Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Delivering offshore electricity to the EU                                                                                 ...
Final project report                  May 2012    Delivering offshore electricity to the EU:spatial planning of offshore r...
AUTHORSEWEA (coordinator), ECN, 3E, SOWExecutive Summary:	ECN: Lachlan Cameron and Karina Veum	EWEA: Dorina Iuga, Jacopo M...
COORDINATOR:PROJECT PARTNERS:                 STIFTUNGSUPPORTED BY:Agreement n.: IEE/09/898/SI2.558294Duration: May 2010 –...
Photo: Elsam               4   Seanergy 2020
Table of contents  Executive summary ........................................................................................
Photo: NASA; http://visibleearth.nasa.govEXECUTIVE SUMMARY                •	 The Seanergy 2020 project                •	 W...
Executive Summary         The Seanergy 2020 project                                           also wave and tidal - are ex...
National MSP approaches                                     International MSP instrumentsThe first phase of the Seanergy 2...
Executive Summary         Transnational approach to MSP                                 a) voluntary guidelines encouragin...
similarly create regional sea basins to serve as a     and offshore grid infrastructure, data formats and  forum for plann...
Photo: Alpha VentusINTRODUCTION                •	 Policy context                •	 Objectives and approach                ...
Introduction          European sea basins host a large variety of activities             This led to a questioning of the ...
The offshore wind projections presented in the mem-                    Sea. It looked at the MSP policies of the different...
Introduction          1.3 	 Maritime Spatial Planning:                                        • EU MSP	          definitio...
Secondly, MSP promotes an efficient use of space by               Moreover, MSP has benefits for other sectors and seapote...
Introduction          Status of MSP                                                       criteria. It describes the speci...
Photo: ESPONATIONAL MSP REGIMES: findings and recommendations    •	 Introduction    •	 Current MSP state of play per sea b...
National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations         This chapter describes the existing MSP regimes, fo-           ...
The above indicators form the basis of the MSP analy-              Policy and legal frameworksis in 17 EU countries with c...
National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations         These issues are addressed in more detail by the               ...
Environmental and socio-economic data                                standardised format, that is then made available to a...
National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations         TABLE 2.2: KEY INTEREST GROUPS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE MSP PROCESS ...
Moreover, the Strategic Environmental Assessment           Voluntary or binding guidelines(SEA) Directive stipulates the n...
National MSP regimes: findings and recommendations         Chapter 4 further explores transnational cooperation       2.2....
The table below summarises the current state of playas regards spatial planning for offshore renewablesand MSP policy fram...
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
SEAENERGY 2020 Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

SEAENERGY 2020 Report

711

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 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
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
711
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
38
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "SEAENERGY 2020 Report"

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 5. Photo: Elsam 4 Seanergy 2020
  6. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 12. Photo: Alpha VentusINTRODUCTION • Policy context • Objectives and approach • Maritime Spatial Planning: definition, scope and status • Report structureSeanergy 2020
  13. 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: http://www.Seanergy2020.eu. 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. 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. 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), www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/msp_faq 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. 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. 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 www.helcom.fi. 16 www.vasab.org. 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. 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. 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. 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, http://Seanergy2020.eu. 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 http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/about/index_en.htm.24 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. 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:// www.windbarriers.eu. 22 Seanergy 2020
  22. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news-and-media/news/2010/mars-wins-association-for-geographicinformation-‘innovation- and-achievement-return-on-investment’-award.Seanergy 2020 27
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×