as monitoring, pollution, shipping, fisheries, the most part voluntary and have not yet been inte- eutrophication status and other layers, including off- grated into national legislation. In some cases, con- shore wind farms, oil platforms, cables and pipelines. flicts are managed through consultations as part of However, HELCOM data relies heavily on sources, as Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of individ- they do not produce and gather data. The quality of ual projects. information differs from country to country and from sector to sector (for example, the data from the ship- The Baltic Sea is also the basin with the largest num- ping sector can be presented differently from fisher- ber of non-binding (cross-border) regional cooperation ies). Moreover, when it comes to updates of the data, initiatives related to MSP energy and grids such as the , it is difficult to estimate if all layers are updated. VASAB-HELCOM, BaltSeaPlan49, the Baltic Sea Region Energy Cooperation (BASREC) and the EU Strategy for Although the majority of Baltic countries possess mar- the Baltic Sea Region. itime data and information related to geology, wind statistics, air and water measurements, marine bio- Visions and Strategy around the Baltic Sea 2010 diversity and socio-economic activities, it is generally (VASAB 2010) is an intergovernmental forum for the patchy and not coordinated in a single Geographic In- Baltic Sea countries, including Norway and Russia. formation System at national level. Lithuania is some- VASAB 2010 encourages basin-wide planning, pro- thing of an exception as efforts to integrate different poses guidelines and recommendations for work on data sets into a single Geographic Information System greater international consensus and has produced are being made through the EU-funded BaltSeaPlan recommendations for coastal zone spatial planning. project. The BaltSeaPlan is currently working on a data The latter, however, remains non-binding. infrastructure to overcome the differences in common understanding of types of data – a “network of net- The Baltic Sea countries are also part of HELCOM, a works”. Some guidelines for metadata were prepared governing body of the Convention on the Protection under the BaltCoast project. Since some of them are of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area – out of date, the BaltSeaPlan partners will prepare more usually known as the Helsinki Convention. The an update based on the INSPIRE directive and ISO HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan includes recommen- standards. dations on Broad Scale Maritime Spatial Planning. In 2010 HELCOM and VASAB launched a Joint Work- The comprehensiveness of consultation practices var- ing Group on MSP (HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG) to en- ies around the Baltic basin. Sweden has an effective sure long term sustainable management and planning public consultation system that takes place within across the Baltic Sea. municipal planning processes (which cover coastal areas and the territorial sea) for offshore renewable In addition, the EU Members in the Baltic cooperate projects. For specific projects, there are three points on grid connections through the Baltic Energy Market at which stakeholders can comment or submit objec- Interconnection Plan (BEMIP)50. This could serve as a tions. Finland conducts annual consultations on plan- basis for any cross-border renewables projects and for ning issues, and in Germany stakeholders were in- strengthening of interconnections with their EU neigh- volved during and after the MSP exercise in the EEZ bouring countries. 49 50 The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan was launched following the ini- tiative of Commission President Barroso at the 2008 autumn European Council. The two main goals of the BEMIP initiative, within the context of the EUs 20/20/20 objectives are: the full integration of the three Baltic States into the European energy market, through the strengthening of interconnections with their EU neighbouring countries. 30 Seanergy 2020
  • 30. Finally, the BaltSeaPlan project is one of the larg- the borders of France, Italy, Spain and Greece have beenest projects in recent years dealing with MSP analysed. The Mediterranean Sea is characterised bythroughout the Baltic Sea region. The project has deep waters and steep seabed changes. Its averagenot only developed pilot plans for eight demonstra- depth is around 1,500 m, which may represent a chal-tion areas around the Baltic Sea, but it has also lenge for offshore renewable development.advanced the methods, instruments and tools aswell as data exchange necessary for effective MSP. In the Mediterranean Sea, the ability of EU Member States to engage in MSP beyond the 200 nautical miles that are their territorial waters is limited by the2.2.3 Current situation in the activity allocated to specific protection zones. ExceptMediterranean Sea for Cyprus (out of the scope of this study) that seems to have an EEZ (recognised by UN and EU, but not byThe Mediterranean basin is a politically sensitive mari- Turkey51), no EEZs have been declared in this area fortime space. It is characterised by numerous historic and EU Mediterranean countries52. The lack of an EEZ forlatent conflicts between countries bordering it. Only a the Mediterranean EU Member States does not favourhandful of its coastal states are members of the EU. The the development of MSP. EEZs would help the seabasin’s geopolitical situation makes it, therefore, a stra- space to be better managed by the national jurisdic-tegic sea from a military perspective. Furthermore, the tions, but the sensitive geopolitical context currentlysea basin has also witnessed unilateral and oversized seems to constrain any developments.EEZ claims (Libya) and fishing zones (Tunisia). Moreover,53% of its maritime zones are under high sea regimes. As Table 2.5 below shows, none of the countries stud-Territorial seas, established by coastal states and cover- ied by the Seanergy 2020 project have so far adopteding a distance of 12 nautical miles (six miles for Greece), legislation on MSP. In terms of sectoral developmentsaccount for only 16% of the total surface area. It covers for offshore renewables, only Greece and Spain havetwenty-two states from three continents. However, within taken initiatives that are expected to facilitate spatialSeanergy 2020 only the Mediterranean waters spanning planning for offshore wind farms.TABLE 2.5: OVERVIEW OF MSP PROCESSES AND NREAPS 2020 OFFSHORE TARGETS IN THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA (END OF 2010) Spatial planning Installed NREAP 2020 EEZ Integrated for offshore renewables offshore offshore renewables MSP process capacity target (MW) (MW) France Five pre-development zones53 0 6,000 wind No No 380 wave and tidal54 Greece Suggested offshore renewables areas 0 300 wind No No Italy No 0 680 wind No No 3 wave and tidal Spain Defined offshore renewables areas55 via 0 750 wind56 No No the Strategic Environmental Assessment 100 wave and tidal for the Installation of offshore wind farms Source: Seanergy2020 project, Deliverable 2.351 MRAG 2011, Deliverable D 2.3, Seanergy2020.53 Five zones have been identified in France after a first zoning exercise and the 2010 tender process; still under development (final tender to be launched this year), but no sites within the Mediterranean Sea basin.54 Not in the Mediterranean Sea.55 The Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Installation of Offshore Wind Farms identifies three types of areas: 1) areas suit- able for deployment of offshore energy; 2) areas with constraints where environmental impact or conflicts must be analysed, and 3) areas of exclusion where significant environmental impact and conflicts with other uses are expected and should be excluded when scouting for potential sites.56 Offshore renewables target for both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.Seanergy 2020 31
  • 31. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations Concerning data and information management, some the level at which the above indicators will be applied, ecological and socio-economic information seems the geopolitical context and future delimitation of EEZ. to be available in the EU Mediterranean countries in this study. In France, the Ministry of Ecology, Energy, Sustainable Development and Territorial Management 2.2.4 Current situation in the North (MEESDTM) has identified zones for nature protection Sea and conservation, including marine protected areas, and to make use of Geographic Information Systems In comparison with the other three sea basins, the for zoning purposes. However, in France and Spain North Sea countries are most advanced in offshore data is not always available in Geographic Information renewable energy deployment, in offshore renewables System format. Greece and Italy both collect relevant zoning exercises and in MSP in general. Indeed, MSP data, but this is done on a sectoral basis and car- policies and legal frameworks have progressed well ried out by different institutions, in different formats. over the last decade in this sea basin. Countries like In Greece, efforts were recently made by the Centre Germany have drawn up MSP frameworks for their EEZ for Renewable Energy Resources and Saving (CRES) in which maritime zones are reserved for offshore re- to collect all relevant data for MSP purposes. Most of newables. The Netherlands is in a time of transition, the information is available close to coastlines, and with a new framework for MSP in the form of its Na- , information on areas further offshore is limited. Stake- tional Water Plan, adopted in December 2010. Since holder consultation and involvement seems to be lim- December 2010 the National Water Plan has the sta- ited as MSP and offshore renewables developments tus of "structuurvisie" (structural vision) which sets the are still to take off. overall development objectives and plans that the re- gional authorities must implement. In relation to the Progress has been made towards broader MSP con- North Sea, the aim of the Water Plan is one of sustaina- sultations in France. On the whole, the consultation ble (economic) development in balance with the marine practices in place in this sea basin are limited to the ecosystem, and to provide a system for sustainable, relevant ministries and authorities. An open consul- spatially efficient and safe use of the area in accord- tation process, not merely limited to authorities, is ance with the Water Framework Directive, the Marine the best way to gather support for ‘new comers’ to Strategy Framework Directive and the Birds and Habi- the maritime space in the territorial sea, where estab- tats Directives. However, as regards offshore renewa- lished sector interests may conflict. Some countries bles, the plan awaits a commitment of funds to the of the Mediterranean have carried out sectoral zon- feed-in premium scheme that supports offshore wind ing exercises with appropriate Strategic Environmental energy57. Assessments. Their success in managing conflicts is often related to the quality of stakeholder consulta- Denmark and Belgium have each conducted a secto- tion, MSP and offshore renewable development/zon- ral MSP exercise leading to the setting out of offshore ing. But conflict management tools vary across the renewables zones. Belgium uses zoning in a Master basin and the situation seems more critical in Italy Plan58 to allocate marine space for specific maritime and Greece than in France or Spain. uses. Belgium was among the first countries to imple- ment an operational, multiple-use marine spatial plan- Cross-border cooperation has been encouraged through ning system that covers its territorial sea and EEZ. the Barcelona Convention, which may provide a useful Marine spatial planning in Belgium aims to achieve starting point for MSP. However, the Mediterranean is both economic and ecological objectives, including the a particularly sensitive sea basin for cross-border and development of offshore wind farms, the delimitation regional cooperation due to the geopolitical context. It of marine protected areas, a policy plan for sustaina- is fair to say that MSP is still at a conceptual stage for ble sand and gravel extraction, the mapping of marine the Mediterranean countries. Its feasibility depends on habitats, protection of wrecks valuable for biodiversity, 57 Cameron, L., Westra, C.,Veum, K., 2010, National MSP practices in the Netherlands affecting the deployment of marine renewable energy sources, Report provided for Seanergy 2020, Work Package 2, November 2010. 58 Additional information is available at 32 Seanergy 2020
  • 32. and the management of land-based activities affecting both the territorial sea and EEZ that are integratedthe marine environment. Together, these objectives into layered Geographic Information Systems (GIS).provided the basis for a Master Plan, implemented in-crementally since 2003. In Belgium, there is one Geographic Information Sys- tem covering marine environmental data65, while inThe UK has a completely different policy that works Germany there are two: a GeoSeaPortal offering ac-with a zoning approach that is not defined by the gov- cess to environmental data and a system known asernment but based on specific criteria. This leaves CONTIS providing data on different uses of the sea66.more freedom for developers and, in theory, more spa- Belgium has the added advantage of having one cen-tial possibilities for offshore renewable energy devel- tralised institution that coordinates data collectionopment. It may be interesting for MSP experience in and synthesis. This data is centralized by MUUMthe North Sea to be shared with coastal states around (Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematicalother EU sea basins. Table 2.6 summarises the above Models), which is a department of the Royal Belgianconclusions. Institute of the Natural Sciences. Both countries also make this data freely available and much of it is ac-The North Sea countries are advanced in data and in- cessible through the internet.formation management for MSP purposes. Germanyand Belgium have fairly comprehensive data sets forTABLE 2.6: OVERVIEW OF MSP PROCESSES AND NREAP 2020 OFFSHORE TARGETS IN THE NORTH SEA (END OF 2010) Spatial planning Installed NREAP 2020 EEZ Integrated for offshore renewables offshore offshore renewables MSP process capacity (MW) target (MW) Belgium Area composed of 195 2,00059 wind Yes Yes, gradual 7 concessions implementation Denmark Offshore renewables 386 (just for 1,33961 wind Yes No zoning60 the North Sea) Germany MSP in EEZ (2009) 9062 10,00063 wind Yes Yes, in EEZ Netherlands 2 OWE area and two 64 228 5,178 wind Yes In the process of search areas being implemented UK Criteria based MSP 1,341 12,990 wind Yes A type of MSP in 1,300 wave and tidal place Source: Seanergy2020 project, Deliverable 2.359 The Belgian NREAP does not provide an on- and offshore renewables split for the overall wind energy capacity figure. However, information subsequently obtained by EWEA indicates that the 2020 target for offshore wind capacity is 2,000 MW.60 In progress, remains to be agreed.61 Including the Baltic Sea.62 Just for the North Sea.63 Including the Baltic Sea.64 The Water Plan Act is more prescriptive in where OWP can be placed. It defines two main OWP areas, “Borssele” (344km2 for ~1,000 MW) and “Ijmuiden” (1,170km2 for 4,000 – 6,000 MW), and furthermore defines two large ‘search’ areas. These search areas are placed near the coast of the Netherlands and north of the Wadden Islands.65 This data is centralised at MUUM (Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models), which is a department of the Royal Belgian Institute of the Natural Sciences.66 BSH developed the GeoSeaPortal which offers a central access to basic and specific geological data about the sea and its coasts, available at; CONTIS is a database provided by the BSH which focuses on the German Continental Shelf and the EEZ, available at jsp.Seanergy 2020 33
  • 33. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations Data sets in the Netherlands are also fairly compre- The North Sea countries have made significant pro- hensive and available in Geographic Information Sys- gress on consultation within MSP. Belgium and Ger- tem format but are currently not integrated into a many have consulted all stakeholders on their MSP centralised GIS system. The primary Geographic Infor- zoning exercises for offshore renewables before ap- mation System for North Sea governance is run by proving them. Moreover, in the Netherlands, the gov- IDON (the North Sea Office). Various Geographic Infor- ernment worked closely with stakeholders for many mation System maps covering marine species, biodi- months to develop a strong MSP plan that is aimed versity, wind resource, soil conditions, and so on are at minimizing conflicts and consultation problems fur- available on the IDON website. ther down the line. Information on how the consulta- tion process influences the final decision is made pub- Moreover, there are a number of other purpose spe- licly available. cific Geographic Information Systems available, such as the Dutch Navy’s Hydrographic Service, which pro- Zoning exercises have been used extensively in the duces nautical charts. A Geographic Information Sys- North Sea to manage sector conflicts. In some coun- tem is also used for fisheries and environmental man- tries, such as Germany and Belgium, zoning has been agement. The Geological Survey of The Netherlands, adopted as part of an overall MSP. In other countries, the institution that manages geological data, owns a such as the Netherlands and the UK, zoning has been Geographic Information System for its own purposes. done on a sectoral basis and is non binding. Secto- ral guidelines could also be drawn up which aim to To date, the sharing of data in order to govern and man- minimise conflicts. These could include recommended age the Dutch North Sea tends to be done through in- buffer zones and noise reduction methods. formal networks. In order to prevent overlaps, specific institutions were designated “owners” of certain types Consultations – which are widely used in North Sea of data and others update their data from them. Data countries – are a major part of managing conflicts. sharing takes place, but formal data exchange stand- However, in some countries of the Mediterranean ba- ards have not been established and not all institutions sin, sectors such as aviation or defence might have keep metadata67. There are, however, plans to improve the right to veto proposals made in the MSP or permit- data sharing and this has been started with metainfor- ting process – this is also the case in the Baltic Sea mation compiled by the National Oceanographic Data and Atlantic Ocean. Committee (NODC). All North Sea countries are active in regional coopera- In the UK (relevant for the North Sea and the Atlantic) tion initiatives in marine environment protection, such there is an integrated Geographic Information System as OSPAR and the Bonn agreement. A new type of re- compiled by The Crown Estate called MaRS. Access is gional cooperation has emerged on offshore electricity only given to developers who have a commercial rela- grid development: the North Seas Countries’ Offshore tionship with The Crown Estate. Grid Initiative (NSCOGI). NSCOGI is a cooperation ini- tiative between EU Member States of the North Sea Denmark seems to have made less progress than its and Norway to create an integrated offshore energy North Sea neighbours. Although the National Survey grid that links wind farms and other renewable energy and Cadastre have compiled significant amounts of sources across the northern seas of Europe. data, there are still a number of different maritime data sets that have not yet been integrated into a sin- gle Geographic Information System. 67 Metadata can be defined as data providing information about one or more aspects of the data, such as, means of creation of the data, purpose of the data, time and date of creation, creator or author of data, placement on a computer network where the data was created. 34 Seanergy 2020
  • 34. 2.3 Overarching policy pilot approaches and share lessons, but the keyrecommendations findings need to be integrated into national policies and legislation to be effective.Although general recommendations for best practicecan be made, MSP will always be context specific in Ensure spatial planning for offshore renew-every country. It will depend on the particular institu- ables via MSPtional structures in place and the ecological, social andeconomic drivers for MSP. Therefore, where different, In terms of the development of offshore renewables, arecommendations per sea basin for a particular indica- successful MSP policy should be based on the follow-tor/criterion will be made. Part of these recommenda- ing pre-conditions:tions represent the starting point and basis for the nextchapters, focusing on international MSP instruments • vailability of maritime space, A(Chapter 3) and transnational MSP (Chapter 4). • Clear policy and legal framework for spatial planning related to offshore renewables, including targets,Ensure a coherent MSP policy and legal • ufficient wind, wave and tidal resources, Sframework • emand for electricity. DAlthough it is not possible to outline the precise con- Ensure clear permitting and licensing proce-tent of national MSP policies, it is possible to recom- dures via MSPmend that they cover all maritime space (inland wa-ters, territorial sea /EEZ and continental shelf) and all The legal framework for issuing licences or permitsrelevant procedures (consultation, permitting, enforce- should be clear and efficient. Most importantly, thement, mitigation measures etc). An MSP policy and institutional set-up (jurisdiction and cooperation/coor-legal framework at national level should: dination) should be designed in a way that allows a final decision to cover all aspects in a comprehensive,• Set out planning zones or criteria for making spatial clear and cost effective way. planning decisions.• etail rules for consultation of stakeholders along D MSP should support the development of a more with time lines. streamlined permitting and licensing process for off-• dentify institutions responsible for data collection I shore renewables projects situated in the territorial and ensure they are legally obliged to update and seas and EEZs: share data.• nsure that permitting procedures require SEAs or E • efine objectives, duration of procedures, number D EIAs covering all relevant impacts as well as ensur- of agencies involved, content and EIA requirements. ing authorities consult at a transboundary level. The EIA requirements should be in line with the Stra-• nsure MSP accounts for all spatial activities and E tegic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive68 levels and ensures coverage of all relevant maritime and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Di- activities, as well as transboundary interactions rective69, OSPAR has made recommendations70 on (see recommendations provided in Chapter 4, Trans- minimum criteria for an environmental impact as- national MSP). sessment (EIA) to be acceptable for offshore pro-• trike for the right balance between ecological, eco- S jects licensing. These can serve as a basis for the nomic and social objectives. environmental criteria of the permitting process.• nclude relevant conclusions from valuable EU MSP I The efficiency of the permitting and licensing pro- research projects such as BaltSeaPlan and Plan cess is determined not only by the number of docu- Bothnia. These projects provide an opportunity to ments and/or permits required, but also the number68 Directive 2001/42/EC (known as Strategic Environmental Assessment – SEA Directive).69 Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended (known as Environmental Impact Assessment – EIA Directive).70 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic, 2008 “ OSPAR Guidance on environ- mental considerations for offshore wind farm development”, OSPAR Agreement 2008-3.Seanergy 2020 35
  • 35. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations of agencies they need to be obtained from. MSP can Ensure stakeholder involvement play a role in the coordination of the agencies and Stakeholders should be involved throughout the pro- in setting up or encouraging a one stop shop. For cess including during pre-planning, plan development, the Mediterranean Sea, where no EEZs have been implementation and monitoring. claimed, MSP could support the development of clear permitting and planning procedures. The recommendations for the four sea basins are very much linked to the consultation and whether it takes Establish infrastructure that provides high place on a sectoral or on a project specific basis. It is quality data and centralised organisation difficult to make recommendations that can apply to all regions. However, based on the criteria designed The ability of MSP to make the best use of the mar- to assess progress on MSP in the different Member itime space, avoid conflicts and protect natural re- States, it is possible to determine best practice for sources depends on the availability and quality of the consultation for MSP: data and information on which it is based. Seanergy 2020 suggests a number of key steps for good data • Defined and legally binding systems for consultation collection and management: on individual projects, sector plans and overarching MSPs. • nsure comprehensive ecological, socio-economic E • ll relevant institutional and non-institutional stake- A and geo-technical data is available for territorial wa- holders represented in the processes. ters and EEZ. • central institution responsible for coordinating A • oordinate data collection avoiding duplication and C consultations and facilitating cooperation between ensuring compatibility of formats. Different institu- partners. tions are designated ‘owners’ of their data sets. • takeholders organised into associations or rep- S • single central institution should coordinate data A resentative groups to streamline the consultation collection and integration into a spatially relevant process. format such as a Geographic Information Systems • onsultation with stakeholders prior to a licensing C (GIS) that can be used for planning. processes, to anticipate opposition from certain • nstitutions which ‘own’ particular data sets should I stakeholders during the offshore renewables project regularly update them and report to the central co- consenting phase. ordinating institution. • ata should be made publically available in a Geo- D Set up mechanisms to prevent and manage graphic Information System format. conflicts • ata should be used within the MSP process both D to develop MSPs and to assess the merits of poten- It is important to create a level playing field in order to tial developments. prevent sector conflicts in MSP policy by: • mend the INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Infor- A mation in Europe) so that it takes into account the • ngaging in early discussion with all sectors, partic- E specific features of the sea space. ularly with those that cannot move their activities, in • Build on the INSPIRE Directive and link in with the re- order to reduce potential conflicts. All relevant sec- cent EMODNET initiative of the Directorate-General tors should be involved from the start of the MSP for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE), a pilot process to help shape a plan for co-operation be- component for a final operational European Marine tween existing and ‘new’ sea users. Observation and Data Network. • Integrating existing tools such as EIAs, SEAs, the INSPIRE Directive and ICZM into the MSP process. These tools provide the legal basis for many of the requirements for MSP – such as consultation and 36 Seanergy 2020
  • 36. sector-conflict resolution – and they should be incor- • Using consultation mechanisms for spatial planning porated into a MSP system. for offshore renewables that include the following• xploring conflict mitigation mechanisms, includ- E minimum standards: ing compensation measures for certain maritime - Clear and concise information and data. sectors, ideally prior to conflicts arising. For exam- - Consultation of all relevant groups and stakehold- ple, for small scale fishing communities, mitiga- ers with particular attention to balancing sector tion measures could include sharing the allotted interests (for instance, actively involving offshore offshore renewables zones for sea farming pro- renewables associations, environmental NGOs, jects, fish restocking projects or allowing for low pro-offshore renewables citizen movements). cost participation in offshore renewables projects - Sufficient publicity via appropriate media. with a fixed return on investment. Another innova- - Sufficient time for consultation (four weeks is con- tive measure would be the establishment of a vo- sidered minimum). cational training centre for offshore renewables pro- - Dissemination of results and feedback on fessions (construction, operation and maintenance comments. and dismantling services).• Seeking for/maintaining a balance between the Explore the possibilities of cross-border rights of existing sectors and ‘new’ sectors such cooperation in each sea basin as offshore renewables. It is also important to de- centralise the decision making process when zoning Any current and future MSP policies should: for renewables, i.e. let local governments in coastal areas propose and regulate offshore renewable en- • xplore the possibilities of cross-border coopera- E ergy development. This contributes to increased ac- tion, particularly for offshore renewable policies. ceptance of the new activity and helps to prevent • uild on experiences from current regional initia- B sector conflicts that can lead to legal action from tives and EU projects in which countries try to joint- local communities. ly develop MSP projects, such as the BaltSeaPlan,• Delimiting preferential offshore renewables zones in the Plan Bothnia, BALANCE, HELCOM-VASAB MSP maritime space. Group. This can encourage MSP at regional level• Establishing a sector neutral conflict prevention and through cross-sectoral approaches (see recommen- management body to institutionalise the practice, dations in Chapter 4, Transnational MSP). composed of both public and private stakehold- ers. Existing initiatives and platforms such as EU- ROMED71, HELCOM and VASAB could be used as models for an institutional framework.71 EUROMED aims at political and economic cooperation in the Mediterranean Sea.Seanergy 2020 37
  • 37. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations 2.4 Recommendations per The Baltic Sea sea basin To develop offshore renewable energy, additional poli- cy incentives are needed. The targets of the 2009 EU Renewable Energy Directive72 have not been a motor for ambitious offshore renewable energy development The Atlantic Sea Basin up to 2020 in many Baltic Sea countries. MSP should All the conditions for the development of offshore re- build on the results of the BaltSeaPlan project73 – a newables are combined in the Atlantic basin, in par- regional cooperation initiative aiming to prepare na- ticular the availability of maritime space and high wind tional MSP processes in the Baltic Sea area – to fur- and tidal resources. ther integrate future development of offshore renewa- bles. This would help the MSPs in the regions become The combination of a relatively low population densi- more consistent. Cooperation with organisations such ty and the almost optimal conditions for offshore re- as VASAB 201074, HELCOM75 and their respective ini- newables production in this sea basin may, one day, tiatives and working groups on MSP is essential. HEL- result in a surplus of offshore renewable electricity COM - VASAB expressed support for MSP in its recent production. An ambitious policy, such as that of the Baltic Sea Broad-Scale MSP principle, which is a clear UK and Ireland, could encourage the development of political signal that will help pave the way for MSP in offshore renewable energy plants at Europe’s west- this sea basin. ern-most maritime boundaries because of the favour- able production circumstances. That is why a vision- Any Geographic Information System data and informa- ary and integrated MSP strategy for the Atlantic sea tion collection in the region should build on existing basin should consider how potentially abundant off- data bases such as HELCOM. Moreover, the data in- shore renewables power can be exported in the most frastructure currently developed by the BaltSeaPlan cost efficient way to more densely populated areas. project should be used as a basis for any future initia- An integrated MSP policy in this sea basin should, if tives in the region. possible, take into account interconnection plans and grid expansion. The ‘North Seas Countries’ Offshore For the Baltic Sea countries, given the geography of Grid Initiative’ – signed by the UK, France and Ireland, this semi-closed sea, it is necessary to integrate re- amongst others – seems to be an appropriate policy gional cooperation into national MSPs. Activities in structure for helping to efficiently transport renewable one maritime zone may easily generate conflicts in energy by integrating future offshore grid design into a neighbouring zone that need to be taken into ac- MSP. Any renewable energy planning in all the four sea count. This will enable the management and preven- basins analysed by the project should be carried out in tion of conflicts over cross-border impacts of maritime close cooperation with other users of the sea. activities. Any future MSP developments and offshore renewa- The Mediterranean Sea bles spatial planning will need to take into account The difficulty for Mediterranean coastal states to the need for cross-border cooperation in the Atlantic, claim jurisdiction beyond their territorial seas derives as this is currently not in place. from the sensitive geopolitical situation in the basin. 72 Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. 73 In this particular context, regional means the Baltic Sea region. 74 VASAB, 75 HELCOM, 38 Seanergy 2020
  • 38. In the absence of EEZs, a policy that aims to develop The North Seaoffshore energy in the context of the 2009 Renewable MSP policies and legal frameworks are generally wellEnergy Directive should try to develop MSP including , developed in the North Sea basin. However, there isoffshore renewable energy zoning legislation in the ter- a need to ensure the best possible legal basis forritorial seas, as Greece and Spain did recently. The offshore renewable energy development through com-tourism, fisheries, and shipping sectors should be prehensive MSP legislation. Anchoring offshore renew-involved in determining such an offshore renewable ables preferential zoning to comprehensive primaryenergy zoning policy as soon as possible. This would MSP legislation seems to offer the legal certainty forsubstantially reduce the risk of conflicts between his- offshore renewable energy development, at least fromtoric sea users and offshore renewables ‘newcomers’, a siting perspective78. This is the case of the Dutchin line with the MSP integrated approach. MSP policy in the form of the national water policy that includes spatial planning for offshore renewablesAs long as EEZs are not claimed, and looking beyond zones. Ensuring local and public support for the de-2020, it is necessary to explore the legal possibilities velopment of MSP policy is also key to successful off-of setting out one or more offshore renewable energy shore renewables development. Without this support,test zones in the high seas. This may be an interesting legal action against offshore renewables projects inMSP experiment, but should be discussed at interna- territorial seas is likely. The North Sea should deepentional level – that is, International Maritime Organisa- and build on existing initiatives for cross border co-tion (IMO), or at sea basin level (EUROMED)76. Such operation on MSP and grid related issues, as in thetest MSP (similar to those being conducted in the Bal- Baltic Sea.tic Sea) or zoning experiments in the high seas, mayhighlight the potential of offshore renewables zones.For the Mediterranean, any agreements on dataand information collection and management shouldideally include the non-EU countries bordering theMediterranean.Regional cooperation initiatives similar to EUROMED77are necessary for socio-economic cooperation to dealwith the zoning of offshore renewable projects. It isalso important to lay the foundations for a “win-winmodel”: cross border cooperation within the Mediter-ranean Sea basin on MSP can create win-win situa-tions for EU and non-EU Member States alike. A jointinitiative defining offshore renewable zones within theMediterranean and the development of innovative off-shore renewable energy technologies may create neweconomic and employment opportunities as well asenhancing the security of energy supply.76 EUROMED stands for the Union for the Mediterranean, an organisation that promotes economic integration and democratic reform across 16 neighbours to the EU’s south in North Africa and the Middle East.77 EUROMED brings EU and non-EU states together on a variety of policy priorities, including energy related topics such as the Medi- terranean solar energy plan that explores opportunities for developing alternative energy sources in the region.78 The most important drivers for offshore renewables development remain support schemes and grid connection.Seanergy 2020 39
  • 39. National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations 40 Seanergy 2020
  • 40. Photo: PixelioINTERNATIONAL MSP INSTRUMENTS • The impact of international MSP instruments on offshore renewables • Offshore renewables electricity infrastructure and international MSP instruments • Development and/or improvement of international MSP instruments for better offshore renewables deploymentSeanergy 2020
  • 41. International MSP instruments This chapter provides a brief overview of existing MSP the oceans at global level, and is supplemented by instruments (laws, conventions, agreements) at in- sector specific or geographical agreements. Using pro- ternational, European and regional level. For each of visions of UNCLOS, contracting parties may set up the different instruments, the elements that might in- coastal and marine spatial plans covering their sea fluence offshore renewable energy deployment were within their established EEZ and/or Continental Shelf. identified. In addition, the type of influence has been In practice, offshore renewable energy infrastructure linked to stages in the development and deployment can be planned by coastal states within their EEZ in of offshore renewable energy projects. compliance with UNCLOS. The following sectors are relevant for offshore renewable development: Secondly, the chapter aims to qualify the effect of • Shipping and navigation legislation, MSP instruments on siting for offshore renewable • Fishery legislation, power generation and cable routing for a pan-Europe- • Environmental legislation. an grid at sea, for which strategic planning at interna- tional and European level is required. Although, strictly Shipping and navigation legislation speaking, any European institution, legislation or poli- Shipping is the most important economic activity at cy initiative could be considered international, for the sea that needs to be taken into account when intro- scope of this chapter the terms “European” and “in- ducing new uses of marine space. Existing internation- ternational” are differentiated. al shipping lanes are regulated by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). These navigation and Lastly, this chapter makes suggestions for a coordi- shipping routes are considered fixed and immutable. nated approach at European and international level for But this assumption should be challenged and ship- MSP favouring the deployment of offshore renewables ping lanes should also be subject to change if neces- and takes into consideration existing EU or international sary79. For example, it may be80 more ecological and initiatives. These suggestions are elaborated in Chapter cost-efficient to divert shipping along new routes than 4, in particular with regard to transnational MSP. to place wind farms further out to sea. This especially holds for areas that need a higher level of protection from marine pollution. SOLAS81 and MARPOL82 have 3.1 The impact of introduced the possibility of defining “special areas” international MSP instruments needing protection from pollution – Particularly Sensi- tive Area (PSSA) – around which shipping lanes could on offshore renewables be diverted. At international and European level, MSP instruments such as the European SEA Directive (2001) or the Pro- Fisheries legislation tocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA Fisheries are regulated at international and Europe- protocol, 2010) have been developed. However none an level. They incorporate the precautionary approach of these instruments takes the specific features of off- of protecting and conserving living aquatic resources. shore renewable energies into account. At European level, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) provides a legal basis for sustainable fishing meas- The legal framework for maritime issues and offshore ures. But, in the context of the CFP the European , renewables exploitation is extensive. All marine legis- Commission has not taken advantage of the ability to lation comes under the umbrella of the United Nations designate no-take zones. Presently, there are no regu- Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This con- latory restrictions between fisheries and offshore re- vention defines the system governing the seas and newable energy activities such as wind farms. 79 Please note that the authors here focus on international shipping lanes that are regulated by IMO. An agreement on the move- ment of non-IMO shipping lanes might be achieved with less effort. 80 Stephen J., 2010, Planners to the rescue: Spatial planning facilitating the development of offshore wind energy, Faculty of Devel- opment and Society, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Sheffield Hallam University, United Kingdom, 2010. 81 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. 82 Marine Pollution Convention in the framework of the IMO. 42 Seanergy 2020
  • 42. Environmental legislation The most significant environmental instruments atA wide range of issues relating to the protection of European level are the Birds Directive83, providing athe marine environment are settled by international framework for the identification and classification ofand regional cooperation and enforced via specific en- Special Protection Areas (SPAs), and the Habitat Di-vironment programmes. At national level, environment rective84, requiring Member States to select, desig-programmes have led to protected areas where cer- nate and protect sites that support certain naturaltain human activities are restricted or banned. Conse- habitats, species of plants or animals as Special Ar-quently they restrict offshore renewable deployment. eas of Conservation (SACs). SACs and SPAs create aUnder the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), network of protected areas across the EU, known asparties can establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Natura and outside their national jurisdiction. European leg-islation on nature conservation is part of the EU con- The table below lists, according to the sector covered, thetribution to implement the 1992 CBD. maritime instruments relating to this part of the study.TABLE 3.1: MSP INSTRUMENTS RELATING TO OFFSHORE MARITIME SECTORS Sector International European Regional IMO: Shipping & • COLREGs Navigation • SOLAS • MARPOL • Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) • Regional Fisheries Manage- • Convention on the future mul- ment Organisation (RFMOs) tilateral cooperation in North • UN Fish Stock Agreement East Atlantic Fisheries (NEAFC) Fisheries (UNFSA) • Agreement for the establish- • International Convention for ment of a General Fisheries the Conservation of Atlantic Commission for the Mediterra- Tunas (ICCAT) nean (GFCM) • OSPAR Convention • HELCOM • Espoo Convention • Marine Strategy Framework • International conferences on • Protocol on Strategic Environ- Directive (MSFD) Nature the protection of the North Sea mental assessment • Habitats and Birds Directive protection • Bonn agreement (pollution) • Convention on Biological (Natura 2000) • ICZM Protocol Diversity (CBD) • SEA- and EIA-Directives • Barcelona Convention • MAP Source: 3E for Seanergy2020 project83 2020 43
  • 43. International MSP instruments 3.1.1 Impact of legislation on that focus on, for instance, fishery and shipping, none offshore renewables projects explicitly treats offshore renewable energy. However, as space use at sea may cause conflicts, any of these An analysis of existing international MSP instruments instruments may have an impact on offshore renewa- was carried out to identify the critical elements for co- bles deployment. ordinated development of offshore renewable energy. Existing international MSP instruments for planning As spatial planning mostly regulates the use of space, offshore renewables activities in the sea have been it is not surprising that most of the instruments have classified according to the different phases of an off- an immediate impact on the space that is available for shore renewables energy project: location, permitting offshore renewable energy deployment. and licensing, monitoring, construction and operation, and removal/decommissioning. A renewable installation is understood as the electric- ity producing unit including the electrical connection Table 3.2 below illustrates the impact of international to shore. The latter is often forgotten, even though and European instruments on offshore renewable en- cables occupy significant maritime space. The fol- ergy deployment with regard to the main development lowing chapter, therefore, focuses on MSP and grid stages. It is striking that while there are instruments infrastructure. TABLE 3.2: IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON THE DIFFERENT PHASES OF OFFSHORE RENEWABLES ENERGY DEVELOPMENT Phase of project Instrument Relevant elements influencing offshore renewable energy deployment development UNCLOS • Offshore renewable energy installations may be built anywhere within the EEZ with a safety buffer of 500 m. • Sea-lanes and traffic separation schemes regulated by IMO are considered as excluded zones in the sea. IMO • PSSA introduced the principle to deviate shipping routes. • RFMO establishes fishing limits and controlled zones, for sustainable fisheries. This can conflict with RFMOs offshore renewables activities. • Under CBD parties can establish marine protected areas (MPAs) in and outside national jurisdiction (in- CBD cluding EEZ). The designation of marine protected areas under CBD (a legally binding treaty) may influence the location; meanwhile possible compatibilities need to be clarified. • The Birds Directive calls for the establishment of Special Protected Areas for birds. The Habitats Directive calls for the establishment of Special Areas of Conservation for habitats or species. The protected areas defined by these directives are legally binding and restrict or forbid certain human activities. The protected Birds and areas defined by these directives are legally binding and Member States must put measures into place to Shipping & Habitat achieve the conservation goals for each site. Navigation Directive • The directives allow for industrial developments inside the areas, including offshore wind, as long as they have no significant impacts on those goals. Potential projects are evaluated in this regard through a thor- ough screening procedure and if necessary, must provide a positive environmental impact assessment. • Possible synergies between user and environmental goals need to be studied. • Currently, there are no regulatory restrictions between fisheries and offshore renewable energy establish- ment activities such as wind farms. The CFP aims to ensure a sustainable exploitation of fish resources. CFP This means reducing the number of fishing vessels and the duration of fishing period, the establishment of GFCM open and closed fishing seasons and areas. These influence the location and some operational phases of NEAFC offshore renewables. Meanwhile, the compatibility between fisheries and offshore renewables infrastructure should be clarified. Barcelona • RFMO establishes fishing limits and controlled zones, for sustainable fisheries. This can conflict with Convention offshore renewables activities. • The Espoo Convention promotes consultation and cross-border cooperation in the planning process of Espoo various sea activities. It outlines specific conditions to be incorporated into national environmental impact Convention assessment (EIA) procedures. 44 Seanergy 2020
  • 44. Phase of project Instrument Relevant elements influencing offshore renewable energy deployment development SEA- • Offshore renewables activities require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) according to the SEA Directive and EIA Directive. The results of the EIA are presented in an Environmental Statement and are submitted EIA- together with licence and consent applications. Directive • The OSPAR Commission is a legally binding regulation requiring Member States to adopt procedures and Permitting & actions related to marine environment protection. This can influence the licensing and permitting procedure Licensing OSPAR for the development phase of offshore renewable energy projects. • OSPAR serves as a platform for information exchange and plays an important role in starting discussions on new marine related issues. Under OSPAR, parties are obliged to carry out regular marine environmental • UNCLOS creates obligations to protect the marine environment and to carry out environmental monitoring UNCLOS and assessment. • Regarding cable laying, a coastal state cannot control cable laying carried out by other states passing through its EEZ. UNCLOS preserves the freedom to do so (Art. 58). However delineation of cables is subject UNCLOS to the consent of the coastal state (Art 79). Within the territorial sea, the coastal state has more compre- Monitoring hensive control on cable and pipeline laying, and can impose restrictions. • The OSPAR Commission adopts legally binding regulation requiring Member States to introduce procedure OSPAR and actions related to Marine Environment Protection. Bonn • Chapter 8 of the Bonn Agreement Counter-Pollution Manual sets out the considerations for problems that Agreement appear to be related to wind farms. It uses the polluter pays principle. CFP GFCM, , • Construction and maintenance activities could be influenced or restricted during fishing. Construction NEAFC & Operation UNCLOS • UNCLOS (Art. 60) states the principle of removing abandoned or disused offshore renewables installations. • In 1989 the IMO adopted guidelines and standards for the removal of offshore renewables installations IMO and structures on the Continental Shelf and in the EEZ. CFP GFCM, , • Removal planning could be modified or restricted during particular fishing periods. Removal/ NEAFC Decommis- • The OSPAR Commission adopted in 1998 a legally binding regulation for the disposal of disused offshore sioning OSPAR renewables installations. Parties have the obligation to foresee the disposal of discussed offshore installa- tions. Source: 3E for Seanergy2020 projectSeanergy 2020 45
  • 45. International MSP instruments 3.2 Offshore renewables space. It is often noted that far-sighted MSP – for in- electricity infrastructure and stance a master plan for grid connection – can miti- gate these conflicts. international MSP instruments As mentioned in the previous chapter, no offshore On an international level that approach becomes wind power can be delivered without an electrical con- more complex. For example, there are two adjacent nection to the onshore consumption centres. There- wind farms, each connected to the onshore grid of the fore the need for offshore cables will be dramatically host country. As a variety of studies show, it might be increasing. In future, offshore renewables will not only beneficial to interconnect the wind farms offshore in be a national issue but interconnect across country order to allow cross border trading and increase the borders. Therefore international strategic planning of grid stability (n-1 or n-2 security) of the power system. offshore grid infrastructure is urgently needed in or- However, if not planned from the start, the direct in- der to accelerate grid construction and minimise fu- terconnection between the two wind farms can be ob- ture conflicts. structed by the wind farm itself and their internal grid connections, as the necessary space for an intercon- Therefore, the authors of this chapter investigated nection was not foreseen. Mid to long-term MSP might whether current grid related European initiatives and reduce constraints of this kind. EU financed projects such as the Ten Year Network De- velopment Plan (TYNDP), the European Commission Communication Priorities for 2020 and beyond – A 3.3 Development and/or BluePrint for an integrated European energy network, improvement of international the IEE funded project Offshore -Grid85 have taken stra- tegic planning and international strategic planning into MSP instruments for account. better offshore renewables The finding is surprising, as most of the current rele- deployment vant projects in the field of offshore grid infrastructure None of the international MSP instruments listed do not address MSP at all and none of them conducts above contains explicit provisions or restrictive ele- an in depth discussion. However, most of them stress ments for offshore renewables installations. Similar- that MSP - including offshore renewables - is an im- ly, MSP has not been explicitly addressed by offshore portant issue. grid studies and initiatives at EU level. In short, inter- national MSP instruments do not explicitly consider International MSP is relevant to this study. For exam- offshore renewable energy. ple, the current discussions in Germany show that even for the German wind farms that will be con- Offshore renewables deployment can be indirectly nected only to the German transmission grid, the ca- hampered by international instruments that give prior- pacity for cabling is scarce. New offshore wind farms ity over maritime space to other sectors or activities. often obstruct approved cable connection. Thus the Moreover, the fact that none of the instruments ex- cable has to be rerouted or the new developer has plicitly considers offshore renewables creates uncer- to deal with the far more complex task of construct- tainties as to how the planning and financing of large ing a wind farm in an area where cables are already investments – such as the construction of an offshore installed. wind farm – is considered. At the same time, the exist- ing instruments, most importantly the UNCLOS, allow In Germany the authority in charge (BSH) not only for the development of new and/or improvement of ex- struggles with the technical questions of the grid isting MSP to take the deployment of offshore renewa- , connection but also the legal disputes over maritime bles into account. 85 More information on the project available at 46 Seanergy 2020
  • 46. International MSP instruments should be results ori- If the maritime boundaries are settled by such agree-entated. In order to prevent or minimise international ments, the approval of wind farms close to or acrossconflicts over offshore renewable deployment, inter- borders can still raise problems for neighbouring coun-national MSP instruments should ideally result in the tries for socio-economic or environmental reasons.establishment of internationally accepted standards Making a bilateral or multilateral consultation on mari-and guidelines for best MSP practices. International time activities mandatory – including a possible crossMSP instruments could set a series of sectoral guide- border social, economic or environmental impact as-lines and standards constituting best practice for spa- sessment – is likely to contribute to the approval oftial planning for offshore renewables. Coastal states wind farms close to or across borders. This consulta-could then integrate the internationally accepted MSP tion process should be one of the criteria of interna-standards into legally binding national MSP regulation. tional MSP for offshore renewables deployment.International agreement on offshore International approaches to facilitaterenewables deployment cross-border grid infrastructureIt is important to give a clear signal to current and All states are entitled to lay submarine cables andfuture investors that the development of offshore re- pipelines on the continental shelf and on the seabednewable energies will make a substantial contribution in high seas87. The infrastructure for transport of off-to the global ambition of decarbonising electricity gen- shore renewables electricity should have the sameeration. This ambition could be expressed at interna- freedom and rights as other utilities’ infrastructuretional level by an agreement that a part of the oceans connections.and seas worldwide will be needed for offshore re-newables deployment, as they will occupy significant In order to balance the freedom of submarine cablemaritime space in the future. Agreements should take laying and the interests of coastal states, cross bor-into account that offshore renewables are one of the der submarine cable projects should be governed byvery few maritime activities that need to use a spe- international standards and guidelines for the layingcific maritime space for a relatively long period (a mini- of offshore submarine cables. For instance, a set ofmum of 20 years). With such an agreement, coastal MSP criteria – such as recommended burial depths,states could have a firm basis for identifying appropri- recommended buffer distances between cables andate sites for offshore renewables development within pipelines, and so on – could be integrated MSP approach.International MSP could facilitate theapproval of wind farms close to or acrossbordersThe approval of wind farms close to or across bor-ders can be facilitated86 by the delimitation of mar-itime zones of coastal states. The Law of the Sealays down the general principles that coastal statesshould establish bi- or multilateral maritime boundaryagreements.86 Within the EU countries, this is the case for most Mediterranean coastal states.87 Sohn B, 2010, Law of the Sea, in a nutshell, West Publishing CO, 2010.Seanergy 2020 47
  • 47. International MSP instruments There are several organisations that could be suita- recognised as good MSP practice for offshore wind ble for developing international spatial planning stand- farms close to maritime boundaries of adjacent coast- ards for submarine cable laying: the Division for Ocean al states. However, this distance will vary for different Affairs and the Law of the Sea88, the International Sea- sea basins depending, for instance, on the prevailing bed Authority (ISA)89 or the International Cable Protec- wind directions. tion Committee (ICPC)90. Given its expertise in this do- main, and its experience in facilitating the exchange The same standards could be applied to other offshore of technical, environmental and legal information on renewables such as tidal and current energy installa- submarine cable systems, the ICPC may be the most tions, although less empirical data is available on the appropriate international organisation for develop- vicinity effect of wave and tidal devices. It should be ing such standards. It could set up a new forum to noted that a standard for minimum distances may not include the views of project developers on offshore be necessary at international level, an EU-level focus renewables. could suffice. The European Union should play an active role in the International approach to shipping development of an international submarine cable code, given the innovative interconnecting grids and Moving shipping lanes can be beneficial for both off- offshore energy transmission projects that are being shore development and shipping itself, in particular developed and co-financed within the European Energy with regard to the safety of shipping. The possibility Programme for Recovery (EEPR)91. of moving shipping lanes to accommodate new uses of the sea such as offshore renewables should be in- International approach to ensure long term vestigated. The process may, however, be difficult and planning security (cross border wake ef- complex as there are different categories of shipping fects) routes – each more or less suitable for displacement or deviation. It is also important to analyse possible The organisation entrusted with the development of negative ecological impacts, such as higher fuel use international MSP standards for offshore renewables and consequent CO2 emissions: the potential envi- development could also develop a standard on mini- ronmental impact of moving a shipping lane would mum distances between cross border wind farms, in have to be measured against the positive environmen- order to avoid or reduce cross-border wake effects. An tal impact of increased offshore renewables energy international standard for measures reducing or avoid- deployment. ing wake effects between neighbouring wind farms on either side of national maritime borders, could be de- From a legal point of view, but also given longstanding veloped. This could then be included in national MSP and common practice, relocation of shipping lanes in policies for offshore renewables. order to enable the construction and operation of off- shore renewable energies can be challenging and re- If recommended distances between offshore wind quires appropriate supporting analysis. farms were to be formally approved, this should be 88; The Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea serves as the secretariat of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and provides information, advice and assistance to States to promote a better understanding of the Convention and the related Agreements, their wider acceptance, uniform and consistent application and effective implementation. 89; The International Seabed Authority (ISA) is an autonomous international organisation that administers mineral resources in the Area, defined as the seabed and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. The ISA is currently developing the "Mining Code”, which refers to a comprehensive set of rules, regulations and procedures issued by the International Seabed Authority to regulate prospecting, exploration and exploitation of marine minerals in the submarine cables, which could include recommendations and standards of a technical nature (AC or DC technology, kV standards), or of a nautical nature (cable burial depth recommendations), appropriate siting of offshore renewables HVDC. 90 91 European Energy Programme for Recovery (EEPR): see website DG ENER for the list of EEPR interconnection projects; 48 Seanergy 2020
  • 48. However, if demonstrated that the relocation of navi- This process is even more complex for cross-bordergational routes could have a net benefit without com- projects like international hub-to-hub connections, thepromising nautical safety, this may identify additional tee-in94 of a wind farm or hub into a country-to-countryspace for offshore renewables92. interconnector or, for instance, the concrete three-leg interconnector as suggested for the Kriegers Flak re-International approach for cross-border gion in the Baltic Sea.permitting and licensing The extent to which the approval process of cross-As mentioned above, an efficient interconnecting border projects can be simplified should be assessed.offshore grid is an important cornerstone of Europe’s It is also necessary to enhance the compatibility offuture power system. The Offshore Grid93 project sug- different national approval regimes. European guide-gests building the grid by modules, based on offshore lines – preferably based on best (good) practice ex-wind farms and offshore wind farm hubs. amples from approved cross-border projects – could significantly facilitate and accelerate the approvalCurrently, the approval of a national wind farm and its procedures.cable connection is a complex process in most EUMember States, sometimes with different approvalprocedures for the EEZ and the territorial seas zone.92 See Seanergy 2020, Analysis of existing international MSP instruments, p.30.93 More information available on the OffshoreGrid project, http://www.offshoregrid.euSeanergy 2020 49
  • 49. 50 Seanergy 2020
  • 50. Photo: PhotocaseTRANSNATIONAL MSP • Introduction • Demand for space: why is transnational cooperation important? • The benefits of transnational MSP: a case study • The barriers to transnational MSP • Linking national and transnational approachesSeanergy 2020
  • 51. Transnational MSP The third phase of Seanergy 2020 looked at how na- to improved outcomes. This position is found across tional and transnational approaches to MSP should be the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP), the Marine Strat- combined to support the promotion of offshore renew- egy Framework Directive96 and the European Commis- able energy. There are important interdependencies sion’s 2008 Roadmap for MSP97. between national and transnational levels of MSP. National planning decisions can have an impact on Of particular relevance to offshore renewable energy other countries that share the same marine region or is the potential additional efficiency of cross-border sub-region. Likewise, many issues and sea uses tran- coordination along with expanded opportunities for de- scend national borders and must be discussed coop- ployment and/or cost savings that could result from eratively. MSP approaches at the national level need shared infrastructure. Transnational MSP can offer ad- to be compatible with a cross-border perspective, and vantages such as98: vice-versa, to ensure that together they can deliver the best basis for decision making and planning. • More efficient government coordination resulting in improved decision making. Prior cooperation reduc- This chapter is structured around four key questions: es the need for planning revisions due to cross-bor- der consultation later in the process. A cooperative • Why is transnational cooperation important? approach would provide Member States that apply • What is the impact of transnational cooperation on MSP with an opportunity to share expertise. offshore renewable energy? • Reduced transaction costs (for search, legal, admin- • What are the barriers to a transnational approach? istrative, and opportunity costs) for maritime activi- • How can a transnational approach be achieved? ties. For example sharing data and research respon- sibilities could reduce the costs of monitoring and Before looking at these questions in more detail, it is compliance, while harmonising elements of permit- useful to have some background on the broader per- ting processes could reduce administrative burdens ceived benefits of cross-border cooperation and the on project developers. EU’s stance, as well as the current status of transna- tional MSP within the EU. “National marine spatial plans should be trans- lated into international spatial policies in which sea uses and biodiversity protection measures 4.1 Introduction are planned to complement one another on an international, or regional scale” As many maritime activities have a cross-border di- (Douvere and Elher, 2009). mension, an examination of benefits beyond the na- tional perspective is a key aspect of justifying trans- national approaches to MSP. Furthermore, a sea is • Enhanced certainty on exploitation potential result- observed to be a complex and dynamic ecosystem ing in an improved investment climate. Projects close that cuts across administrative borders that are de- to EEZ boundaries can proceed in the knowledge fined in terms of territorial waters or EEZs, as these that developments on the other side of the border are largely political outcomes95. are less likely to affect them. For example, new wind farms could affect a downwind farm’s wind resource, There is widespread agreement across EU policy or legal challenges could arise from cross border ac- documents that cross-border cooperation can lead tivities/uses such as shipping, cables or pipelines. 95 European Commission (2008a): Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU, COM (2008) 791 final. 96 European Commission, 2008, Directive 2008/56/EC establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine envi- ronmental policy known as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. 97 European Commission 2008, Roadmap. 98 Adapted and expanded to a transnational approach from Gold et al. (2011). 52 Seanergy 2020
  • 52. • Improved ability to address nature conservation at cross-border cooperation, the importance of subsidi- an ecosystem level, offering greater certainty on en- arity. An initial online consultation confirmed the per- vironmental impacts and reducing possible resist- ceived need for EU action, but there was no clear indi- ance to development, due to concerns about cu- cation whether a binding or non-binding EU instrument mulative impacts and the precautionary principle. was preferred101. Transnational coordination of, and cooperation on, national MSP plans are arguably key to meaningful The possibility of EU action recognises that national ecosystem level environmental management. MSP legislation is limited in what it can achieve in• Finally, and perhaps most significantly for offshore terms of transnational cooperation. It can only direct renewable energy, improved opportunities to col- decision makers to consider relevant MSP activities in laborate on cross-border infrastructure, such as off- neighbouring states, and possibly to confer the nec- shore grid. This can open up new areas of a sea to essary powers to negotiate across borders. There is development, reduce onshore grid congestion and no supra-national instrument under EU or internation- increase the contribution that offshore renewable al law dealing with MSP in general, or transboundary energy can make to generation. MSP cooperation in particular.Even among countries that are relatively advanced in Although territorial cross-border cooperation has athe implementation of national MSP legislation – such long history within the EU, there are only a few exam-as Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany – there ples of cross-border approaches to MSP. In particu-is generally a lack of transnational perspective. To lar, the Baltic Sea region has been a front runner indate, MSP initiatives have not sufficiently addressed transnational MSP through the HELCOM and VASABthis broader international context, nor have Member Joint Working Group on MSP. By providing a forum forStates put suitable frameworks in place to encourage regular meetings focused on MSP the working group ,future cooperation99. can facilitate discussions on specific transnational is- sues. However, to date, progress has centred aroundAlthough there is strong support for cross-border co- sharing information on national MSP efforts and rele-operation on MSP from the European Commission, vant projects in the region. This is probably due to var-there is little or no firm guidance on how this should ying progress on MSP within the member achieved. Recognising this, the European Commis- Still, such a forum provides a departure point for bi-sion is currently carrying out an impact assessment to lateral or multilateral discussions and helps to makedetermine what further action may be needed100. This regional MSP efforts a government priority.assessment is carried out jointly by DG Environmentand DG MARE with stakeholder involvement. This joint A number of individual projects – largely concentrat-approach addresses the overlap in roles for directo- ed in the Baltic Sea – are also looking at transna-rates on MSP and integrated coastal zone management tional aspects of planning or transnational MSP pilot(ICZM), both of which are included in the assessment. programmes. The most notable of these is BaltSea- Plan102. Its 2030 Spatial Vision for the Baltic Sea Re-Four different options are examined: do nothing (busi- gion is based on three considerations – environmen-ness as usual), the “soft approach” (in the form of tal, socio-cultural and economic – and has a largesupporting actions), adopting non-binding measures, focus on transnational cooperation103. It promotes theor adopting a binding measure. Among the key consid- concept of “connectivity thinking”104 and recogniseserations are: a general need for the Member States that cooperation is necessary on a number of differ-to implement MSP a common framework to enhance , ent levels – methodological, strategic and operational.99 Ehler, C and Douvere, F. 2009, Op. cit.100 European Commission, 2010.101 HELCOM-VASAB, 2011, Minutes of the third meeting of joint HELCOM – VASAB MSP working group, Finland, Helsinki, September 2011.102 Gee and all, 2011, BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030, Op. cit.104 Connectivity thinking means that planners not only think in their own backyard, but focus on connections to other areas or uses.Seanergy 2020 53
  • 53. Transnational MSP Another project, Plan Bothnia105, aims to test MSP Further ambitions to decarbonise the European en- in the Bothnian Sea as a transboundary case study ergy system beyond 2020 will require additional off- between Sweden and Finland. The minimum require- shore renewable growth. All in all, there are develop- ments for transnational MSP cooperation in the Baltic ment plans for more than 140 GW of offshore wind Sea are being studied within the project. The aim of energy projects alone in European seas106. The market the study was to come up with proposals for how to for wave and tidal energy is still at an early develop- improve transnational cooperation on MSP by defining ment stage, with limited capacities installed. However, where MSP requires transnational binding agreement. a wave and tidal capacity of roughly 2 GW by 2020 is Minimum requirements are focussed on: necessary projected. preparation tools, content and scope of transnation- al MSP the institutional framework and supporting , This growth in offshore renewables will not be distrib- measures. uted evenly. The four sea basins have different physi- cal characteristics such as: size, average depth, dis- tances to shore and renewable energy resources. 4.2 Demand for space: why They also host a large variety of human activities, pro- is transnational cooperation viding important socio-economic benefits for Europe- an citizens. Several of these other sea uses are also important? expected to increase considerably. Thus, competition for space at sea will intensify, leading to potential con- Driven by binding national targets under the frame- flicts. It is therefore important to understand the spa- work of the 2009 RES Directive, offshore renewable tial demands of sea uses in the four sea basins and energy is expected to grow significantly in Europe over where MSP will be needed. the next decade. Member States’ National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAPs) indicate a projected off- Table 4.1 provides an overview of some of the key shore renewable energy deployment of 45 GW in the human maritime activities in Europe, their presence, EU by 2020, of which the majority will be wind energy. main characteristics and future growth. TABLE 4.1: OVERVIEW OF SEA USES Sea use Future Characteristics function development Includes offshore wind, wave and tidal technologies. Currently, offshore wind energy is the most Offshore Moderate to advanced and developed technology. All constructed and planned offshore wind farms to date have renewables strong growth been at depths of less than 50 m. Includes movement of vessels for a wide variety of purposes, such as internationally regulated routes (IMO routes) and national/coastal traffic. Safety zones are necessary to provide sufficient Shipping Moderate growth space for emergency manoeuvres and unforeseen anchorage requirements. Forecasts predict growth in shipping, including oil transport, container shipping, ferry traffic and cruise ships in all sea basins. Diverse and wide ranging sea use that operates across EEZ borders. Fishing activities do not have well defined exclusion areas or zones but instead naturally distribute their effort over time in ac- Stable or Fisheries cordance with targeted fish species and abundance of catch. The broad term ‘fisheries’ includes a declining wide range of different fishing gears and vessel sizes corresponding to different fish species being targeted and different preferences on where to fish. Covering a wide range of activities – including submarine manoeuvres, firing ranges, munitions Military areas Stable dumping, aerial exercise and others – military zones are defined by governments in the interest of training and security. 105 106 EWEA, Wind in our Sails, 2011. 54 Seanergy 2020
  • 54. Sea use Future Characteristics function development Cables, e.g. for electricity and telecommunications, and pipelines, e.g. for gas and oil transport, Cables and run across large expanses of the sea floor in European sea basins. Increases in many of these Moderate growth pipelines usages means that more of the sea floor will be allocated for cables and pipelines in the future, which can restrict offshore renewable installations. Fixed installations, most of which are in the Northern sea basins. Exclusion buffers of 5-6 nautical miles generally exist around them to ensure safe and reliable operation. The number of producing Oil and gas Decline through fields in the North Sea is expected to decline. However, the rate of decline is difficult to predict extraction decommissioning due to little information on when individual platform decommissioning will take place. In addition, there is on-going exploration and new drilling sites can be expected. The extraction of sand and gravel is necessary for a number of onshore activities including land Sand Stable to moder- reclamation, beach nourishment and construction. Dredging also occurs in shipping lanes to extraction ate growth ensure free passage. The economics of sand extraction favours sites close to shore. Includes cruise tourism, recreational sailing, near shore activities in combination with beach tour- Coastal Moderate growth ism (camping and rental of summer houses). Tourism appears stable, although some growth is tourism anticipated in different sea basins. This sea use function includes the network of protected areas that are identified in international Nature Likely growth and EU legislation. EU legislation includes the Birds Directive and Habitat Directive (Special conservation Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation respectively and the MSFD). Source: Based on Veum et al., 2011In terms of demand from other non-offshore renew- FIGURE 4.1: SHIPPING ROUTE MAP FOR EUROPEAN SEA BASINSable use functions, three projected developments arehighlighted here.Firstly, shipping is a key user of the sea with longstanding traditions. Growth in this sector – which toa large extent is driven by economic growth as wellas goals to reduce carbon emissions from the trans-port sector by moving transport of goods from road tosea – will imply establishing new routes, expansion ofsafety zones, and upgrading existing routes. For exam-ple, the Maritime Strategy for the Atlantic Ocean areaidentifies the need for further development of multi-modal transport corridors, as part of the EuropeanTransport Network (TEN-T)107.Figure 4.1 illustrates shipping routes close to shore inareas of the European sea basins. The area with thehighest shipping frequency is located in the Southernpart of the North Sea, from South-West England, alongthe coast of the Netherlands and Germany. This is anarea where shipping is also projected to grow signifi-cantly, and where the largest European ports and har-bours are located. Source: ESA, 2009107 European Commission, 2011, Commission seeks views on how to reduce pressures on Europe’s coastal and marine areas, Press releases IP/11/353, Brussels.Seanergy 2020 55
  • 55. Transnational MSP A second sea use set to expand is cables and pipe- Highlights of spatial demand issues and lines. The number of cables and pipelines in place on potential conflicts the sea bed has increased dramatically over the last decade. This trend is expected to continue with new North and Baltic seas: cables to accommodate new electricity generation • The North and Baltic Sea basins are both highly at- from offshore renewable technologies. New cables are tractive for offshore wind development. also expected to accommodate increasing demand for • Offshore renewables, together with the necessary information and communication (ICT) services. grid infrastructure, are projected to grow significant- ly in these sea basins. However, cost and technol- Thirdly, the conservation of biodiversity and preserv- ogy constraints are likely to restrict new farms to ing the maritime ecosystem is a growing “use” of the areas that are already covered by a number of other sea space. With increasing pressure from sea uses, uses such as shipping, fishing, military use and des- protection of maritime ecosystems is becoming in- ignated nature conservation areas. creasingly important. Uncertainty over the effects of • Both sea basins face extensive growth in human ac- fixed large-scale offshore wind farm installations on tivities. Shipping, cables and pipelines, coastal tour- marine ecosystems is a major concern. There is a ism and nature conservation areas are all expected trend towards increased designation and recognition to grow. Increased shipping is being/will be further of the significance of marine protected areas, which facilitated by expansion and upgrading of ports and is strongly supported by the European Commission. harbours in both sea basins. Military areas, sand extraction, oil and gas extraction and fisheries are All in all, the many different users of European seas expected to stay stable or decline. create a complex spatial pattern of activities and val- • North Sea countries have fairly well established ues. In addressing the spatial demands and pres- MSP processes, and several conflicts between off- sures as well as conflicts between users of the sea, shore renewables and other sea uses are currently the question of compatibility is raised. There are many being addressed. The Baltic Sea countries are al- examples of overlapping sea use functions. Therefore, ready taking steps to improve MSP processes in there is not a one-to-one relationship between the size this regard. However, a large expansion of offshore of any particular sea use and the area available for off- wind energy will require more attention through MSP shore renewables. The WINDSPEED project 108 showed to find adequate space. In particular, opportunities that, for Central and Southern North Sea basins, co- will need to be sought for co-existence or multi-use, use opportunities exist for offshore wind energy, ship- such as using the spaces between adjacent wind ping and fisheries, whereas relocation opportunities farms to reduce turbulence and regenerate the wind can be sought for military areas. MSP is valuable in resource, and for other sea use functions like fish- identifying opportunities for compromise, relocation ing or lower frequency shipping lanes. This oppor- and/or co-existence uses. tunity for co-existence becomes more relevant as future offshore wind farms are developed in large clusters. Furthermore, sea uses which are not loca- tion sensitive, or can be relocated or decreased in size without undue impact, should ideally be investi- gated to find space for additional low cost offshore renewables. • The cumulative effect of growing sea use and the strain this puts on the maritime ecosystem also needs to be addressed. The cumulative pressures resulting from uses and how these will evolve in the future is important, in particular for uses that 108 56 Seanergy 2020
  • 56. include large expansion plans, such as offshore ports and shipping, naval defence, renewable ener- wind energy. As many activities are transnational gy, fishing, aquaculture, and mineral extraction. The and can have cross-border impacts, a transnation- Atlantic Coast is an area rich in natural resources al approach, that includes sharing information, de- and resource potential, supporting traditional sec- veloping a common approach towards the manage- tors such as maritime transport, tourism, fishing, ment of certain activities and identifying common aquaculture, seafood processing and sand and resource use and protection objectives, should be gravel extraction. New sectors, such as offshore re- adopted. newable energy, marine biotechnology and deep-sea mining are emerging.Mediterranean Sea: • There have been important developments in MSP• The Mediterranean basin is currently a less attrac- in this region to facilitate growth in electricity gen- tive sea basin for offshore renewable energy devel- eration from offshore wind, wave and tidal, and to opment, largely because it is a deep sea basin with address conflicts with other uses. Designation of few suitable areas close to shore. further zones for offshore renewable energy devel-• The most intensively used areas in the Mediterrane- opment is likely to cause additional friction with an are those situated near the coast. In these, a va- these sea uses. In particular, shipping – which is riety of maritime activities take place, such as aqua- already a significant user – is expected to grow ex- culture, fishing, maritime transport (including ports tensively, leading to new shipping routes, increased and harbours), dredging/sand extraction, and ma- safety zones along certain routes as well as upgrad- rine and coastal tourism (for example recreational ing of existing routes to higher frequencies. boating, bathing, diving). The near-to-coast locations are also the most attractive areas for offshore wind energy development. It is expected that activities re- lating to tourism, aquaculture, shipping, cables and 4.3 The benefits of transna- pipelines, and nature conservation areas will grow tional MSP: a case study in the future. In a few areas, such as the coastal wa- ters of Greece, there are also plans to build new oil One of the objectives of Seanergy 2020 was to evalu- platforms. It is also important to consider archaeo- ate the benefits of cooperation on transnational MSP. logical and heritage sites. A case study was analysed to determine what ben-• Future efforts to increase the share of renewable efits, if any, cross-border cooperation on MSP could energy in total energy consumption could encourage have for offshore wind energy in terms of costs, risks EU Mediterranean states to scale up ambitions for and planning. Although the results are specific to the offshore renewable energy deployment. There are case study, they can illustrate how to coordinate MSP several conflicts that would need to be addressed in other border areas. through MSP processes. One is the social accepta- bility of wind farms in areas of coastal tourism, bear- The case study area was selected based on relevance ing in mind that the Mediterranean Sea is a leading and data availability. The chosen study area extends tourist destination. 30 km on either side of the EEZ border between Ger- many and the Netherlands, and from 22 km to 300Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea: km offshore. The study considered seven constraints• The Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea are relatively attrac- from other activities that were found in the area: a) tive for all three offshore renewable energy technol- cables, b) conservation areas, c) military areas, d) oil ogies – offshore wind, wave and tidal – due to high and gas pipelines, e) oil and gas platforms, f) ship- resource levels. ping lanes and buffers and g) existing and planned• In the Irish Sea there are multiple sea uses includ- wind farms. ing tourism and recreation, oil and gas extraction,Seanergy 2020 57
  • 57. Transnational MSP FIGURE 4.2: CASE STUDY AREA ALONG THE GERMAN/DUTCH Scenario 2 Initial stage of cross-border MSP coop- EEZ BORDER eration: this scenario provides an exam- ple of an initial level of transnational MSP , where some constraints are relaxed to encourage offshore wind farms. This as- sumed cooperation would include some changes to the existing spatial plan. Scenario 3 Progressive MSP cross-border coopera- tion: this scenario assumes far reaching cross-border cooperation on MSP aimed at offshore wind energy, in response to a shifting balance in perceived importance of offshore renewables. It assumes that the spatial plan is re-designed with a pri- ority for designating offshore wind clus- ters, requiring changes to several as- pects of existing MSP. Theoretical maximum: Only existing fixed infrastructure is considered as a constraint to offshore renewables. It illustrates a hypothetical maximum deployment. To distinguish the scenarios, a number of possible co- operation aspects or outcomes were defined. These Source: Ecofys 2012 aspects were assigned to the different scenarios depending on the perceived level of coordination re- The starting point for the case study was the obser- quired for each outcome. These cooperation aspects vation that current usage patterns and MSP plans relate to: constrain the amount of offshore wind energy that can be developed in this region and its proximity to a) mutually agreed changes to shipping lanes (both shore. From here, the benefits of coordination on is- non-IMO and IMO), sues related to MSP were examined using a scenario b) grid connections, approach. Three scenarios were defined, each with a c) large common/shared offshore wind hubs and different level of cooperation in relation to MSP and d) other sea uses. cross-border issues. A theoretical maximum “scenar- io” was also considered in which the optimum deploy- In each scenario, the potential and cost for offshore ment of offshore wind was examined with other sea wind development was evaluated, based on the site- uses largely removed. This was included only to illus- specific conditions throughout the case study area. In trate an upper limit to the study, but was not consid- order to determine the development costs, a bottom- ered as credible. up cost model is used that includes the procurement, fabrication, installation, electrical infrastructure and Scenario 1 Baseline, or business as usual: this repre- operations and maintenance costs at each location sents the current constraints to offshore in the study area. – wind farm development in the national MSPs of Germany and the Netherlands. 58 Seanergy 2020
  • 58. The analysis found that energy costs (the levelised The most important message from this study is thatcost of delivered electricity) could be reduced by en- cross-border cooperation on MSP could deliver realcouraging and making space for wind energy clusters cost reductions for offshore renewable energy andthrough cooperation on integrated spatial plans, as improve the investment environment for developers.well as working together on an offshore grid (Figure While the case study considers one particular region4.3). The study also considered possible benefits for of the North Sea, with certain assumptions about co-risks and planning, which largely relate to certainty on operation outcomes, it hints at the broader benefits ofzoning and harmonised or accelerated permitting pro- a transnational approach.cedures. However, these factors were not quantifiedwithin the project, but would be expected to furtherreduce costs of offshore renewable energy.The integrated planning approach assumed in the sce-narios would also improve the ability to manage en-vironmental priorities. Cumulative and cross-borderenvironmental impacts are more easily assessed andunderstood when planning in a cooperative way.FIGURE 4.3: CUMULATIVE AREA AVAILABLE FOR OFFSHORE WIND DEVELOPMENT VERSUS NORMALISED COST OF ENERGY 150 140 Normalised Cost of Energy (%) 130 120 110 100 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 Cumulative Area Available (km2) Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Maximum Source: Ecofys 2012Seanergy 2020 59
  • 59. Transnational MSP 4.4 The barriers to Within this framework, 13 specific barriers to trans- transnational MSP national MSP were identified (Table 4.2). For a trans- national approach to be embraced by the EU Member With growing demand for space and real benefits avail- States, it needs to deal with most of these barriers. able from a transnational approach to MSP it is im- , portant to understand the obstacles to cooperation Some of these barriers are primarily linked to the co- across borders at sea. Within Seanergy 2020 an in- operation structure, others have to do mainly with the ventory of barriers to coordinated transnational MSP content of MSP itself. Barriers related to power and, to approaches was drawn up. Options to address these a lesser degree, those related to interests, can be ad- barriers were suggested. dressed by setting up an appropriate cooperation struc- ture. The issues related to capacity, but also some of Barriers to transnational MSP stem either from exist- those related to interests, may be addressed by appro- ing disconnects between national and international priate content, and offering support for planning. MSP approaches, or from countries’ possible objec- tions to specific elements of a transnational MSP ap- Identifying these barriers has helped to develop the proach. Building on conclusions of the chapters on recommendations in this chapter on how to promote national and international MSP it was determined that , cooperation on transnational MSP. They act as a there were no fundamental barriers, or disconnects, framework against which different cooperation struc- between national and international MSP approaches. tures and content can be tested, to assess the most The report therefore focused on the elements of pos- appropriate way to increase cross-border coordina- sible transnational MSP approaches that may deter tion and serve the interests of Member States. While participation. not all barriers can be overcome with a particular ap- proach – indeed many can only be mitigated and never The report identified three categories of possible absolutely removed – the recommendations for inter- barriers: vention in EU MSP should address the most important • Power Who gets the ultimate power to de- barriers listed below. cide? Who is involved in the negotiation process? • Interests Are individual (state’s or stakeholder’s) interests best served by participation or non-participation in a cooperative approach? • Capacity Political and functional readiness and abil- ity to participate in negotiation process. TABLE 4. 2: BARRIERS TO A TRANSNATIONAL APPROACH Power Interests Capacity Sovereignty Criteria and weighting Need / urgency Governance level Flexibility Timing Challenge to EU community Benefits Monitoring External states Approach Readiness / data Stakeholder engagement Source: Hekkenberg et al., 2011 60 Seanergy 2020
  • 60. 4.5 Linking national and In addressing this question, recommendations aretransnational approaches provided for each the following topics: • The recommended role for the EU in relation to MSP.Cooperation has become a central tenet of the EU po- • The scale at which action on transnational MSP issition towards MSP. Yet to date, an approach to MSP most appropriate.cooperation has not been formalised in any legislation • A possible structure for an instrument for EU inter-or guidelines. vention in MSP. • The planning horizon that should be adopted.In attempting to address this, WP4 has drawn on the • Key steps in the process of fostering transnationalresults of prior work within Seanergy 2020. Chapter 2 cooperation on MSP.analysed and compared MSP regimes in 17 EU Mem- • Additional content surrounding MSP that could be aber States around the four sea basins. This analysis focus during cross-border coordination.led to a number of conclusions on transnational coop- • The relationship of transnational MSP to other EUeration, including: legislation and initiatives.• The particular set-up of national MSP is context spe- cific. It depends on factors such as how planning has traditionally been addressed within a Member 4.5.1 EU role and intervention State as well as what the needs of MSP and the institutional framework that underpins the MSP ef- What opportunities are there for the EU to encourage forts are. There is no single ‘best’ framework that cooperation on MSP across borders? The European would be most appropriate for all Member States. Commission has stated that “the role of the EU is to promote a common approach among Member States “The only way that a complete mechanism for that takes account of cross-border impacts109.” This supra-national cooperation in terms of MSP can promotion has so far been in a few main forms: be established is at the international level or at • High level guidance on the need for transnational co- the European level” operation, for example within the EU MSP Roadmap, (Payne et al., 2011) • A requirement for some degree of cross-border con- sultation within other legislation such as the SEA• A number of the good practices in national MSP – for Directive, example transparency throughout the process, in- • Endorsing an ecosystem approach to biodiversity volving stakeholders, taking a longer term perspec- preservation, for example within the IMP and MSFD, tive on marine development and conservation – are • Adoption of the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Re- equally applicable at the transnational level, or may gion with accompanying Action Plan that lists a com- even benefit from a more international perspective. mon approach for cross-border cooperation as one• Finally and most importantly, for most countries of its horizontal actions, cross-border cooperation to date has been limited, • Support specific projects related to cross-border often only in the form of relatively late consultation. cooperation, for example BaltSeaPlan and Plan Bothnia,Chapter 3 looked at international MSP instruments and • Support of and participation in a number of othertheir interaction with offshore renewables. Importantly, related transnational working groups and initiativesit concluded that transnational MSP is not something such as the Member State Expert Group on Inte-that is best achieved through truly international ap- grated Maritime Policy, the North Seas Countries’proaches due to large barriers in implementation. In- Offshore Grid Initiative (NSCOGI).stead, EU level action on transnational MSP was con-sidered to be the most viable and effective approach.The key question is, what form this should take?109 European Commission 2008, Roadmap, Op. Cit.Seanergy 2020 61
  • 61. Transnational MSP The potential value of moving beyond these current Chapter 2 highlighted that even in those sea basins approaches was discussed earlier in this chapter. To where MSP is the most well established, the level of do this it is important to first consider what practical cross-border coordination and cooperation between tools, or interventions, are available to the Commis- Member States was low. This suggests that approach- sion. The broad types of intervention that are open to es that are entirely voluntary in nature, with little ac- the Commission range from “suggestive” approaches, tive promotion of a transnational perspective, may be such as guidelines or recommendations, to those with ineffective in promoting cooperation on MSP and off- stricter or binding requirements such as directives. shore renewables. There are also complementary approaches that the EU can take to encourage cooperation. In particular, Three broad approaches, which move beyond guide- the European Commission can facilitate and/or fi- lines, were identified: a) the use of regional sea con- nance different cooperation platforms. ventions, b) MSP working groups, and c) an MSP Directive. These different approaches represent the formal mechanisms that the European Commission could Regional sea conventions use to intervene. However, they don’t describe what The cooperation framework in the Baltic Sea – that role the Commission could or should actually play. It has been promoted by HELCOM and regional minis- is important to understand what specific outcomes ters through a regional strategy and action plan along should be sought in order to accommodate offshore with a working group on MSP – may be an appropri- renewable energy deployment. There are many differ- ate approach to achieving the necessary transnation- ent ways in which the EU can exercise its role and al perspective. This could, in theory, be extended to each way can address differing aspects of MSP. other sea basins using regional sea conventions (for example the Barcelona and Helsinki Conventions) to Where the competence for a particular topic lies – in this encourage cooperation. However, such an approach is case planning – largely dictates the choice of approach open to two important criticisms. and limits its scope. The common theme amongst Member State positions – that EU intervention on MSP Firstly, and most significantly, these conventions were should be non-prescriptive and focussed on cooperation put in place with specific mandates in relation to pro- – is clearly echoed by the European Commission. “Im- tection of the environment. It is unclear how these plementation of MSP is the responsibility of the Mem- institutions would deal with the challenge of balanc- ber States. The subsidiarity principle applies, but action ing the additional perspectives of social and economic at EU level can provide significant added value”110. development. The assumption that cooperating Member States have Secondly, the evidence to date suggests that, al- implemented some form of national MSP is, to a cer- though HELCOM and VASAB have been successful in tain degree, implicit in any EU approach that attempts creating a forum for the discussion and evolution of to foster cooperation. Without national MSP cross-bor- , MSP transnational cooperation has been hampered by , der consultation and coordination is unlikely to add the different stages national MSPs have reached in much value compared to national approaches, as one the countries involved. of the parties involved has little or no framework for providing input. This leads to an initial conclusion, that Working groups any EU intervention should further encourage or re- An alternative approach could use EU MSP working quire Member States to implement national MSP – a groups as a way to enhance cooperation. This has a pre-requisite for transnational coordination – but the history in relation to EIA and SEA, with expert groups form and substance of such MSP should be decided at the EU level111 and at the United National Economic by each Member State. Commission for Europe (UNECE)112. In the short term, 110 Idem. 111 112 62 Seanergy 2020
  • 62. establishment of a MSP expert group within the EU Having said that, the practical constraints of introduc-has already been requested113. However, this approach ing a new directive are recognised. It can be difficultis arguably not well suited to the details of transna- and time consuming for Member States to agree on. Ittional MSP cooperation. In particular, the benefits of is, therefore, important that any directive is designedcross-border cooperation on MSP are only likely to be in such a way as to minimise Member State objec-realised when countries discuss and coordinate spe- tions and expedite the process. These issues are tak-cific areas of common interest that will differ, depend- en into account when framing recommendations ining on the border in question. At the same time, this this report.approach would suffer from the same disadvantageas one based on regional sea conventions; Member Should the concept of a directive on MSP prove to beStates are at different stages of implementing MSP unacceptable to Member States, many of the recom-and a working group would not provide a particularly mendations here could – possibly with some loss ofeffective tool to encourage progress. efficacy – be implemented in the form of guidelines, re- gional conventions or working groups. The overall ob-MSP Directive jectives, in terms of content and outcomes, should notAn MSP Directive, arguably, offers a way to overcome change from those described in the following sections,the stumbling blocks of the other approaches. For but some forms of intervention are more likely thanexample: others to guarantee strong outcomes for cooperation.• Current guidelines have largely failed to introduce • A focus on encouraging cooperation, rather than cross-border cooperation into national MSP pro- prescriptive approaches to national practices, is the cesses. An MSP Directive could require some form most appropriate form of EU intervention. of cooperation or coordination. • National MSP is a pre-condition of successful trans-• Regional sea conventions have a mandate that is national cooperation on marine planning and should focussed on one aspect of planning; good environ- be promoted. mental status. An MSP Directive could take a broad- • The EU should ideally seek to draft an MSP Direc- er scope to also include economic and social devel- tive (or if this cannot be achieved, guidelines or opment. Regional sea conventions would become approaches based on regional sea conventions or an important pillar of these efforts. working groups) that focuses on two aspects:• Entirely non-prescriptive approaches (for example, - requiring Member States to implement national working groups) are limited in their ability to encour- MSP legislation or amend existing legislation to age Member States to adopt and progress nation- cover MSP over an agreed time-frame – the con- al MSP practices. An MSP Directive could set time- tent and form of the MSP should be decided by frames for Member States to implement national each Member State, MSP regimes. - promoting cross-border cooperation and coordina- tion on MSP and maritime development.An MSP Directive focused on encouraging cross-bor- • National MSP should be designed in an integratedder cooperation – supported by national MSP – would way, according to non-restrictive best practices, theoblige Member States to open direct communication, existing Roadmap and new, more detailed, guide-without dictating outcomes. This option gives cross- lines that support a non-prescriptive MSP Directive.border cooperation a firm legal footing, whilst leavingimplementation to the Member States, and comesclosest to satisfying the understanding of planningcompetences in the EU.113 HELCOM-VASAB (2011b): Minutes of the third meeting of joint HELCOM-VASAB MSP working group, Finland, Helsinki, September.Seanergy 2020 63
  • 63. Transnational MSP 4.5.2 Scale and aggregation effectively. Bilateral approaches to cooperation run the The scale for action within any EU intervention is im- risk of being too locally focussed while an EU-wide ap- portant. At the most local level, cooperation can be on proach would not sustain the focus of Member States a bilateral basis (as much of the limited cross-border on regional projects. This is already recognised with consultation on MSP is currently conducted) while at the creation and functioning of the North Seas Coun- the other extreme, cooperation could be considered tries’ Offshore Grid Initiative (NSCOGI). as an EU-wide approach involving all Member States. The definition of ‘region’ used above is not firmly Somewhere in between lies a regional, or sea basin linked to a particular level of regional aggregation. Any approach that has been adopted by the European approach to transnational cooperation on MSP should Commission in implementing the Integrated Maritime be flexible enough to account for varying levels of re- Policy. Likewise, Seanergy 2020 recommends that a gional definition, as required. This has been recog- regional approach for promoting cooperation be imple- nised in the early planning experiences in the Baltic mented within any MSP Directive or guidelines. It rec- Sea by HELCOM – VASAB, where sub-regional and bi- ognises the need to take account of different regional lateral planning is considered when the conditions of realities, including ecological characteristics and the the different sub-basins would recommend it. structure and intensity of maritime activities. • Macro-regional or regional action is the most appro- priate starting point for successfully and usefully A regional approach satisfies a number of important employing transnational MSP practices. aspects. Firstly, it recognises the ecosystem approach • There should be flexibility to allow sub-regional and to maritime environmental management; the fact that bilateral approaches where this would be beneficial. ecosystems do not heed national borders and, as • Where possible, transnational cooperation ap- such, a cross-border approach is necessary to man- proaches should be aligned with those regions and age them most effectively. A regional approach to sub-regions defined in the MSFD. transnational MSP would also “dove-tail” nicely with this existing approach for fisheries management; al- lowing regional fishery restrictions to be discussed 4.5.3 Structure and form of possible alongside regional MSP issues114. new MSP instruments A regional approach also acknowledges many of the As argued earlier, the most effective form of interven- identified barriers to cooperation, in particular: tion by the EU would be an MSP Directive that required • Community challenge: it is easier to make a case to Member States to implement national MSP regimes the European Community for action on MSP on a re- according to their own preferences and encouraged or gional level rather than an overall EU level. mandated cooperation on transnational aspects. How- • Differences in approach: although not guaranteed, ever, this does not address the important question of there is more likely to be some observable degree how such transnational cooperation could or should of regional homogeneity when adopting a regional be promoted within such a mechanism. approach. • Differences in need/urgency: there are better oppor- On this topic, there is limited experience within the tunities and more plans for offshore renewable en- field of MSP. This makes it advisable to look at ap- ergy in some sea basins than others. proaches to cross-border cooperation on other top- ics in the EU. The most obviously applicable is the Finally, and perhaps most importantly for offshore re- Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC115). Within newable energy, it is only on a regional scale that ma- the Water Framework Directive, water management is jor multinational infrastructure projects, such as an based on Member State defined River Basins. Where offshore meshed grid, can be coordinated and planned a river basin includes more than one Member State 114 Gee K., 2007, Op. Cit. 115 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Com- munity action in the field of water policy. 64 Seanergy 2020
  • 64. or crosses from the EU to neighbouring countries, the management of maritime activities in line with ecosys-Water Framework Directive calls for the creation of an tem requirements”, but how this should come aboutinternational river basin district. The primary focus of is not clarified. At present there are very few dedicat-the Water Framework Directive is specific, the achieve- ed forums for discussing transnational MSP issuesment of “good environmental status” in 2020, yet at at the EU or regional level. The most relevant is thethe same time it offers a number of relevant ideas recently convened Vision and Strategies around thefor creating cooperation structures without dictating Baltic (VASAB) initiative that aims to promote coopera-the final approach on national water management to tion on spatial planning and development between theMember States. countries around the Baltic Sea118. The BaltSeaPlan project’s vision for 2030 sees VASAB as a natural pre-In designing an MSP Directive that focused on coop- cursor to an eventual formal body responsible for en-eration, a number of elements in the Water Framework dorsing pan-Baltic MSP. This formal ministerial bodyDirective could be used as a guide. would be complemented by a transnational coordinat- ing body that would work on practical transnationalInternational/regional sea basins issues119.Just as international river basins form the basis fortransnational cooperation within the Water Framework It is important to note that a regional approach doesDirective, then international or regional sea basins not preclude the possibility of bilateral or multilateralcould be defined in relation to MSP in those situa- cooperation occurring in parallel. There will still be in-tions where a sea was shared by a number of Member stances where specific issues will be most appropri-States or countries outside the EU community. These ately addressed by a subset of the Member Statesbasins would provide the regional underpinnings of involved in a particular sea basin.any MSP Directive, or a less prescriptive EU approachwhen a directive could not be agreed. Responsible authorities The Water Framework Directive recognises the valueIt seems logical that any macro-scale defined regions of having a particular national authority responsibleshould be aligned with those given in the Marine Strat- for involvement in each international basin. Some-egy Framework Directive (MSFD), Article 4; namely the thing analogous could be included in any MSP Direc-Baltic Sea, the North-east Atlantic Ocean, the Mediter- tive, to provide a central authority in each Memberranean Sea and the Black Sea. However, a more local- State that can report on MSP for that sea basin. Thisised sub-regional level could be used, given the large ensures that there is coherence in the way in whichranges of the North-East Atlantic and Mediterranean any particular Member State interacts with a definedregions in the MSFD, and the fact that these two mac- sea basin. It also improves the ability of the group ofro-regions cover a number of different OSPAR116 and authorities concerned with that sea basin to cooper-ICES Ecoregions117. This is an advantage of a regional ate with other parties.MSP approach; it is more closely aligned with exist-ing regional conventions, such as OSPAR, HELCOM or Marine Management Plansthe Barcelona Convention. It could allow those region- MSP is one element of an overarching marine manage-al bodies to interact more coherently with all relevant ment plan that also includes permitting requirementsMember States at a common forum directly linked to and monitoring plans. It is anticipated that Memberthe planning processes in each Member State. States will raise MSP zoning and other management issues when meeting to co-ordinate plans for a cer-The idea of a forum is hinted at in the European Com- tain sea basin. There is no requirement to harmonisemission (2009) Roadmap, “work on MSP at EU lev- or agree on an overall management plan in the Waterel provides an appropriate forum for Member States Framework Directive and there should also be no strictto discuss and develop a holistic approach to the requirement to harmonise within any MSP Directive.116 Ecoregions.pdf.118 Gee et all, 2011, Op.cit.Seanergy 2020 65
  • 65. Transnational MSP However, there is significant value in sharing national energy. It is important to have a planning horizon that perspectives at an international sea basin forum. can take these trends into account. To date most na- tional planning activities have been driven by the rapid Using the Water Framework Directive as a template expected growth of offshore renewable energy. In turn, for promoting cooperation and cooperative structures this growth has been driven by the need for Member has a key advantage because this approach is proven States to meet their 2020 targets under the 2009 Re- and more likely to be acceptable for a new directive. newable Energy Directive. The Water Framework Directive was the result of more than five years of discussions and negotiations, so its While a 2020 horizon may identify immediate or short approach to cross-border issues is a useful starting term conflicts, it is unlikely to capture conflicts or in- point. This type of intervention has been demonstrat- teractions that will only become important in the long- ed to be acceptable to all parties and is a compromise er term. In particular, the deployment of offshore re- between mandatory cooperation practices or fully vol- newable energy is likely to increase after 2020, yet untary guidelines. this is typically not captured in government forecasts • Regional sea basins should be defined. and rarely accounted for in national MSP. As offshore • Regional sea basins should ideally be aligned with renewable energy continues to expand, there will be either the top level regions defined in the MSFD, or a greater need to identify potential cross border con- sub-regions agreed by Member States. flicts and possible areas for cooperation/synergy. An • The Commission could arbitrate in assigning region- example is a shared offshore electrical infrastructure, al sea basins where Member States cannot reach such as an offshore meshed grid. agreement. • Regional sea basins should define clear environmen- • Each Member State should identify a central respon- tal, sea research, social and economic objectives. sible authority within each regional sea basin for any • Regional forums should have a long term perspec- MSP Directive. tive in relation to the objectives they seek to attain • Existing regional institutions should be encouraged – for example a 20 year or longer time frame. to engage at the sea basin level with these new forums. 4.5.5 Process 4.5.4 Horizon The coordination process will differ between regions and will be largely defined by the sea basins in ques- A large part of the value of a MSP Directive (or equiva- tion. It is unlikely that such a detailed process could lent guidelines) – promoting cooperation in the man- be successfully described in any MSP Directive or ner described above – is in the creation and agree- MSP guidelines. However, there are a number of im- ment of a regional vision for future marine use. This portant areas where guidance could enhance coop- should take elements from national plans and turn eration and opportunities for offshore renewables. them into clear and, as far as possible, agreed ob- These include the timing of national MSP plans, the jectives for the sea basin or individual borders. The way in which stakeholder consultation is undertaken, time frame is important, as it determines how far in the monitoring of coordinated sea basin plans, the in- advance issues can be anticipated and planned for. tervals between successive meetings/coordination- efforts between Member States and an approach to Significant changes in the intensity and pattern of conflict resolution. many sea uses can be expected across the different sea basins, with a trend towards increasing competi- tion for space in the medium to long term, often in ar- eas that have cost advantage for offshore renewable 66 Seanergy 2020
  • 66. Timing are then brought to central sea basin forums for dis-Enacting MSP legislation and undertaking the plan- cussion, with outcomes being referred back to stake-ning process is at different stages in different Member holders, where significant changes have been made.States. Some countries have completed MSP zoningand are implementing plans, while others are at ear- Monitoringlier stages or have scarcely begun. This can be seen Transnational MSP cooperation does not end once na-not only across regions, but also within them. These tional plans have been discussed and necessary co-differences are a barrier to transnational cooperation. ordination has taken place. It will also be important to agree on reporting metrics and formats for recordingIn particular, differences in the timing of target set- individual Member State progress towards achievingting and offshore renewable energy zoning can act as their individual plans. It is proposed that this is leftbarriers to the development of cross-border electrical to Member States, with each sea basin agreeing ainfrastructure. Transnational grid solutions are difficult set of objectives on which they would like to design in the absence of agreement on future gen- These objectives would show the progress of theireration locations and capacities, as well as the timing MSP plans and results.of deployment at those locations. Thus there is a needfor some level of alignment of timing of national MSP Updatesprocesses. Alternatively, as a minimum requirement, Just as with national MSP transnational approaches ,some flexibility in national MSP plans is needed, to should reflect the fact that planning is a continuousmake meaningful coordination possible. process that will need to adapt to changing condi- tions120. The results of coordination in regional seaStakeholder consultation basins should be able to be updated and revised. ThisThere are two broad approaches to the engagement could depend on a number of factors, including theof stakeholders within transnational MSP. The first in- outcome of monitoring maritime plans and their envi-volves individual stakeholders interacting directly with ronmental effects, and the possibility of regularly de-any transnational forum and giving feedback at the re- fined intervals for repeating the process. This will begional level. The second would see stakeholders en- especially relevant for sectors that may experiencegaging at the national level as currently, with this feed- rapid change, such as offshore renewable energy. Theback taken to regional forums by each Member State. frequency and triggers for updates could either be de-The challenge is to achieve a regional approach for cided by individual sea basins, or included in any EUtransnational coordination, without losing a connec- guidelines or directive.tion to stakeholders. Linking MSP to renewable energy targetsConsultation on a regional level could disadvantage It will be important for the Member States to transpar-those sectors or groups that do not have a strong re- ently demonstrate reliability of their future use visionsgional voice. It could also duplicate efforts, whereby as a basis for transnational planning. This means thatnational MSP is consulted, with this repeated at the national MSP processes need to be aligned with broad-regional level. Finally, such an approach could create er Member State policies and targets. Of particular rel-problems in terms of how to engage with a large num- evance is the need to align MSP zoning practices tober of stakeholders. This could be a barrier to some Member State offshore renewable energy ambitions.forms of cooperation. This is complicated by the medium term nature of re-The second of the two possible approaches may be newable energy target setting in the EU, with Mem-preferable. Consultation on plans at a Member State ber State efforts primarily driven by 2020 objectiveslevel is conducted through national MSP. Preferred vi- in the RES Directive. Given the need for longer termsions for each Member State’s portion of a sea basin MSP visions, there is a need for longer-term renewable120 HELCOM-VASAB, 2011, MSP Principles, Plan Bothnia, Finland, Helsinki, March 2011.Seanergy 2020 67
  • 67. Transnational MSP energy objectives and, in particular, for Member States Grid planning to outline the offshore renewable energy component Having offshore renewable energy plans collated at a of these objectives. central forum offers an excellent opportunity for the • Common MSP procedural timelines and planning discussion of offshore grid development and trans- timeframes should be used by Member States mission capacity expansion. These are issues that where feasible. can only be dealt with adequately in consultation with • Member States should prepare a preferred spatial neighbours. Interconnections between countries (both management plan in the form of predicted growth of onshore and offshore) depend on the capacity expan- different uses, management measures, targets and sion plans of each country. More importantly, invest- zoning maps. ment and operation of common infrastructure, for ex- • National sea basin management plans should then ample in the form of offshore grid, must be shared be coordinated at international borders for the rel- on the basis of the costs and benefits each party will evant sea basin. receive. Finally, the geographic planning of an offshore • There should be a provision for sharing of informa- grid will require reliable information on the location tion, in particular sea basin management plans, and timing of offshore renewables deployments as • Monitoring of objectives should be agreed regionally well as commitment from national authorities and the and build on or be part of assessments carried out market to develop in accordance with those plans. by regional organisations. • The frequency of transnational MSP meetings/ “...each countrys territorial or jurisdictional waters forums and updates of national plans should be are part of a dynamic global system connected by agreed. Triggers for non-regular discussions should shifting winds, seasonal currents and migrating also be agreed. species. Therefore analysing the processes that • National MSP should be aligned with (that is, pro- govern the present state and future behaviour of vide sufficient zones for) national offshore renew- these waters cannot rely exclusively on data col- able energy ambitions in the medium and long term lected within a countrys own jurisdiction. Coopera- (for example NREAPs). tion across borders is needed.” • Longer-term EU RES targets should be implemented (European Commission, 2009) to encourage transnational MSP particularly with re- , gards to offshore renewables and grid infrastructure. Much of this information could be made available • The Commission should arbitrate where cross-bor- through regional sea basin MSP forums that could allow der issues cannot be agreed. parties to agree on a master plan for grid connection in the medium term. These forums could also offer the op- 4.5.6 Content portunity to engage with transmission system operators In addition to coordinating different Member State vi- (TSOs), or even a regional offshore TSO, should such a sions for the future of a sea basin, a regional MSP role be defined in the future in a given sea basin. The forum can address many other topics that relate to North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative (NSCOGI), MSP and the cross-border implications of offshore which joins a number of North Sea countries in collabo- renewable energy. However, it remains important to ration to create an integrated offshore energy grid, takes reduce barriers to cooperative approaches and mini- a similar approach. NSCOGI is not primarily concerned mise any possible impingement on Member State soli- with MSP, but it works as a platform where Member darity. Therefore, it is recommended that the scope of States exchange info on their planning procedures. Inte- this additional content is determined at the regional grating these cooperative efforts on offshore grid into a or sea basin level. Some issues, for example coordi- broader MSP framework and forum could allow a more nated offshore grid planning, are more relevant for one effective approach to planning offshore grids. It could sea than another. also make it easier to address interactions with other sea uses and potential ecosystem impacts. 68 Seanergy 2020
  • 68. Data and research This could improve efficiencies and reduce costs forGiven the history of data collection in the maritime offshore renewable energy project developers, par-zone and the different expertise required, there are ticularly those considering their options in differentoften a large number of institutions responsible for Member States or applying for projects in a numbermarine data collection. of EEZs. It could also help to improve the ease with which cross-border projects (for example offshore grid)There is a need to improve the harmonisation, availa- are considered and approved. Finally there is the op-bility and efficiency of collection of data regionally and portunity for Member States with harmonised proce-ideally between regions as well. In stakeholder consul- dures to share lessons and experience to improvetations, such cooperation was thought to offer signifi- their permitting processes.cant benefits for offshore renewable energy and MSP ,by reducing costs of data collection and improving the Sea use interactionsquality of information on which decisions are based. A Another area of possible coordination is on definitionsregional MSP forum could: of sea use interactions; what activities/uses are al-• Develop clear guidelines on who is responsible for lowed to co-exist or share space with one another and the different data sets that should be collected. under what conditions. Although there is broad con-• Provide guidelines on common data formats and sensus between Member States on how different sea minimum criteria for acceptance for MSP purposes, uses are treated with respect to one another, there are including checks on meeting the INSPIRE Directive a number of instances where Member States take dif- 2007/2/EC. ferent positions. For example, fishing is generally not• Provide a point of interaction on the Marine Knowl- allowed within offshore wind farms in the North Sea, edge 2020 initiative and the European Marine Ob- except in Denmark where certain types of fishing is servation and Data Network121 (EMODNET), permitted. There is an opportunity for regional MSP• Introduce data sharing, including identifying who is forums to agree on common principles for treating cer- responsible for MSP related data sets within each tain sea uses. This does not necessarily set priorities Member State to create a network of contacts, for different sea uses, and zoning would still be up to• Provide better distribution and efficiency of research Member States. But it could provide clarity over what efforts through sharing of current initiatives and co- level of coexistence/co-use/shared-use is possible. operating on future research in terms of equipment, • Regional forums should address all significant sea expertise, data and methodologies. This would uses in a sea basin. make data more comparable and avoid overlapping • Regional forums should discuss options for agree- work122. ing on a common understanding of sea use interactions.Management measures (including permitting) • Regional forums should be used to agree time-Currently, maritime management measures – in par- frames for improving data quality, commonality andticular permitting procedures for various activities in- availability, building on the INSPIRE Directive.cluding offshore renewable energy – are nationally de- • Regional forums should seek to harmonise spa-termined. Member States differ in the authorities or tial management measures including permitting re-departments used for offshore renewable energy per- quirements and regulations.mitting, the number of authorities required, the pro- • Regional forums should share current research ef-cess for obtaining permits and the requirements for forts and seek to agree research priorities and re-applying and monitoring. There are significant oppor- sponsibilities within a sea basin.tunities for Member States to increase coordination ofpermitting procedures.121 Policy Research Corporation, 2011.Seanergy 2020 69
  • 69. Transnational MSP 4.5.7 Interactions with existing EU The interaction of any new efforts on MSP with the Ma- initiatives rine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) also needs to be considered. A number of NGOs have expressed New initiatives to promote cooperation on transnation- the desire to see any binding requirement to apply al MSP will not exist in isolation. They must comple- MSP “enshrined in the MSFD, perhaps as an annex ment current EU legislation and efforts. Of particular to the existing Directive”123. However, the MSFD is de- relevance are the EU initiatives on integrated coast- signed to achieve or maintain a good environmental al zone management (ICZM) and the Marine Strategy status by 2020, with a focus on preserving biodiversi- Framework Directive (MSFD). Both of these have areas ty. Given this underpinning environmental perspective, of overlap with MSP. an MSFD centred approach to MSP may not offer the best balance of economic, social and environmental Coastal zones are the interface between terrestrial considerations. planning and MSP. Their unique characteristics mean that specialised techniques have been developed to Using the MSFD as the main framework for reviewing manage this interface, in particular ICZM, which was planning activities could be a barrier to economic de- the subject of an EU recommendation in 2002. Togeth- velopment and, in particular, offshore renewable en- er the Directorate General for Environment and the Di- ergy. A dedicated instrument and forum for MSP as , rectorate General Maritime Affairs (MARE) launched a proposed in this report, would provide a strong tool for review of the EU ICZM Recommendation in 2010 in- achieving the goals of the MSFD, while balancing this cluding an impact assessment and consultation. The with development objectives. review will be used to explore the need and options for future EU action, including the possibility of combining ICZM with MSP in some way, perhaps through a single instrument. Seanergy 2020 does not take a position on the need for a common instrument or approach to address both ICZM and MSP with regards to offshore , renewables. 123 MSP – Joint NGO position paper 2011, (last ac- cessed: 19/10/2011). 70 Seanergy 2020
  • 70. CONCLUSIONS Photo: Eneco
  • 71. Conclusions As a tool for planning and integrating different uses instruments for MSP and offshore renewables. These of the sea, MSP has strong foundations within current limited opportunities and the difficulties of an interna- legislation, organisations and initiatives. MSP is pro- tional approach provide strong arguments for a trans- moted within the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy, the national approach to MSP. Marine Strategy Framework Directive and the Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region as well as the work of UN- Because many maritime activities and values, includ- ESCO, HELCOM and OSPAR, amongst others. Its value ing offshore renewable energy, have a cross-border di- for offshore renewable energy deployment is clearly mension, a more coordinated transnational approach referenced in the EU’s Roadmap for MSP and princi- to MSP could improve decision making. Of most rel- ples: “MSP can play an important role in mitigation, evance to offshore renewable energy is the potential by promoting the efficient use of maritime space and added efficiency of cross-border coordination, along renewable energy”. Moreover, MSP can enable the de- with expanded opportunities for deployment and/or velopment of offshore renewable energy by reducing cost savings from cooperation on shared infrastruc- the risk for developers and increasing investment op- ture. In particular, transnational approaches to MSP portunities. Where MSP includes the designation of could offer advantages such as; zones for the development of offshore renewables, • More efficient government coordination that results this offers project developers greater certainty of ac- in improved decision making. cess to those sites, increasing the project’s appeal to • Reduced transaction costs (search, legal, ad- investors. A clear MSP process will allow for greater ministrative, and opportunity costs) for maritime transparency in terms of planning and permitting pro- activities. cedures. Moreover, MSP promotes an efficient use of • Enhanced certainty on exploitation potential result- space by potentially allowing offshore renewables pro- ing in an improved investment climate. jects to be developed within a given area through inte- • Improved ability to address nature conservation at grated planning with other users, while respecting the an ecosystem level. ecological, social and economic objectives. • Improved opportunities to collaborate on cross-bor- der infrastructure, such as offshore grid, that can Work carried out by the Seanergy 2020 project shows open new areas of a sea to development. that current national MSP efforts are largely fragment- ed with little emphasis on cross-border consultation or EU level action on MSP is deemed to be an appropri- planning. The particular set-up of national MSP is con- ate way forward. A directive focussed on encouraging text specific. It depends on factors such as how plan- cross-border cooperation supplemented by national ning has traditionally been addressed within a Mem- MSP would require Member States to open direct com- ber State, the needs of MSP for that Member and the munication on the details of their national MSP with- , institutional framework that underpins MSP efforts. out dictating outcomes. There is no single “best” framework that would be most appropriate for all Member States. While there This would give cross-border cooperation a firm legal are different approaches for MSP policy and the le- footing, whilst leaving implementation to the Mem- gal framework, the key to an effective MSP that ena- ber States, and comes closest to satisfying the un- bles offshore renewable development seems to be a derstanding of planning competences that exist within good balance between ecological, social and econom- the EU. It is possible that a similar approach through ic objectives. less binding interventions such as guidelines, working groups or regional sea basins could also achieve the Existing international MSP instruments do not explic- required outcomes. itly consider offshore renewables. Although they do not have a strong influence on offshore renewables, An appropriate framework for promoting cross-border they can have an indirect impact when transposed cooperation on MSP could create an enabling environ- into national legislation. There seem to be limited ment for the deployment of offshore renewables be- opportunities to modify and create new international yond 2020. 72 Seanergy 2020
  • 72. REFERENCES Photo: Alpha Ventus
  • 73. References [1] Agreements establishing regional fisheries management organisations (RFMOs),; [2] Agreement for the Establishment of the General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean,, [3] Barcelona Convention: Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution, [4] Basic Regulation of CFP, [5] Beck, M.W, Z. Ferdaña, J., Kachmar, K. K., Morrison, P Taylor and others. 2009. Best Practices for Ma- ., rine Spatial Planning. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. [6] Bengtsson, R. (2009): An EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region: Good Intentions Meet Complex Chal- lenges, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, European Policy Analysis, Issue 9. [7] Bonn agreement for cooperation in dealing with pollution of the North Sea by oil and other harmful sub- stances (1983),, [8] Convention for the protection of the maritime environment of the North East Atlantic (Paris 1992),; [9] Convention on Biological Diversity, [10] Convention on Environment Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, [11] Convention on the future Multilateral Cooperation in North East Atlantic Fisheries, [12] COM (2008) 768 final: Offshore renewables Wind Energy: Action needed to deliver on the Energy Policy Objectives for 2020 and beyond, 13/11/2008, [13] Common Fisheries Policy, [14] Douvere, F. And Ehler, C. (2009): New perspectives on sea use management: Initial findings from Europe- an experience with marine spatial planning, Journal of Environemental Management, vol. 90, pp. 77-88. [15] Dutch Government (2006): The Netherlands’ contribution to the preparation of a Green Paper on a Euro- pean Maritime Policy, available from: [16] Eckstein, A. (2011): Coastal zones/Spatial planning – To legislate or not to legislate?, Europolitics, June 2011, available from: legislate-artb307250-10.html, last accessed: 19/10/2011. 74 Seanergy 2020
  • 74. [17] Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. (2007): Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International Workshop on Marine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides 48, IOCAM Dossier 4, Paris, UNESCO.[18] Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. (2009): Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach toward ecosystem- based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the Biosphere Pro- gramme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO.[19] EIA Directive,[20] Ekebom, J and others (2008): Towards Marine Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea, BALANCE Technical summary report 4/4, Baltic Sea Region INTERREG IIB project.[21] Enabling Offshore renewables Wind Development, S.Shaw, M.J.Cremers, G.Palmers, 2002.[22] ESA (2009): ESA map reveals European shipping routes like never befoffshore renewables, European Space Agency, available from[23] EU Policy document, Blue Book,[24] EU Policy Document Green Paper,[25] European Commission (2007): An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, COM (2007) 575 final, Brussels.[26] European Commission (2009): Building a European marine knowledge infrastructure: Roadmap for a European Marine Observation and Data Network, Commission staff working document, SEC (2009) 499 final, Brussels.[27] European Commission (2011): Commission seeks views on how to reduce pressure on Europes coast- al and marine areas, Press release IP/11/353, Brussels.[28] European Commission (2003): Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) – Guidance document number 3 Analysis of Pressures and Impacts, Brussels.[29] European Commission (2006): Green Paper – Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A Europe- an vision for the oceans and seas, COM (2006) 275 final, Brussels.[30] European Commission (2008): Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy: Towards best practice in integrated maritime governance and stakeholder consultation, COM (2008) 395 final, Brussels.[31] European Commission, Legal Aspects of Maritime Spatial Planning, Final Report to DG Maritime Affairs Fisheries, October 2008.[32] European Commission (2010): Maritime spatial planning in the EU – Achievements and future develop- ment, COM (2010) 771, Brussels.[33] European Commission (2008): Offshore renewables Wind Energy: Action needed to deliver on the En- ergy Policy Objectives for 2020 and beyond, COM (2008) 768 final, Brussels.Seanergy 2020 75
  • 75. References [34] European Commission (2008): Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: Achieving Common Principles in the EU, COM (2008) 791 final, Brussels. [35] European Parliament and Council (2000): DIRECTIVE 2000/60/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. [36] European Parliament and Council (2008): DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). [37] Fahrenkrug, K. and Rave, T. (2007): Best Practice in Marine Spatial Planning – Description of four Case Studies in Europe and Overseas Final Report, Raum Energie, Hamburg. [38] Gee, K., Kannen, A., Heinrichs, B. (2011): BaltSeaPlan Vision 2030: Towards the sustainable planning of Baltic Sea space, BaltSeaPlan, Hamburg, ISBN: 978-3-86987-250-6. [39] Gee, K., Kannen, A., Licht-Eggert, K., Glaeser, B., Sterr, H. (2006): Integriertes Küstenzonenmanagement (IKZM): Raumordnungsstrategien im Küstenbereich und auf dem Meer [German], Berlin, available from: [40] Gee, K. (2007): Marine Spatial Planning – A theoffshore renewablestical overview, INTERREG IIIB CADSES PlanCoast project, available from [41] Gold, B., Pastoors, M., Babb-Brott, D., Ehler, C., King, M., Maes, F., Mengerink, K., Mueller, M., Pitta E Cuhna, T., Ruckelshaus, M., Sandifer, P and Veum, K. (2011): CALAMAR Expert Paper – Integrated Ma- . rine Policies and Tools Working Group. [42] Government of Greece (2007): Contribution by the Greek Government on the European Commission Green Paper, Ministry of Merchant Marine, available from: [43] Government of Italy (2007): Italian Contribution to the Public Consultation on European Maritime Policy, Ministry of Transport – Department for Navigation and Maritime and Air Transport, available from: [44] Government of Sweden (2007): Commission consultation on a Maritime Policy for the EU, Sweden’s reply, available from: [45] Habitats Directive and the Birds directive, [46] Heinrichs, B. (2011): Necessary common minimum requirements for MSP in the Baltic Sea, Contribution to Plan Bothnia component 5.2.4. Presentation at the third meeting of the Joint HELCOM-VASAB Mari- time Spatial Planning Working Group, Helsinki, September. [47] HELCOM (2010): Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea: HELCOM initial holistic assessment. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings 122:64pp. [48] HELCOM (2007): HELCOM Baltic Sea Action Plan. [49] HELCOM-VASAB (2011): HELCOM-VASAB MSP Principles, Plan Bothnia, Finland, Helsinki, March. [50] HELCOM-VASAB (2011): Minutes of the third meeting of joint HELCOM-VASAB MSP working group, Fin- land, Helsinki, September. 76 Seanergy 2020
  • 76. [51] ICZM Protocol: Protocol on Integrated Coastal Zone Management in the Mediterranean,[52] International Conferences on the protection of the North Sea,[53] International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT),[54] International Maritime Organisation,[55] Maes F. et al. (2005): A Flood of Space – Towards a spatial structure plan for the sustainable manage- ment of the North Sea. Belgian Science Policy.[56] Management Plan (Mediterranean Action Plan-MAP) under the UN Environment Programme,[57] MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING A Step-by-Step Approach toward Ecosystem-based Management – UNESCO, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission.[58] Maritime Boundaries Geodatabase[59] MRAG (2009): Legal aspects of maritime spatial planning – Summary report, Marine Resources Assess- ment Group Ltd., London.[60] MSP – Joint NGO position paper (2011) available from:, last accessed: 19/10/2011.[61] MSPP Consortium (2006): Marine Spatial Planning Pilot – Final Report, available from:[62] North Sea Commission (2011): North Sea Region 2020 – Draft document for consultation approved by the Annual Business Meeting of the NSC on the 21 June 2011, available from:[63] OSPAR (2008): OSPAR Guidance on Environmental Considerations for Offshore renewables Wind Farm Development, OSPAR Convention for the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic, OSPAR Commission, Reference number: 2008-3.[64] Overview of the national spatial planning and control system relevant to the OSPAR Maritime area, 2009, 32p.[65] OSPAR Guidance on Environmental Considerations for Offshore renewables Wind Farm Development, Reference number: 2008-3.[66] Payne, I., Tindall, C., Hodgson, S., Harris, C (2011): Comparison of national Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regimes across EU, Seanergy Task 2.6, First part of Deliverable D2.3 – Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regimes, barriers and obstacles, good practices and national policy recommendations.[67] Protocol on Strategic Environmental Assessment (2003),[68] Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), Nov 2008, 2020 77
  • 77. References [69] Schultz-Zehden, A., Gee, K. and Scibior, K. (2008): Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning, INTERREG III B CADSES PlanCoast Project. [70] Source Atlas géopolitique des espaces maritimes, frontières, énergie, transport, piraterie, pêche et envi- ronnement, Didier Ortolland, Jean_pierre Pirat, 2010, 328p. [71] Spanish Government (2007): Spain’s contribution to the Green Paper of Maritime Policy, available from: [72] The Helsinki Commission, [73] The Marine Strategy Framework Directive, [74] The Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) Directive, al/welcome.html?expandable=8 [75] Trouillet, B., Guineberteau, T., de Cacqueray, M. and Rochette, J. (2011): Planning the sea: The French experience. Contribution to marine spatial planning perspectives, Marine Policy, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 324-334. [76] UK Government (2007): Contribution from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the European Commission Green Paper available from: [77] UK-MSP Working Group, (2005): Added value of marine spatial planning. County Agencies. Interagency MSP Working Group, United Kingdom. [78] UNEPs Regional Seas Programme, [79] UNESCO (2006): Conclusions and Next Steps from the International Workshop on Marine Spatial Plan- ning, Paris, France. [80] UN Fish Stocks Agreement (1995), [81] United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982. convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf [82] Vermeylen, A and others (2011): National Policy Recommendations, Seanergy Task 2.7, Second part of Deliverable D2.3 – Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regimes, barriers and ob- stacles, good practices and national policy recommendations. [83] Vincent, M.A., Atkins, S.M., Lumb, C.M., Golding, N., Lieberknecht, L.M. and Webster, M. (2004): Marine nature conservation and sustainable development – the Irish Sea Pilot. Report to Defra by the Joint Na- ture Conservation Committee, Peterborough. 78 Seanergy 2020
  • 78. Delivering offshore electricity to the EU Seanergy 2020 454-53520-0312-1413www.seanergy2020.euSeanergy 2020 projectSeanergy 2020 is an EU funded project – Intelligent Energy Europe programme – and runs Delivering offshore electricity to the EUfrom May 2010 to June 2012. It is coordinated by the European Wind Energy Association.The project will provide an in-depth analysis of the national and international Maritime Spatial planning of offshoreSpatial Planning (MSP) practices, policy recommendations for developing existing and renewable energies and electricitypotentially new MSP for the development of offshore renewable power generation, and grid infrastructures in anpromote acceptance of the results. integrated EU maritime policy May 2012