Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning ... - Seanergy 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis study forms part of the SEANERGY 2020 project which has an overall aim to provide policy, regulatoryand planning conditions recommendations that can reduce barriers to the growth of offshore powergeneration from marine renewable sources.Work package 2 of the project analysed and compared Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regimes in 17 EUMember States around four sea basins: the Baltic Sea – Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland andDenmark–East; the North Sea – Belgium, Denmark–West, Germany, the Netherlands and United-Kingdom–East; the Atlantic coast – France, Ireland, North Spain, Portugal and the United-Kingdom; andthe Mediterranean Sea – Southern France, Southern Spain, Italy and Greece in relation to offshorerenewable energy (O-RE) generation.The project has developed a set of seven criteria to evaluate the different MSP regimes across the 17 EUMember States. These criteria are: 1) policy and legal framework; 2) data and information management; 3)permitting and licensing; 4) consultation 5) sector conflict management; 6) cross-border cooperation; 7)implementation of MSP, Based on these criteria, a series of national reports were commissioned toestablish the current status of MSP within each EU Member States. These reports go into detail on thespecific arrangements within the different countries and provide details on national legalisation, datamanagement, permitting arrangements, consultation mechanisms, methods for managing sector-conflictand cross-border cooperation. They also summarise to what extent MSP is being implemented.These national reports served as basis for a comparative analysis of national MSP regimes according tothe seven criteria. The report produced under Task 2.6. by MRAG, outlines a series of generalcharacteristics of national MSP practices and general recommendations. The full report is available belowunder Part I.Following this comparison, a series of good practices for MSP in relation to offshore renewablesdeployment are highlighted as part of Task 2.7. In addition, a set of policy recommendations to betterdevelop MSP for offshore renewables, is provided for each sea basin, for each of the seven criteria. The fullreport is available under Part II.As an overall conclusion, the particular set-up of MSP seems to always be context specific. However, it isimportant that MSP has a legal basis and ideally a central organisation that coordinates inputs fromdifferent sectors.

PART ITASK 2.6. : Comparison of national Maritime Spatial Planning regimesacross EUDocument Name:Comparison of national Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regimes acrossEUDocument Number: Task 2.6, First part of Deliverable D2.3Authors:Payne, I., Tindall, C., Hodgson, S., Harris, CDate: April 2011WP: 2Task:Task 2.6: Comparison of National MSP regimesDeliverable 2.33 | P a g e

TASK 2.6: TABLE OF CONTENTSTASK 2.6: TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ 41 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 62 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 72.1 Current practice in Policy and Legal Framework for MSP ................................................... 72.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 103 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT................................................................................ 123.1 Why is data and information management important to MSP? ....................................... 123.2 Progress per sea basin ....................................................................................................... 123.3 Best practice in data and information management for MSP .......................................... 143.4 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 174 PERMITTING AND LICENSING .................................................................................................. 194.1 Best practice in terms of permitting and licensing ........................................................... 194.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 275 CONSULTATION ....................................................................................................................... 295.1 Why is consultation important to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)? .............................. 295.2 Progress per sea basin ....................................................................................................... 295.3 Best practice in consultation for MSP ................................................................................ 305.4 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 336 SECTOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................... 356.1 Why is sector conflict management important to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)? .... 356.2 Progress per sea basin ....................................................................................................... 356.3 Best practice in sector conflict management for MSP...................................................... 366.4 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 387 TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION ........................................................................................... 407.1 Current practice in terms of transboundary cooperation ................................................. 407.2 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 418 IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP ..................................................................................................... 43Deliverable 2.34 | P a g e

8.1 Why is implementation important to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)?......................... 438.2 Best practice in implementation of MSP ........................................................................... 438.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 489 FINAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 509.1 Overarching recommendations .......................................................................................... 509.2 Specific recommendations ................................................................................................. 519.3 Consultation ........................................................................................................................ 5210 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 55Deliverable 2.35 | P a g e

1 INTRODUCTIONThis report responds to a specific task (Task 2.6) to compare the different MSP regimes and providenational level recommendations on best-practice in terms of the sub-categories: 1) policy and legalframework; 2) data and information management; 3) permitting and licensing; 4) consultation 5) sectorconflict management; 6) cross-border cooperation; 7) implementation of MSP.The report goes through each of the sub-categories and provides the key findings in terms of how thedifferent sea basins are progressing in terms of MSP.Deliverable 2.36 | P a g e

2 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKThis aim of this section is to examine the current policy and legal framework for MSP in selected EUMember States and to assess the extent to which such a framework supports and promotes MSP andallows for integration across sectors.Initially, it is important to note that the vast majority of activities that take place in the coastal waters of theEU Member States are not unregulated or indeed unplanned. Indeed the contrary is usually true. Thenational reports on progress towards MSP (see Section 9: References) clearly describe a large body oflegislation whereby Member States seek to impose order upon activities within their respective maritimezones.2.1 Current practice in Policy and Legal Framework for MSP2.1.1 MSP LegislationThe starting point, conceptually and in practice, is the national legislation whereby the rights of MemberStates pursuant to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1 (UNCLOS) are defined.More specifically the rights of Member States under international law to claim and assert the maritimezones provided for in UNCLOS (of which the territorial sea, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) andcontinental shelf are most relevant to a discussion of MSP) must first be claimed and translated intonational law through national legislation. Such legislation typically also confers upon the State the right ingeneral terms to allocate parts of the maritime zone for different uses, for example Spain‟s Law (RoyalDecree) 22/1988 (the Ley de Costas or “coasts law”), Sweden‟s Economic Zone Act or Belgium‟s 1999Exclusive Economic Zone Act.Thereafter as described in the national reports different sectoral activities, including offshore renewableenergy (O-RE) are typically regulated by sectoral laws, with their own planning and permitting regimes.Certain items of national legislation may have a so-called „horizontal‟ effect in that they requireconsideration of cross sectoral impacts, in particular national laws that give effect to EU legislation namelythe Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2 and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)Directive 3 . Given that these instruments apply respectively to public sector plans and policies, and toindividual projects in the context of an assessment of environmental impacts, this is still some distanceaway from creating a legal framework for MSP as such.1 United Nations Treaty Series vol 1833, p.3. All of the Member States are party to UNLCOS as is the EU.2 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of theeffects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.3 Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on theenvironment (85/337/EEC) as amended OJ L 216, 3.8.1991, p. 40.Deliverable 2.37 | P a g e

Before going any further in terms of assessing the extent to which existing legal and policy frameworks giveeffect to MSP it is perhaps useful to examine in more detail what is meant by MSP. An immediate problemin this respect is that there is no internationally accepted definition of MSP. Nor, of course, is there aformal EU definition given that there is no EU legislation on MSP.One broadly accepted definition, which has been proposed by UNESCO Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission (IOC) is that MSP is: ‘a process of analysing and allocating parts of three-dimensional marinespaces to specific uses to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that are usually specifiedthrough the political process: the … process usually results in a comprehensive plan or vision for a marineregion. (MSP) is an essential element of sea use management’ (Ehler & Douvere, 2007).Although none of the EU‟s formal Communications on MSP to date have sought to define the concept, abrochure that has recently been produced by the European Commission (European Commission, 2010)contains the following definition:MSP is a process for planning and regulating all human uses of the sea, which also sets out toprotect the marine ecosystems in which these activities take place and safeguard marinebiodiversity. MSP is a process for planning and regulating all human uses of the sea, which alsosets out to protect the marine ecosystems in which these activities take place and safeguardmarine biodiversity.Of course while this too is not legally binding, two clear messages emerge from both of the definitions,namely: (a) that MSP is a process; and (b) moreover one that takes a comprehensive approach to humanactivities at sea.The adoption of policy statements and legislation in support of the development of the O-RE sector clearlyrepresents an important step forward in the development of a robust legal and policy framework for thesector. Examples of such legislation include the Spanish Royal Decree (RD) 1028/2007, a series ofBelgian Royal Decrees 4 including the Decree of 3 February 2011. However such instruments cannot, in4 Royal decree of 7 September 2003 concerning the procedure for licences and the authorization of certain activitiesin the marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction (License Decree), Royal decree of 9 September 2003 concerning therules of an environmental impact assessment (Environmental Impact Decree), Royal Decree of 16 July 2002concerning the mechanisms to promote electricity production from renewable energies sources, Royal Decree of 20December 2000 giving the conditions for granting a domain concession and modified by the Royal Decree of 17 May2004 (MB26/06/2004), as well amended by the Royal Decree of 3 February 2011, Royal Decree 28 September 2008on the location of wind plants as a sine qua non condition to obtain a domain concessionDeliverable 2.38 | P a g e

themselves, fully address MSP because of their single-sector focus. However, they provide benefits of MSPfor the wind energy sector in terms of conferring the necessary legal security for investment and avoidingpotential negative impacts from planning related decisions of other sectors.Nevertheless, in most European countries a comprehensive legal framework for MSP has yet to bedeveloped. The key issue relates to legal certainty: if MSP does not lead to binding results and the contentsof a given plan are not mandatory across different sectors or on the authorities responsible for themanagement of such sectors, then it cannot provide for the legal certainty necessary for investors. This isof course a particular issue for investors in O-RE given the significant capital costs involved.Consequently in its Communication on a Road Map on MSP the European Commission noted that „MSPshould be legally binding if it is to be effective‟ (COM, 2008a). In a more recent Communication describingprogress regarding MSP in the EU (COM, 2010), the European Commission noted that MSP is „crucial forlegal certainty, predictability and transparency‟ and again stressed the importance of MSP having legaleffect.However, as previously noted, the progress in establishing formal legal frameworks for MSP by the MemberStates has been relatively modest to date. Since 2001 the most significant progress has been made byGermany, largely as a result of pressure from the wind energy sector. By reason of its federal constitution,Germany enjoys a split approach to MSP with competence over the EEZ held by the Federal Government,with the Laender being responsible for MSP within the territorial sea.In the UK progress has been made in terms of the development of a legal framework for MSP with theadoption of the comprehensive Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCA 2009). Moreover under the UK‟sdevolved Constitutional settlement, Scotland adopted its own MSP legislation the Scottish Marine PlanningAct in 2010, passed within the overall framework for the MCA 2009. Poland too has now modified its landuseplanning legislation (through the Act on Maritime Areas of Poland and Maritime Administration) to alsoapply to MSP, while in the Netherlands the Water Act provides a legal basis for MSP. Other Member Stateshave yet to develop MSP legislation.In terms of overall approach three basic models can be identifieda) The approach of Germany and Poland has been to extend the basic (land-use) spatial planning regimeout to sea. There are potential benefits and disadvantages to this approach. One disadvantage is thatthere are clear differences between land-use planning and MSP. These include: (a) the fact that MSP mustoperate in three dimensions (the seabed, water column and surface) while land-use planning is concernedprimarily with activities on the surface of the land; (b) the fact that MSP must take account of both fixedstructures (such as oil rigs and wind energy plants) and mobile activities such as fishing and navigationmarine tourism; and (c) the fact that land-use planning is implemented around private land ownership anduse which does not find an obvious equivalent at sea. On the other hand, though, land-use planningDeliverable 2.39 | P a g e

procedures, in terms of for example consultation and mechanisms for the development and the adoptionof spatial plans, will usually be well established. Furthermore the extension of spatial planning to the seacan facilitate a clearer, indeed seamless, planning link between land and sea embracing the all-importantcoastal zone. To this end it is to be noted that the national report on Sweden finds that while the physicalplanning system for coastal and territorial waters is well established – and which is undertaken by therelevant municipalities – it is no longer considered as the most suitable basis for MSP.b) A second alternative is to create, as in the UK, a specific legal framework for MSP within an overall legalframework for marine management. An advantage of this approach is that it can take account of thespecific nature of the sea in general and MSP in particular. On the other hand such an approach in manyways may entail starting from scratch and indeed the UK framework is only partially implemented to date.c) A third approach is suggested by the Netherlands whereby MSP is to be implemented through anamendment not to land-use planning legislation but to the Water Act. An advantage of this approach is thatit may be easier to tie the ecological objectives of EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MFSD) 5 , as wellas the EU Water Framework Directive 6 which applies to near-shore waters, into the MSP process. On theother hand, as with the UK approach, new planning procedures would appear to be called. In practice itappears that the previous procedural experience of preparing a chapter on the North Sea within the DutchNational Spatial Strategy in connection with the current draft National Water Plan (Nationaal Waterplan)will act as an overall policy framework for MSP in the North Sea.2.2 RecommendationsAt this stage it is too early to evaluate which is the best approach. Much will depend on the particularrelationship individual Member States have with their marine areas as well as the particular features oftheir respective land-based spatial planning regimes in terms both of the scope and effect of such plansand the impacts they have on decision makers. A discussion of these variations in terms of land-useplanning is clearly beyond the scope of this report.Nevertheless, on the basis of European experience so far as well as a careful consideration of basic legalprinciples the following basic recommendations can be made in terms of the legal and policy framework forMSP.First of all there is a need for the adoption of comprehensive primary legislation, in the form of anact or a law, for MSP. It is difficult to see how an appropriate legal framework for MSP couldordinarily be adopted on the basis of subordinate legislation, given that to be effective it will need5 Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework forCommunity action in the field of marine environmental policy OJ L 164 25.6.2008. p 19.6 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a frameworkfor Community action in the field of water policy OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.Deliverable 2.310 | P a g e

to guide and indeed regulate the implementation of other items of primary legislation that relate todifferent sectoral activities (e.g. a navigation act or renewables law).Second, such legislation should be comprehensive in the sense not only that it clearly sets out thebasic procedures for MSP (in terms of consultation, the planning process, enforcement, disputeresolution etc) but also because it brings all activities that use maritime space within a definedarea (within the territorial sea and/or the EEZ and/or on the continental shelf) within its purview.Thirdly the legal framework for MSP will need to be completed through the adoption of subordinatelegislation and guidance notes as appropriate. It goes without saying that adequate resources willneed to be made available in order to ensure effective implementation.Deliverable 2.311 | P a g e

3 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT3.1 Why is data and information management important to MSP?Data and information management is important for MSP, not only in order to create spatial plans but alsofor governments to assess development plans and for renewable developers to provide the evidence to beable to better select sites. The ability of MSP to make the best use of the maritime space, avoid conflictsand protect natural resources depends on the availability and, moreover, quality of data and informationon which it is based.An up-to-date overview of environmental, socio-economic and geo-technical aspects provides a basis todetermine development opportunities, assess impacts of a potential development and also to compare itwith current or future planned spatial uses and likely conflicts. It is also often important to understand howdifferent spatial uses interact; one example in this sense is how fisheries nursery grounds are unlikely tobe compatible with sand extraction, whereas mariculture may be compatible with offshore wind farms.One of the key findings of the EU Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project (Baltcoast) was that thesuccess of conflict resolution depends on the quality of information available (Baltcoast, 2005), andconcludes that for data to be useful it must be: up-to-date, objective, reliable, relevant and comparable.3.2 Progress per sea basinIt is immediately apparent that the North Sea countries have proceeded well in terms of data andinformation management for MSP purposes. Germany and Belgium both have fairly comprehensivedatasets for both the territorial sea and EEZ that are integrated into layered Geographic Informationsystems (GIS). In Belgium this is one GIS system covering marine environmental data 7 , while in Germanythere are two: a GeoSeaPortal offering access to environmental data and a system known as CONTISproviding data on different uses of the sea 8 . Both countries also make this data freely available and muchof it is accessible through the internet. Belgium has the added advantage of having one centralisedinstitution that coordinate data collection and synthesis. Data sets in the Netherlands are also fairlycomprehensive and available in GIS format but are not yet integrated into a centralised GIS system.Instead different institutions are delegated „owners‟ of different data sets thereby preventing overlap.There are however plans to improve data sharing and this has been started with meta-informationcomplied by the National Oceanographic Data Committee (NODC). In the UK (bordering both the North Sea7 This data is centralised at MUUM (Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models), which is a departmentof the Royal Belgian Institute of the Natural Sciences.8 BSH developed the GeoSeaPortal which offers a central access to basic and specific geological data about the seaand its coasts, available at http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresdaten/Geodaten/index.jsp; CONTIS is a database providedby the BSH which focuses on the German Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone, available athttp://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Industry/CONTIS_maps/index.jspDeliverable 2.312 | P a g e

and the Atlantic Sea) there is an integrated GIS system that has been complied by The Crown Estate andavailable to wind farm developers but this is not publically available. Progress in Denmark is moremeasured as although there are significant efforts through the National Survey and Cadastre (including itsresponsibility by law to implement the INSPIRE Directive) there are still a number of different maritime datasets that have not yet been integrated into a single GIS system.By comparison countries bordering the Baltic Sea appear to have made less progress in relation to dataand information management, with the exception of Lithuania where there are current effort to integratedifferent data sets into a single GIS system, although this is being coordinated at an EU level through theBaltSeaPlan rather than at the national level. Other Baltic Sea countries are characterized by theavailability of some information but with gaps and also by a lack of coordination or integration into a singleGIS system. For example, although there are a number of different data sets in Finland the quality of thedata for MSP uses has been questioned (Iuga, 2010); data and information in Poland was described as„rather patchy‟ (Blažauskas & Suzdalevand, 2011); and in Estonia there is a lack of data coverage withinthe EEZ. There are no integrated GIS systems for these countries or for Latvia or Sweden. In constrats,there are current efforts in Lithuania to integrate different datasets into a single GIS system through aninitiative coordinated at the EU level, through the BaltSeaPlan Project 9 .Progress in countries bordering the Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea is mixed. Both UK and Portugal have madesignificant progress with integrated systems, while data and information management in other countries(Spain, Ireland, France) appears to be more sectoral with more limited integration. Although data is notfully comprehensive in Portugal there are efforts underway to extend the data coverage and integrate datainto a single GIS system and much of the data is publically available within a WebGIS interface. In the UKthere is extensive environmental data and some socio-economic data integrated into a single GIS systemknown as the Marine Resource System (MaRS), although as mentioned above this data is run by the CrownEstate, and the main problem seems to be the lack of access to this data. Both France and Spain haveextensive datasets but these are not always available in GIS although there have been significantimprovements in France recently in this respect. Ireland‟s data sets also appear to be sectoral and lackingin socio-economic data.The Mediterranean region has made some progress in terms of data and information management. Spainand France have been mentioned above and both collect a range of data although not all of this isavailable in GIS format. In Greece and Italy relevant data is also collected but is collected by a range ofdifferent institutions and in different formats making it difficult to integrate and use for maritime planningpurposes. However, there has been an effort in Greece recently by the Centre for Energy Resources andSaving (CRES) to collect all relevant data for MSP and this should improve further with the establishment ofan independent authority for O-RE.9 For more information, please check the BaltSeaProject initiatives at http://www.baltseaplan.eu/Deliverable 2.313 | P a g e

3.3 Best practice in data and information management for MSPThis summary of best practice in data and information management focuses on the following areas:Availability; Geographic Coverage and Mechanisms for Collection & Dissemination: i)Coordination/Integration; ii) Data format & accessibility; & iii) Ongoing data collection and monitoring.3.3.1 AvailabilityIn terms of data availability there are three key data categories that are needed for MSP (Wagner, 2010).Access to spatial socio-economic data is an essential tool to determine the current use of the maritimespace (e.g. for shipping, pipelines, mariculture, fishing) and potential areas of conflict. This needs to formthe basis of any planning activity or assessments of new developments. Geo-technical data provides dataand information on what resources, e.g. wind speeds and consistency, provide opportunities for new O-REdevelopments. Environmental data enables planners to assess the current state of natural resources, whatareas may need protection and the likely impacts of sector activities.A comparison of all the data and information types collected and disseminated by the different memberstates leads to a list of categories that would ideally be included in a data and information managementsystem (see Table 1). In many countries environmental data is more comprehensive than socio-economicdata, and while this is very important to determine possible environmental impacts long-term maritimeplanning also needs to have a good picture of all the current and possible future activities and uses of themaritime space. For example, as part of the process of developing a maritime spatial plan in Germany anumber of different GIS maps were created to take stock of the currently uses of the German EEZ in theNorth Sea and Baltic Sea. These have been regularly updated (2002, 2004 and 2007) and used as a basisto develop the spatial plan (Plancoast, 2008).Key data types required for MSPAreaKey categoriesBiological/EcologicaldataHabitat mapping/biotopesMarine Protected AreasSea pollution/water qualitySpecies distributions at similar spatial and temporal scales (sea birds,fish, marine mammals, reptiles & benthic species). Listed and threatenedspecies highlighted.Seasonal water column characteristicsMarine substrates/seabed mappingEnvironmental Impact studies (from previous developments)Socio-economic data Present and future uses of marine environment Shipping routes and intensity of use Location of underwater cables & pipelines Sector activities (oil & gas; aggregates, dredging, disposal, tourism,aquaculture, military, large & small-scale fishing) Archaeological data Coastal infrastructure and other built environment including wrecksGeotechnical data Geological mapping (1:50 000)Deliverable 2.314 | P a g e

BathymetryMeteorological conditions including wind speedSalinityTide stress & currentsWind speed dataClimatic scenarios3.3.2 Geographical coverageIt is important for datasets to cover both the territorial waters (generally up to 12nm) and the EEZ. Oftendatasets are more developed within territorial waters and less so in the EEZ, with some countries having nocoverage of the EEZ and others only partial coverage for some data types. However some countries, suchas those in the Mediterranean, do not have any EEZs clearly explaining the reasons for absence of data forthese zones. There is also the difficulty that there may be different institutions responsible for data in thecoastal zone, within territorial seas and the EEZ.3.3.3 Mechanisms for collection & disseminationCoordinationProbably the most important element of data and information management for MSP is the coordinationand integration of data. A large range of data types can be available but if these are managed by a range ofdifferent institutions, and in different formats with limited ability to integrate them on a spatial platform(such as GIS) it severely limits its application to maritime planning purposes.Given the history of data collection in the maritime zone and the different expertise required (i.e. rangingfrom oceanographic research to specific species monitoring and socio-economic data collection) there areoften a large number of institutions responsible for all marine data collection. In this case, it is importantto have clear guidelines on who is responsible for the different data sets that should be collected, andguidelines on data formats and sharing. For example, in the Netherlands there are a number of differentinstitutions involved in data collection and in order to avoid duplication of effort institutions have beendesignated „owners‟ of certain data and others update their data from them. In addition the NationalOceanographic Data Committee (NODC) provides meta-information on datasets and collecting activities.Even where there are a number of sources of information it is still possible and important for the data to bemanaged and integrated into a centralized GIS system. Belgium has achieved this by centralising datarequired for MSP at the Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM).The management of data for planning purposes is often far more advanced for terrestrial rather than MSP.For instance in Germany the flow of data required for terrestrial spatial planning system has been legallyformalised through a „cadastre‟. All relevant authorities and companies are obliged by law to providecertain data to a coordinating unit at regular intervals e.g. every six months. The law specifies the format ofDeliverable 2.315 | P a g e

the required data. Once the „cadastre‟ has been updated it is made accessible to all participating partiesand public institutions.The INSPIRE directive (2007/2/EC) represents a driver in a number of countries to harmonise spatial datacollection and dissemination, although significant progress on making a data system operational andpublically accessible is not required until 2019. The directive requires each Member State to develop anational web-based application to distribute spatial data sets specified by the Directive, among othersrelevant to the marine zone: oceanographic geographical features, sea regions, habitats and biotopes,species distribution, energy resources, mineral resources, population distribution, aquaculture facilitiesand area management.Data format and accessibilityIt is generally agreed that the best format for maritime spatial data is a layered GIS system that ispublically available and at minimal cost. Significant data sets that are well coordinated and integrated areof no use until they are available in a suitable format to the right stakeholders for planning purposes.A number of countries have made use of web-based interactive maps, for instance both Germany andPortugal use a WebGIS system (Figure 1). Portugal made this available to stakeholders involved in theMarine Spatial Planning process and Germany has made the portal publically available and barrier free. Incontrast in a number of countries certain data are often only available to commercial partners or at a highcost. For example a comprehensive GIS system that has been built with a wide range of publically availabledata sets is only currently available to commercial partners of the Crown Estate.Figure 1. Portugal’s WebGIS interfaceDeliverable 2.316 | P a g e

Ongoing data collection and monitoringAs indicated earlier, data is only useful and relevant if it is up-to-date. This requires coordination of regulardata collection that is fed back into an integrated system useful for MSP. In terms of socio-economic dataand current use of the maritime space, it is also important to understand potential future uses to assistplanning and reduce potential conflicts.3.4 RecommendationsBased on the criteria designed for assessing MSP progress and experiences of the different memberstates, it is possible to define characteristics of best practice in terms of data and informationmanagement.Characteristics of best practice in Data and Information Management:Comprehensive ecological, socio-economic and geo-technical data is available throughout theterritorial sea and EEZData collection is coordinated by an overarching strategy to avoid duplication of effort and toensure that formats are compatible. Different institutions are designated „owners‟ of certain datatypes. This will need to take into account the range of different institutions that are likely to beresponsible both for different data types but also for different scales e.g. the coastal zone, riverestuaries, territorial sea and EEZ.There is a central institution that coordinates data collection and integration into a GIS formatuseful for planningInstitutions that act as „owners‟ for certain data types are required by law to regularly update data(at specified intervals) and report this to the central coordination institution.Data are publically available in a GIS formatData are effectively used within the MSP process both in developing maritime spatial plans andassessing the merits of potential developmentsIn order to achieve this ideal throughout the member states there are a number of steps that can be taken:Capitalise on the INSPIRE directive to improve the collection and dissemination of maritime spatialdata, but ensure efforts are in addition to current spatial maritime data and not parallel to these;Continue to use EU regional projects to push for progress in MSP and particularly data andinformation management, but ensure that coordination efforts are mainstreamed into nationalpolicy and legislation. EU Regional projects addressing Integrated Coastal Zone Management(ICZM) or Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning (IMSP) appear to provide a coordination role fordata and information management in a number of countries. Such a role either needs to continueat the regional level or effectively mainstreamed at the national level.Deliverable 2.317 | P a g e

Encourage the use of legislation to make one centralised institution responsible for collating alldata relevant for MSP with other institutions legally bound to provide regularly updated data.Deliverable 2.318 | P a g e

4 PERMITTING AND LICENSINGPermitting and licensing play key a role in Renewable Energy planning and implementation. In the contextof Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), permits or licences are the means whereby the overall objectives ofMSP are translated into the rights and duties of individual project participants.4.1 Best practice in terms of permitting and licensing4.1.1 Guiding PrinciplesMany actions in the planning and implementation stages of Offshore Renewable Energy Projects (O-RE)projects are subject to permits and licensing and the main question is the extent to which the issue ofpermits is coordinated between different sectors e.g. maritime planning or electricity supply, the sectoralagencies, and between the overall objectives, in other words how streamlined and transparent is theprocess. The administrative procedures and the number and duration of permits have also beenaddressed by the WindBarriers project 10 which allows a complementary view to be taken. Furthermore, theprocess of applying for, determining and issuing permits has a cost both to the state and to individualapplicants. The extent to which permitting procedures are transparent and simple therefore gives anindication as to their relative ease of use, indirectly to the cost to applicants and e- the overall coherence ofthe spatial planning system.The legal framework for issue of licences or permits should be clear and efficient, but most importantly theinstitutional set-up (jurisdiction and cooperation/coordination) should be designed in a way that allows fora final decision that covers all aspects of a permit in a comprehensive, coherent, consistent andcost/effective manner.The implication of this is that the relationship between all authorities (on different levels, local, regional ornational, or sectors) involved in licensing should be well-coordinated, and the division of competencies andbetween the authorities should be clear. This is important since the underlying idea is that the overall setupshould allow for all relevant aspects/impacts of the licensing decision to be dealt with in an integratedand comprehensive manner. The evaluation reflects growing degrees of clarity of jurisdictions and theability of the system to provide for an integrated and comprehensive decision.10 The major objective of the IEE funded project, WindBarriers project (01 December 2008 – 30 November 2010) wasto obtain quantifiable data on barriers to administrative and grid access affecting the deployment of the wind energydevelopment in the EU countries. This project constituted the first attempt to systematically collect and quantifyadministrative and grid access data at EU level.Deliverable 2.319 | P a g e

As the effectiveness and efficiency of coordination generally grows with a decreasing number of actorsinvolved, it seems intuitive that there would be more efficiency if fewer agencies are involved although itremains necessary to bear in mind that this may not always be the case. A more segmented system, butwith strong links or communication, may also produce integrated and speedy decisions. These are the sortof considerations to be borne in mind when developing generalised good practice in this area derived fromthe experience of Member States according to the present study.4.1.2 Permitting for Wind Power in EEZsAssessment of current practiceA great variety of permits and licenses are required by Member States across the Community with amultiplicity of names and definitions. The commonest groups, however, involve those for construction,those for connection to the grid, those for use of the EEZ or a lease of area and those of an environmentalnature often linked to an environmental impact assessments (EIAs), although it would probably be true tosay that no two have the same. Therefore some harmonisation of permits by type or, since statelegislations vary, at least by objective, would help produce a more coherent strategy in the EU.A particular case in point is the EIAs. As an artificial island under Article 60 of the United Nation Conventionon the Law of the Sea (LOSC 1982), a wind power structure may be prohibited if it threatens a rare orfragile ecosystem or causes interference with recognised shipping lanes. Thus there are specificresponsibilities incumbent upon a state when it is considering licensing an operation. More specifically,within the EU, particular attention must be paid to projects which may impact Special Areas ofConservation (SAC) under the Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) or the Special Protection Areas (SPAs) underthe Birds Directive (79/409/EEC). States may have their own polices on protected conservation areas andthere are also a number of international obligations in association with ratification of internationalagreements and conventions.With these considerations it is clear that a major source of interaction with Offshore Renewable (O-RE)projects will be with the ecosystem and conservation sectors and that consequently an EIA as aprerequisite for licensing should be a must for best practice.A further consideration is the content of those EIAs that are required. Taking the typical areas of impactsuch as basic information on spatial and temporal variability for benthos, benthic habitats, fish, mammals(e.g. harbour porpoise) as well as resident migratory or feeding birds, to which landscape might be added,OSPAR has made recommendations on the minimum criteria that should be in an EIA to be acceptable forlicensing 11 . Some harmonisation of EIAs particularly, both with respect to request and content, would be a11 OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the NE Atlantic: guidance on environmentalconsiderations for offshore windfarm development. OSPAR Agreement 2008-3.Deliverable 2.320 | P a g e

contribution to best practice in line with the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 12 and theEnvironmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 13,14 . Some wider assessment of the extent to which otherinteractions are being taken into account in the planning might also be added as a further condition of thelicensing process in support of MSP generally.There are some further anomalies in the permit process, particularly in the Mediterranean Basin.Mediterranean countries such as Italy and Greece for example record data on permits within the EEZ asnot available in the national reports. The clear reason is that these countries, like all others in theMediterranean, have yet to claim an EEZ and have only their 12nm Territorial Seas. As has been madeclear (MRAG 2008) coastal states have virtually no rights to MSP in the waters of the High Seas, so muchof the Mediterranean is not currently subject to it. Since the Mediterranean is a relatively deep basin anywind power installations currently tend to be in the relatively shallow areas within the Territorial Seas.However, there is already one project which tests this. There is a current proposal to the Government ofItaly from the 4Wind project to build wind farms on shallow banks on the underwater limestone ridgebetween Sicily and Tunisia that separates east and western basins (Figure 2) 15 .Figure 2. Proposals for 4Winds project showing 12nm Territorial Sea and potential EEZ limit for ItalyIn this case the wind farms are to be built outside the existing jurisdiction of Italy and also the EU since theEEZ has yet to be claimed. However, under Article 77.3 of the LOSC the coastal state has the use of the12 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of theeffects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.13 Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of theeffects of certain plans and programmes on the environment. OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.14 Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on theenvironment (85/337/EEC) as amended OJ L 216, 3.8.1991, p. 40.15 http://www.4wind.it/Deliverable 2.321 | P a g e

seabed without an EEZ claim being made, so Italy can authorise it; but under what rules of planningpermission and permitting since Italy currently doesn‟t have these as the national report underlines it?Furthermore, the cables pass through the Territorial Seas and can conflict with well established fishinginterests although these, in part, should be subject to permits. What this shows is properly establishedmaritime zones are a prerequisite for best practice in offshore renewable energy and without them MSPitself becomes virtually impossible where it is most needed hence the significance of the underlying legalbasis.There are a number of other areas in the Mediterranean where similar situations could arise and, indeedFrance has a legal basis to introduce temporary concessions in emergencies, outside of the Gulf of Lions. Afew Mediterranean countries have such legislation in place but none have fully claimed an EEZ. France hasmade moves to claim a limited EEZ 16 and may be the first to do this in 2011 (interviews in DG MAREongoing project MARE/2010/05).In those counties that do have EEZs, namely those of the Atlantic and Baltic basins, the number ofdocuments or permits required for an offshore wind farm project can vary from two to five where clearly,according to the above guidelines, the lower the number the better with regard to probable effectivenessand efficiency of the process and of the countries surveyed five required only two, including theNetherlands, England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, so this is achievable. These tended to include someform of construction permit, some environmental protection and impact assessment, as well as a licenseto connect to the grid although a concession or domain allowance may also be needed. In some cases,even though a number of permits may be required there may only be one point of application which hasbeen called a „one-stop shop‟ (MRAG 2008).Thus, efficiency is not just a question of the number of documents or permits that are required but also thenumber of agencies they need to be obtained from. For example in Spain, five permits are required but allfrom the same agency. This situation of having only to deal with one point of application could be taken asindicating that coordination is less of a problem, and this one-stop shop referred to above has been foundin several countries such as Netherlands and Scotland. Germany has only one relevant state authority butthere is also the need to go through the regional authorities of the Landers largely in connection with thecabling. The WindBarriers project found that the lowest number of authorities involved were in Denmark,Netherlands, Belgium and Spain as well as Germany, a similar conclusion to the present assessment.With some countries employing up to four institutions to provide permits and licenses, co-ordinationbetween them and the institutions and the applicants is clearly important. Most however have yet to put ina proper co-ordination process, with the exception of Denmark through the Danish Energy Agency, and16 http://www.france24.com/en/20090824-france-exclusive-economic-zone-eez-mediterranean-fishing-environmentprotectionDeliverable 2.322 | P a g e

Spain according to the national reports. There may also be the need for regional co-ordination particularlyin Germany, whilst in Sweden co-ordination is largely regional through four regional authorities. Clearly,however, a wider commitment to co-ordination across the Community is to be encouraged.Conclusions on best practiceThere is therefore no single best practice in dealing with licensing and the steps it takes. The principleobjectives are to streamline the system to provide a license process that gives assurances thatinteractions between the wind power sector and other users of the sea have been duly taken into account,in accordance with the principles of MSP, whilst keeping down the administrative costs.In terms of this streamlining it is probably significant that by and large those countries with the greaterreported installed capacity or with the highest targets for planned installations tended to have the moststreamlined process. The UK has the highest reported installed capacity at 1,341MW with targets for afurther 12,900MW by 2020 whilst, followed by Denmark with 853MW installed capacity. Germany and theNetherlands have the second highest targets of 10,000MW and 6,000MW respectively with significantexisting installed capacity. The WINDBARRIERS project showed that in terms of the number of direct andindirect contacts necessary to gain full approval Denmark required 5.15, Netherlands 6.27 and UK 15.2,all of which are well below the overall average for all Member States for Offshore wind projects of 22.8.Thus, whilst there may be no single set of best practices to achieve the streamlined co-ordination processwhat this does show is the importance of a committed policy to the sector and to maritime planning inachieving the objective of an efficient process. Consequently the spring board of best practice is a soundand proactive policy towards Offshore Renewables.It seems that one of the key driving factors for the introduction of more integrated, comprehensivemaritime spatial systems is the extent of competing economic demands from different sectors on thespace and an interest to develop economic activities in marine areas. Without making invidiouscomparisons since each state has its own priorities, in Germany there has been a particular policycommitment to increasing exploitation of offshore wind energy, which exposed a range of potential spatialconflicts that needed addressing; whilst in France up until recently, despite having jurisdiction on one ofthe largest maritime zones in the world, development of economic maritime activities has not been apriority of the French Government, which has focused primarily on rural areas (agriculture, industry).Similarly for Poland, there are few activities in the Baltic Sea (limited to fishing, shipping as well as some oiland gas extraction), and therefore there has been less of a need for MSP. In France, the situation hasrecently changed somewhat, in as much as tenders have now been launched and maritime areas openedfor offshore wind parks.A further overall indicator of the efficiency and effectiveness is the total duration of the permitting processsince co-ordination must be a factor here. The duration of the permit process can be as little as 10 weeksin Sweden or 6 months to a year in Belgium and just over a year in the Netherlands although it can be upto four years in some of the UK administrations. Related to this is the period of validity once permits haveDeliverable 2.323 | P a g e

een granted. A similar indicator was used in the WindBarriers project where it was found that the averagebuilding consent time was 18.5 months for offshore wind projects a not dissimilar period to those foundhere and, again no country was able to conduct this operation in a markedly shorter time. A possibleexception could be Sweden as mentioned above although this is dependent upon the building permit beingaccepted first time around.The national reports offer little on the relative direct costs of permits but this is unlikely to be a significantfeature since these direct costs will be tiny in relation to the costs of the project and even compared to theindirect and administrative costs of going through the permit process itself.A further indicator of the efficiency of the process is the clarity of information provided by the authorities tothe users and applicants. This was found to be clear, often using a standardised process, in seven MemberStates notably Denmark, Germany, Spain, Sweden, England, Wales and Scotland. Until recently thelegislation in France had been regarded as being unclear but in 2009 the process was greatly simplified. Aplanning exercise and consultation launched in early 2009 and completed in September 2010 identifiedan initial ten areas for the development of offshore wind farms. These offshore wind developments will begoing through a two-round tender procedure and this procedure will reduce uncertainties and consentingcomplexity for offshore wind farms.A linked factor to the time taken for the permitting process is the length of time the permits, once obtained,are valid for. In a number of countries including the Netherlands, Spain and Germany this can be aroundtwo years or up to five years in the case of Poland although in some cases approvals may be extended.There may be some conditionalities on validities, for example in Belgium the domain concession is notvalid until the EIA and sea cable permits are approved. Such conditionalities may ultimately be a majorfactor in arriving at a best practice for permitting, particularly in respect of EIAs, since it ensures a joinedup approach to MSP as discussed above.Indeed, one particular condition which would contribute to best practice is that the permit can only begranted on the undertaking to dismantle the structures when the project comes to the end of its life incompliance with Article 60. A further condition upon providing a permit should be the presence of adetailed and practicable emergency plan that contains actions for a rapid and adequate response tominimise impacts in case of breakdown accident or other emergency during construction and operation asper the Bonn Agreement.There should generally be a precautionary element to the permit process.4.1.3 Permitting for Wind Power in Territorial SeasFor most non–Mediterranean countries the process is reported to be the same both in the Territorial Seaas per the EEZ. Only Germany has differences in the roles of the authorities since the regulation of theTerritorial Sea is the responsibility of the regional authorities of the Landers with the Federal AuthorityDeliverable 2.324 | P a g e

eing responsible for the EEZ outside the Territorial Sea. Nevertheless for a wind farm to be built in the EEZwould still involve the Landers in cable and grid connection documentation. To limit wind farms mostly tothe EEZ, that is beyond the 12nm zone as is the case for Germany, would not necessarily be best practicefrom the sector point of view but in the case of Germany the limitation is specifically linked to theenvironmentally protected status of the Waddensea. This does highlight the role of MSP since it enablesthe state to give clear indications as to its priorities, in this case environmental protection.The Mediterranean countries, Italy and Greece, gave no detail on EEZ process since at the moment they donot claim EEZs. Their process refers entirely to the Territorial Sea therefore. As such, Greece requiresseveral permits but only through two authorities whereas Italy has one unified process which is required togo through several authorities. It is also significant that, in Italy, regional authorities are also reported toplay a part. The difficult position of Mediterranean countries which plan wind farms outside the TerritorialSeas is highlighted above. For whilst a country may have the right to put a structure on the sea bed of thecontinental shelf and lay cables there is still the necessity of integrating the infrastructure with othereconomic activities such as navigation, fishing or other energy sectors in areas outside national planningjurisdiction.Technically the UK has also not claimed an EEZ , but in fact, its Territorial Sea and a Fisheries ProtectionZone which covers the area of sea which would equate to the EEZ if it were claimed. This, however, has nojurisdiction for wind power except in as much as it interferes with fishing. It does, however, haveconsiderable implications for the general commitment to MSP, including wind power, as discussed abovein relation to overall policy commitment.4.1.4 Offshore Wave and Tidal PowerThere may be fewer opportunities to develop tidal power in some sea-basins since tidal range is very smallthroughout the Mediterranean basin and also in much of the Baltic Sea basin.In addition, details on permitting requirements generally are very sparse because power generation fromthese sources has not yet progressed very far. A possible exception is France which has the tidal powerstation at La Rance in Brittany which has been operating since 1966 with an output of 240MW 17 .Nevertheless no permitting arrangements were recorded for France. Eight countries seem to have targetsfor 2020: Finland, France, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom 18 . There are reported tobe demonstration plants in Denmark, Scotland, Sweden and Portugal and, just recently in 2010, theScottish Government has issued leases in respect of 1.2GW for projects in the Pentland Firth,demonstrating a clear political will and plans to develop wave and tidal energy.17 Source: The European Ocean Energy Association (EU-OEA), February 201118 National Action Plans for the promotion and use of renewable energy (NREAPs), available athttp://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/transparency_platform/action_plan_en.htm#Deliverable 2.325 | P a g e

The national reports indicate that most countries have not developed the permitting process very far andtherefore clearly the first step in developing a best practice for most countries would be to start developingan integrated process with the appropriate permitting arrangements if they have any intention ofdeveloping significant wave or tidal power.4.1.5 Grid Infrastructure and Connection PermitsMost countries need some form of permit to connect to the grid, mainly obtained from the ministries ofenergy or from the national energy agency. Some countries such as Sweden, Germany, Belgium and theNetherlands, also require a permit to lay cables on the sea bed. Spatial planning of the coastal state in thiscase is limited as cable can be laid relatively freely in an EEZ under UNCLOS, although the coastal statehas more legal jurisdiction in its coastal waters. The state may need to take into consideration thepotential negative effects of cables and pipelines particularly on special ecosystems 19 or conflicts withfishing which is an issue with 4Winds project in Italy.There are cases where permitting cables is carried out by a different administration to the powergeneration units themselves. For example in Germany the state agency BSH issues permits for the windpower installations outside 12nm whilst the cables which pass through territorial sea -are licensed by theindividual Laender such as Schleswig Holstein. This can lead to longer permitting times and more complexprocedures, since more authorities are involved and clear guidance appears missing on offshore gridplanning. Once again good practice would suggest a precautionary approach in permitting at this stage andshould also be conditional on the taking up of cables at the end of the project life time, a point which isoften neglected in this area.Clearly, the permitting of these elements needs to be integrated with that for the actual power structuresparticularly since connection permits may need to be obtained typically from different sectoral authorities.Few countries through the national reports have provided information on the clarity of the process or theextent of co-ordination between institutions with regards to grid connections. With respect to best practicethere may be a weak link in a holistic approach demanded by MSP in the wind power sector.4.1.6 Progress of Permitting ProcessUsing the criteria developed by the project four countries might be considered as being closest to bestpractice in terms of a streamlined system, these being Denmark, Germany, Scotland and Netherlands. Ofthese countries it was considered that they showed: a streamlined transparent process with informationreadily available with no contradictions; simplified and clear procedures; clear mechanisms to coordinateand manage the overall decision making process for the allocation of space; and some also demonstrateda one-stop shop approach where a single application process can cover multiple licence applications whilsttaking into account the overarching MSP objectives. With reference to this last point, Spain for example,19 Wolf, R., “Rechtliche und naturschutzfachliche Aspekte beim Bau und Betrieb von Stromkabeln”, Federal Agency forNature Conservation, BfN 2004Deliverable 2.326 | P a g e

equires a high number of licenses but clear and coordinated procedures provided a one-stop shop for theprocess as a whole. For the project proposer there are clear advantages in the simplification of a one-stopshop.In terms of maritime basins the countries of the North Sea, where most of the existing offshore installedcapacity is currently located, generally have well developed permitting systems. Perhaps a little surprisinglythe Atlantic coasts, given the wind climate, seem poorly served at the moment with respect to planning forO-RE although France has recently taken important steps. The poor development of the Mediterranean Seabasin may partly reflect relatively fewer opportunities with existing technologies given the nature of thedeep basins but also the rather anomalous legal position given the lack of EEZs. This, in itself, leads tomore potential conflict with other users such as fisheries as discussed above.Germany is a rather unusual case with the responsibilities split in the maritime zones between Federal andRegional authorities. In addition, or possibly because of this, the WindBarriers project shows that Germanyneeds a rather longer than average time to complete the whole process. Nevertheless the permittingprocess in Germany definitely accelerated with the introduction of MSP in 2009 showing the synergy therecan be between MSP and the Offshore Renewable sector.It may also be significant that in terms of installed capacity the leading countries generally have the mosttransparent and coordinated systems. This is possibly due to learning from experience and the pressure foreconomic development of the sector. This in turn is generated by political will and a determined planningpolicy which remains the greatest driver.Clearly there are cases where MSP is synergistic with O-RE development but probably the policycommitment is the greater element. For example, the key to the British system, which has overseen thegreatest installed capacity of any Member State, is a mixture of pragmatism, as has been discussed, andalso a perception that the planning agencies themselves are favourably disposed towards offshore windfarm proposals again emphasising the importance of commitment. The UK does not favour a binding MSPapproach but nevertheless does have a „criteria based‟ planning system suggesting that maritime planningas such, remains important.Ultimately, best practice in the permitting process should include a legal framework for issuing licencesand permits which is clear and efficient, but most importantly the institutional set-up, includingjurisdictions and cooperation/coordination mechanisms should be designed in a way to allow for a finaldecision covering all aspects of a permit in a comprehensive, coherent, consistent and cost/effectivemanner.4.2 RecommendationsBased on the previous analysis the following policy recommendations emerge:Permitting should be conditional on a full and satisfactory environmental appraisal or EIA;Deliverable 2.327 | P a g e

The EIAs should be harmonised to ensure that all of the most significant impacts andconsiderations of the interactions between offshore installation and operation are adequatelytaken into account;Properly established maritime zones and EEZs are a prerequisite for the proper planning processas exemplified by the wind farm experience in the Mediterranean;Properly formulated policies with clear commitment towards both Offshore Renewables and MSPneed to be promoted since these tend to lead to the development of more streamlined permittingprocesses;The permitting stage offers the ideal point at which proposers can only be given permits providingthey fulfil some essential conditions consistent with a precautionary approach. These include:clearance of a fully evaluated EIA or equivalent;a binding commitment to dismantle infrastructure and cables after the project lifetimebeing a condition of the permitting;an evaluated emergency action plan.Planning conditions in the Mediterranean outside territorial seas to be clarified;Policies and planning conditions for wave and tide power to be promoted;A more integrated approach between infrastructure permitting and grid connection permitting tobe promoted.Deliverable 2.328 | P a g e

5 CONSULTATION5.1 Why is consultation important to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)?Cooperation amongst stakeholders is important to minimise conflicts within MSP. Although stakeholderinvolvement can be more time consuming initially, participatory planning can lead to savings in the longterm. The Plancoast Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning (Plancoast, 2008) outlines threemajor advantages:The added-value of stakeholder knowledge;Cost and time efficiency by avoiding possibly disputes and legal challenges;Improved publicity and policy acceptance – the success in implementing MSP is largely dependenton stakeholders‟ willingness to cooperate.The experience of BaltCoast also found that individual stakeholder groups are more inclined to acceptnecessary restrictions if they are involved from the outset in the planning process. In cases whereindividual interest groups felt left out they stuck positions of maximum demands making a reconciliation ofinterests impossible. A wide and open discussion, however, led to a better understanding of necessaryrestrictions (BaltCoast, 2005).In the EU Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy (COM, 2008b), there is significantemphasis placed on promoting effective stakeholder consultation:Member States developing their own national integrated maritime policies are recommended to promoteand facilitate appropriate stakeholder structures, allowing broad participation by stakeholders ingovernance of maritime affairs, taking measures to increase the capacity of the social partners andensuring a transparent decision-making process.5.2 Progress per sea basinIn terms of consultation many of the North Sea countries have made significant progress on consultationwithin MSP. Where there are maritime spatial plans in places such as in Belgium and Germany, significantpublic and sector consultation on these plans took place before they were approved. For example Germanyundertook a 3-month public consultation period before development of the draft MSP and ongoingconsultations for a year before the MSP was finalised. Belgium had a six month period of stakeholdermeetings and interviews before development of the Master Plan for the North Sea. All North Sea countries(Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark and the UK) have effectively translated the EIA Directiveinto national legislation and this allows for public consultation. In most countries information is madepublically available and details are given on how the consultation processed influenced the final decision.Deliverable 2.329 | P a g e

Levels of public consultation are more mixed within the Baltic Sea region. Sweden appears to have aneffective public consultation system that takes place within municipal planning processes (which covercoastal areas and the territorial sea) and for specific projects there are three points at which stakeholderscan comment or submit objections. Finland also conducts annual consultations concerning planningissues, and Poland has conducted voluntary consultations as part of its pilot Maritime Spatial Planscovering the western part of the Gulf of Gdansk. For the other Baltic Sea states consultations take place aspart of the EIA process, and the extent of consultation varies. In Estonia, for example, a decision needs totake account of stakeholder comments and concerns whereas in Latvia stakeholder involvement appearsto be more limited. However, there have been some pilot MSP processes in many countries as part of theEU-funded BaltSeaPlan project and these have included considerable stakeholder involvement(http://www.baltseaplan.eu/).Progress in countries bordering the Atlantic Sea is average. In the UK consultation is generally activelysought out for most sector plans, Strategic Environmental Assessments and for individual developmentprojects. There are also high rates of stakeholder participation and responsiveness. For other countries inthis area, there does not appear to be evidence of: consultation actively reaching out to all relevantstakeholders, comments being incorporated into decisions or an appeal process but this may be due to alack of information as discussed in Section 3: Data and Information Management.Some countries in the Mediterranean region, such as France and Spain, show average progress but thereis limited evidence of consultation in Greece and Italy have low scores for although consultation does takeplace for specific projects this is usually at a low level and often late in the process.5.3 Best practice in consultation for MSPThe following section summarises best practice in consultation for MSP, in terms of ia Stakeholder representation; b) Consultation on plans and projects; c) Transparency; d) Timeframes ande) Appeals process. While consultation refers to soliciting opinions from both intra-government and civilsociety stakeholders the emphasis of this section is on civil society as intra-governmental coordination isconsidered in more detail within sector-conflict management.5.3.1 Stakeholder representationThe relevant stakeholders for consultation on MSP will depend on the different countries in questions.However, a review of stakeholder involved across the EU countries provides a list of interest groups thatmay need consideration. These include both intra-governmental stakeholders and civil society or privateinstitutions (Table 1).Table 1: Key interest groups for MSPPublic/government institutions (central, regional and local government)Deliverable 2.330 | P a g e

Economy/sustainable developmentProject developerShipping/navigationPortsCustoms/Enforcement agenciesFishing and AquacultureTourism/recreation/landscapeCultural Heritage/archaeologyNature conservation/environmentSand/gravel extractionOil & GasOffshore renewablesEnergy distribution and pipelinesDefence/RadarAir trafficNGOsLocal communitiesPublicResearch/universitiesExperience in regional MSP programmes suggests that it is important to avoid large numbers ofstakeholders within the consultation process as it may hamper constructive discussion and agreement(Plancoast, 2008). In this sense, it may be more efficient to set up associations that represent stakeholdergroups and act as a focal point for governments. For instance in the UK, various stakeholder groups havebeen established to help deal with specific sector issues including NOREL to deal with navigation issues;FLOWW to deal with fisheries and OREEF for environmental issues.Consultations can also be more effective if coordinated by one institution. For example in Scotland there isone central agency (Marine Scotland) responsible for planning of marine renewables and organisingconsultations for individual projects. Marine Scotland uses its expertise to determine which stakeholdersneed to be consulted and what areas need more or less attention, and ensures that there is significantinformal consultation before the formal process starts to quickly identify and seek to resolve conflicts. Thisis also the case in Germany where the Federal Maritime and Hydrography Agency (BSH) coordinates allconsultation for MSP in the EEZ.5.3.2 Consultation on Plans and ProjectsAs all EU member states are required to translate the EIA Directive into national legislation, there is theprovision in all countries for stakeholder consultation on individual development projects as part of thepermitting process. The degree to which consultation takes place and the degree of stakeholderinvolvement, however, varies considerably between the different countries. For example in the UKstakeholders are actively involved in the consultation process and comments are actively sought fromrepresentative groups. In contrast, while consultation is still a legal requirement in countries such asEstonia, Latvia and Greece, details of new O-RE projects are not actively sent to specified groups but thesystem relies on groups accessing proposals and sending in comments.Deliverable 2.331 | P a g e

What particularly distinguishes some countries is not just consultation on specific projects, but stakeholderinvolvement in developing an overall maritime spatial plan which sets out a strategy for use of the maritimespace and may provide decision rules or preliminary zoning. Germany has a detailed Maritime Spatial Planfor its EEZ and the initial development of the draft MSP was completed with a 3 month public consultationperiod and public hearings held for the North Sea and Baltic Sea regions. It then took another year until theplan came into force due to the many concerns raised during the consultation process. Portugal has alsoheld a number of consultative workshops to develop maritime spatial plans under its POEM programmeand used the opportunity to collect spatial data and information. Progress on development of the spatialplans is provided through a website and several public information sessions. While initial consultations areimportant to develop a plan, it should not be a one-off activity. This has been recognised in Belgium withcontinued stakeholder involvement to assist review and update of the maritime Master Plan for theBelgium part of the North Sea, implemented incrementally since 2003.Some countries have not yet developed Maritime Spatial Plans, and in this case the possibility forstakeholder involvement in a more strategic overview is limited to consultations on sector plans orprogrammes. The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive formalises the requirement forstakeholder consultation during the assessment of sector plans or programmes although, as withimplementation of the EIA Directive, the degree of involvement is likely to vary. SEAs have been used as atool in the UK and Ireland for offshore renewables sector plans, and in Ireland the government hascompiled stakeholder comments and published a Ministerial SEA statements illustrating how feedbackfrom the public consultation has been considered. There may also be wider consultations held on a newsector policy outside of the SEA requirements. For instance, in France there have been public meetingsheld and discussion with a range of stakeholders to draft a new Integrated Maritime Policy.5.3.3 Transparency and timely provision of informationThere is an important link with public access to data and information so that stakeholders can makeinformed choices or decisions. Information on strategies, plans and projects needs to be made accessiblein a timely manner to give stakeholders a chance to contribute to the process. There is a clear differencebetween active consultations where O-RE project plans may be sent to specified stakeholders or whereinterest groups are invited to attend meetings and passive consultation where the project documents maybe available on a government website or announced in a newspaper but no specific comments aresolicited. For example, in Germany as part of an Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) project in theOder Estuary significant effort was placed on educating stakeholders and decision-makers on the keyissues facing the area and demands on the space including eutrophication, pollution, tourism and Natura2000 sites.As part of this transparency it is important in that the final decisions on plans or projects indicate howstakeholder comments have been addressed.Deliverable 2.332 | P a g e

5.3.4 Time frame for consultationThere needs to be sufficient time dedicated to stakeholder consultation for Maritime Spatial Plans, SectorPlans or individual projects. This often varies between the different countries. For example, in terms ofPlans Germany dedicated 3 months to public consultation on its Maritime Spatial Plan, while Belgiumallowed 6 months.In relation to consultation on O-RE projects as part of the EIA process, timeframes again vary betweendifferent countries. For instance Germany requires stakeholder feedback within 2 weeks (for offshorerenewable projects) after publishing the document, while Denmark allows 8 weeks. However, it is alsonecessary to consider the efficiency of the consultation process and a shorter time period may not alwaysmean less consultation. It may also be the case that where there is a detailed maritime spatial plan whichhas stakeholder approval, consultations on individual projects will be far more streamlined as many of thepotential conflicts have already been resolved.Another important consideration is whether stakeholder consultation is a one-off process or whether thereare various stages in which different interest groups can comment. In Sweden, stakeholders are able togive comments at three different stages during the application for a project development: i) an initialconsultation phase; ii) following a comprehensive exhibition of the proposed plan and iii) during a finalpublic exhibition where the final project is presented illustrating how previous comments have beenaddressed. Similarly in Germany during the development of municipal spatial plans that go out to 12nm inthe maritime space, there is a four stage process: 1) Planning conferences where information isdisseminated on potential plans; 2) Participants give contributions and measures that should be includedin the plan through thematic meetings; 3) The administration answers any questions and accepts or rejectscomments previously provided; and 4) A final presentation and contributions before the consultation isclosed.5.3.5 Appeals procedureEffective consultation on Maritime Spatial Plans or projects needs to include an appeals process, althoughtime limits may need to be imposed to prevent significant delays. For instance in Denmark, the decision ofthe Danish Energy Agency to award offshore permits can be appealed in writing within 4 weeks ofpublication of a decision. In Sweden appeals are further limited to stakeholders that have given commentsearlier in the consultation process.5.4 RecommendationsBased on the criteria designed for assessing MSP progress and experiences of the different memberstates, it is possible to define characteristics of best practice in terms of consultation for MSP:Defined and legally binding systems for consultation on individual projects, sector plans andoverarching maritime spatial plans;Deliverable 2.333 | P a g e

All relevant stakeholders are represented in the processes (see Table 2);A central institution is responsible coordinating consultations and allowing cooperation betweenpartners;Where appropriate stakeholders are organised into associations or representative groups tostreamline the consultation process;Stakeholders are „actively‟ consulted so that they are specifically sent relevant information anddirectly invited to participate;Stakeholders are provided with sufficient information to make informed choices. This informationis provided in a timely manner and is easily accessible;Stakeholders are able to provide input into projects, sector plans and MSPs at various stages ofthe process including initial scoping phase; detailed presentation and a final presentation;For sector plans and overarching maritime spatial plans, stakeholders are involved in ongoingconsultations for regular plan reviews and updates;There is a legally binding system for appeal with defined rules and time limits;Informal consultation is encouraged before the formal processes starts for early identification ofpotential conflicts or issues;Consultations cover all potential impacts – including the laying of sea cables for transport ofelectricity from energy platforms to onshore sub-stations.Deliverable 2.334 | P a g e

6 SECTOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT6.1 Why is sector conflict management important to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)?Sector conflict management is one of the overall aims of an integrated approach to MSP. The objective isto make best possible economic and societal use of the maritime space, reconcile different interests andclaims on the space and streamline developments. Managing potential sector conflicts early on preventsobjections from being raised later in the process and avoids objections reaching the courts which can belengthy, expensive and may lead to cancellation of the project. Sector conflict management is also acoordination issue and facilitates development by ensuring that government departments are inagreement and do not give conflicting advice.6.2 Progress per sea basinIn the North Sea one of the main mechanisms for managing sector conflicts has been through zoningexercises. In some countries such as Germany and Belgium zoning has been adopted as part of an overallmaritime spatial plan, whereas in other countries such as the Netherlands and the UK zoning has beendone on a sectoral basis and is non-binding. Another method has been the development of sectoralguidelines to help minimise conflicts, for example practical solutions such as recommended buffer zonesand noise/glare reductions methods. Consultations are a major method of managing conflicts and as seenunder the Consultation Criterion this is well developed for the North Sea countries.In the Baltic Sea there have been a number of pilot maritime spatial plans developed as part of the EUfundedBaltSeaPlan project. However, these plans are for the most part voluntary and have not yet beenintegrated into national level policies. In many cases conflicts are managed through consultations as partof Environmental Impact Assessment of individual projects. Sweden has a well developed consultationprocess which goes a long way to resolve conflicts, but it is not clear whether there are binding rules onprioritising sectors.Within the Atlantic a number of countries (e.g. UK, France, Portugal, Ireland) have undertaken sectoralplans (e.g. for offshore renewables) that have identified opportunity zones where there are minimalconflicts and areas with a high level of potential conflicts. These exercises have often been accompaniedby Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) which have provided stakeholders an opportunity tohighlight issues or win-win solutions.In the Mediterranean area there have also been some sectoral zoning exercises and related SEAs, but thesuccess of these in managing conflicts is often related to the quality of stakeholder consultation (which islower for Italy and Greece than for France and Spain).Deliverable 2.335 | P a g e

6.3 Best practice in sector conflict management for MSP6.3.1 Cross-sector coordinationWhat appears to be an important feature of sector conflict management is effective coordination acrossthe range of government institutions and authorities involved in maritime issues. In Denmark for example amaritime director-general forum has been set up to allow for cross-sectoral discussions and in Belgium thecoastal guard is responsible for coordinating discussions between 17 maritime related governmentinstitutions. These processes assist cross-sectoral discussions at a strategic and project level. Forinstance, in Italy there is a process by which a „service conference‟ can be set up to involve all the relevantauthorities in order to reach a decision on granting a maritime license or permit.6.3.2 Spatial Planning (Zoning) of the maritime spaceAnother key tool in managing sector conflicts is through zoning the maritime space, as this already rulesout areas that would not be possible or desirable due to presence of other activities. There are manyapproaches to zones from creating maps of current use to well-defined zones and specific decision rules inthe case of any conflict.A useful starting point is mapping out current and future anticipated uses of the maritime space. AlthoughLatvia has not yet undertaken a zoning exercise and defined priority or reserved areas, it has developed amap of sea-uses and potential conflicts. In addition to mapping, a very useful exercise is the analysis ofcompatible and incompatible uses, as has been undertaken for Portugal. This highlights where activitiesmay be able to coexist in the same space, for instance mariculture may be compatible with offshore windwhere as protected fisheries nursery grounds are unlikely to be compatible with sand extraction.Another step in the process is zoning on a sectoral basis. For instance a number of countries haveundergone exercises to identify suitable area for offshore wind energy: Belgium, France, Denmark, theNetherlands, Ireland, Spain and Greece. While these mapping exercises may not have been translated intopolicy, they are useful to identify areas of opportunity with minimal conflicts and areas to avoid owing tocompeting claims on the space. Where these sectoral zoning exercises constitute a sectoral plan, they arealso often accompanied by a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). This provides stakeholders withthe opportunity to comment on the future anticipated developments of the sector and highlight potentialconflicts as well as possible resolution mechanisms.Sectoral zoning can only go so far and depending on the interest group may not attempt to resolve allconflicts. For instance Swedish Board of Fisheries has appointed areas of national interest for commercialfisheries which might clash with other interests. It may be necessary to clarify priorities between differentfunctions and study potential synergies between users.The German maritime zoning exercise was based on lengthy cross-sectoral discussions and a publicconsultation period, and provides a strategic overview for nearly all relevant sectors. It also goes into moreDeliverable 2.336 | P a g e

detail by identifying priority areas and reserved areas and decision rules where different uses overlap. Forinstance where a priority designation for pipelines overlaps with priority areas for wind energy, pipelinesare given priority. The embellishment of zoning with decision rules is essential for deciding what spatial useshould take precedence in the case of a conflict.Nevertheless there is discussion on the extent to which zoning is always necessary and whether it is alsopossible to effectively manage maritime space using a criteria-based approach, as another approach thathas been proved to work efficiently. For instance in the UK rather than having planning inclusion orexclusion zones the UK Government has established a series of criteria that are used when approving orrejecting a planning proposal. The criteria include whether the proposed development conflicts with aseries of criteria including consideration of impact on various constraints, whether „hard‟ or „soft‟. A hardconstraint, for example, would be the existence of oil platforms or major shipping routes. The constraintstend to be more numerous nearer the coast. Based on these criteria the Crown Estate, owners of theseabed, have earmarked zones that are suitable for offshore wind farm development. These are notplanning zones, although they would have taken likely planning consent into consideration, but leasingzones. An offshore wind-farm developer therefore requires a lease from the Crown Estate and then to gothrough the procedure for planning consent where the application will be judged against the criteria.What is clear that even where a detailed zoning exercise has been undertaken activities should not alwaysbe excluded from taking place outside of „priority zones‟ and there should be the opportunity to consideroutliers on a case-by-case basis. The initial German zoning exercise was criticised by offshore winddevelopers as it effectively limited the potential areas for development and did not take into account futuretechnological advances or changes in priorities, and this was changed in the final plan. In contrast, the UKsystem does not result in any formal „exclusion‟ zones for wind farms. Although the Government„recommended‟ that the bulk of offshore wind farms be outside the 12 nautical mile limit, it also said thatoffshore wind farms have not been excluded from this range. Projects are therefore considered on a caseby-casebasis. For example some recent offshore wind farms (Round 3) are being planned within the limitalthough the large majority of the planned capacity will be outside this near shore area.For some countries, zoning and related decision rules needs to be legally binding to be effectivelytranslated into practice. While the pilot maritime spatial plans in the Baltic Sea provide essentialexperience, they will not be fully implemented unless they are legally required. In many of these countriesstakeholders who have had traditional use of the maritime zone (e.g. fishermen, navigation) have beenunwilling to negotiate as part of a voluntary exercise given they benefit from the status-quo.As with any plan, a zoning exercise also needs to be regularly reviewed and updated to take into accountdynamic changes in the use of the sea and environmental conditions.Deliverable 2.337 | P a g e

6.3.3 Conflict minimisation agreements and compensationFurther to zoning, it is also possible to define voluntary or binding guidelines to enable sectors to operateside by side with minimal conflicts. In Denmark, voluntary guidelines for the offshore wind sector havebeen developed to provide practical measures for reducing interferences, such as defined lightrequirements for Air Traffic Control, compensation calculations for fisheries and a requirement for farms tobe sited at least 200m from line of sign of a radio relay link. Germany has also included incidentalprovisions within the maritime spatial plan such as the use of non-glare materials and measures for noisereduction.As indicated, Denmark has defined compensation requirements for any loss of fishing ground to adevelopment, such as offshore wind. However, not all countries are comfortable in providing prescriptiveguidelines on compensation and the UK for example prefers to resolve issues through consultation.6.3.4 Consultation as a mechanism to manage conflictsEven in the cases where countries do not have specific mechanisms to manage conflicts in the maritimezone, public consultations in the context of Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) for sectoral plansand Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in the case of individual projects provide an opportunity forpotential conflicts to be highlighted and addressed. The effectiveness of this mechanism will depend onthe quality of the consultation as discussed in Section 5.Developers often find that it is useful to maintain dialogue with stakeholders throughout a project in orderto minimise conflicts or objections. For instance in Sweden there are examples of offshore winddevelopments that have maintained open communications with local residents by answering questionsand holding one-to-one meetings.6.4 RecommendationsBased on the criteria designed for assessing MSP progress and experiences of the different memberstates, it is possible to define characteristics of best practice in terms of sector conflict management:Government authorities and institutions representing different sectors are effectively coordinated;Information is effectively shared between sectors in a common format (see also Section 3: Dataand Information Management);Up-to-date maps available on the current and future anticipated use of the maritime zone (seealso Section 3: Data and Information Management);Legally-binding Maritime Zones (or clearly defined criteria) have been identified that define priorityand reserve zones, as well as decision rules for resolving conflicts. There is however flexibilitywithin the zoning by not ruling out developments outside of priority areas;Deliverable 2.338 | P a g e

Regular consultations are undertaken as part of a legally binding review of maritime spatial plansand zones;Accompanying sector guidelines exist for minimising conflicts. Some actions may be legally bindingwhere appropriate;Effective and active consultation carried out for overall Maritime Spatial Plans, sector plans andindividual projects (see also Section 5: Consultation);Stakeholders involved early in the process of developing a Maritime Spatial Plan.Possibility of compensation mechanismsThere is also a role for regional initiatives to support sector conflict management as many of these issueswill also be common to cross-boundary cooperation. In this sense the BaltSeaPlan project provides usefulpilot approaches to MSP and conflict resolution. However, these approaches need to be translated intonational legislation and policy to have significant impacts on managing sectoral conflicts.Deliverable 2.339 | P a g e

7 TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATIONThe aim of this section is to examine how and to what extent the legislation in the Member States that arethe subjects of this review provide for transboundary MSP. The need for transboundary cooperation asregards MSP is absolutely clear.A completely logical ordering of maritime activities in one maritime zone may be largely at odds, in spatialterms, with equivalent MSP measures in an adjacent or opposite zone. Such a need for cooperation willtend to arise mainly in terms of economic activities but the need to coordinate conservation andenvironmental protection measures undertaken within the context of MSP cannot be ruled out.7.1 Current practice in terms of transboundary cooperationAs seen in the national studies, national legislation can really only address issues of cooperation relating tosub-national boundaries (e.g. between the German Federal Government and the Laender or between thedifferent countries of the UK), as the--the scope of national legislation is by its nature limited to thenational level. The most that national legislation can do in terms of international cooperation as regardsMSP is to direct decision-makers to take into consideration relevant MSP activities in neighbouring oropposite States and possibly to confer the necessary powers on officials or politicians to negotiate to thatend.The only way that a complete mechanism for supra-national cooperation in terms of MSP can beestablished is at the international level or at the European level in terms of the countries considered in thisreport. At this time, as described in the national reports, EU nations are typically party to a large number ofinternational agreements which concern various different aspects of the use of maritime space on asectoral basis. However, as noted above, there is no supra-national instrument under EU or internationallaw that is concerned with MSP in general or transboundary cooperation relating to MSP in particular.Having said that, the preparation of comprehensive maritime spatial plans will most likely require astrategic environmental assessment pursuant to the SEA Directive. Moreover, Article 7 of the SEA Directivecontains express provisions on transboundary consultation in cases where a proposed plan or programmeis likely to have significant effects on the environment in another Member State or where a Member State,likely to be significantly affected, so requests. This at least provides a partial mechanism for transboundarycooperation on MSP albeit from a particular environmental perspective.In any event bilateral cooperation may in itself be insufficient in terms of the planning of the use ofmaritime space within Europe‟s increasingly congested seas. Instead a sea-basin approach may be moreappropriate in terms of ensuring that cooperation addresses all relevant linkages. One example of such anapproach is „Visions and Strategy around the Baltic Sea 2010‟ (VASAB 2010) which is anintergovernmental forum made up of the countries around the Baltic Sea, including Norway, Russia andDeliverable 2.340 | P a g e

Germany that participates also through representatives from the regions which are adjacent to the BalticSea Region (Lander in Germany, Oblasts and Republics in Russia). VASAB 2010 promotes a physicalplanning perspective in the area of the Baltic Sea and proposes guidelines and recommendations for workon greater international consensus and has produced “Common Recommendations for Spatial Planning ofthe Coastal Zone in the Baltic Sea Region”. As the name of this document implies, though, it is not bindingin nature.To this end a number of existing EU mechanisms for transboundary cooperation in terms of planning theuse of natural resources may provide useful models including the river basin management planningmechanisms for international river basins foreseen by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the jointsea basin planning and coordination measures foreseen by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive(MSFD). Other relevant experience may be derived from the Espoo Convention 20 as well as provisionsrelating to transboundary activities in the SEA Directive as already mentioned and the EIA Directive interms of the environmental implications of MSP. It is important to emphasize though that MSP evidentlygoes beyond an assessment of potential environmental impacts alone.To be effective transboundary consultation and coordination procedures would need to be mandatory andimplemented through appropriate mechanisms for joint decision-making and conflict resolution. The issueas to whether or not the EU has the necessary legal competence to adopt such legislation, though, isbeyond the scope of this report.Similarly as regards transboundary cooperation and coordination across sub-national boundaries,appropriate legislation and related mechanisms will be necessary for effective implementation. In thisconnection it may well be the case that if formal MSP is introduced on the basis of specific maritime MSPlegislation as in the UK (as opposed to a modification to land use planning legislation as in Germany) animportant administrative boundary may in practice be that between land-use planning and MSP. Againsome form of coordination mechanism will be necessary, possibly within the context of Integrated CoastalZone Management.7.2 RecommendationsUse the SEA Directive to ensure transboundary consultation where there are likely to beenvironmental impacts on another Member State and build on the joint sea-basin planning andcoordination measures foreseen in the MSFD;Draw on experience of other EU mechanisms for transboundary cooperation such as the WFD aswell as the Espoo Convention;20 The Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context adopted at Espoo on 25 February199130 ILM (1991).Deliverable 2.341 | P a g e

Support regional sea-basin cooperation approaches including agreed recommendations orguidelines for MSP;Ensure that national legislation directs decision-makers to taken into consideration relevant MSPactivities in bordering member states;Work towards transboundary consultation and coordination procedures that are mandatory,starting with a review on whether the EU has the necessary legal competence to adopt suchlegislation;Implement transboundary consultation and coordination procedures through appropriatemechanisms for joint decision-making and conflict resolution;Ensure sufficient legislation to facilitate transboundary cooperation and coordination across subnationalor boundaries, such as administrative boundary between land-planning and MSP.Deliverable 2.342 | P a g e

8 IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP8.1 Why is implementation important to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP)?Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) is the translation of policies and plans into practice.The benefits of achieving MSP in practice were summarised in a recent UNESCO publication (Ehler andDouvere, 2009).8.2 Best practice in implementation of MSPThis chapter aims to assess whether, given the right policies and legislations are in place to what extenthave countries developed Maritime Spatial Plans, how these are being implemented and enforced andwhether they are being monitored and reviewed. It also draws from experience on MSP to highlight what isconsidered best practice.8.2.1 Planning processBased on a range of guidelines that have been published recently on best practice for MSP (Box 1 below),it is possible to determine a range of linked steps involved in developing a maritime spatial managementplan:1. Defining goals and objectives of MSP and establishing legal authority;2. Pre-planning;3. Obtaining financial support;4. Information and data collection;:5. Defining and analysing conditions & generating alternative spatial options;Deliverable 2.343 | P a g e

6. Stakeholder participation;7. Preparing and approving spatial plan;8. Implementing and enforcing the spatial management plan;9. Monitoring and evaluating performance;10. Review and update of the MSP process.All the guidelines stress how many of these activities are likely to be concurrent and how the processneeds to be cyclical so that development of the plan is followed by reviews and updates which will includethe need draw again on information and data analysis and stakeholder consultations.Box 1 Examples of best practice guidelines on MSPUNESCO and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission guidelineson Maritime Spatial Planning (Ehler and Douvere, 2009);BALANCE project guidelines on achieving Maritime Spatial Planning in theBaltic Sea (Balance, 2008) Nordic experience in Maritime Spatial Planning (Blæsbjerg et al., 2009)Plancoast Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning (Plancoast,2008)8.2.2 Legal characterA number of previous experiences in MSP have highlighted the importance of it having a statutory nature inorder to be effectively applied. For instance the BaltSeaPlan MSP pilot projects (e.g. Pärnu Bay in Estonia,Western Coast of Latvia, Gulf of Gdańsk in Poland/Sweden) are providing essential experience in applyingMSP often in a transboundary context but the voluntary plans that are being devised will not be fullyimplemented until they are translated into national legislation. There are however examples where planshave been applied without a legal basis, such as the Belgium Master Plan which has been adopted and isbeing applied through permitting legislation. However, the spatial planning side which relates to the OREdevelopment is implemented through a legally binding Royal Decree of 2004 (as modified in 2011)designating offshore win zones in the EEZ.8.2.3 Setting clear objectivesIt is often highlighted how important it is for MSP Initiatives to have clearly defined objectives and priorities(e.g. Blæsbjerg et al, 2009). The scope of MSP also needs to be considered at this stage, and generally it isagreed that it should cover all maritime interests. For instance, while the German MSP for its EEZ (in theNorth Sea and Baltic Sea) is relatively comprehensive it does not currently include grid infrastructure whichDeliverable 2.344 | P a g e

appears to be an important omission (Wagner & Segelken, 2011). This is where regular reviews of MSPsare important to allow integration of additional elements as the process evolves.8.2.4 Coordinating institutionHaving a coordination institution for MSP can be very effective in ensuring good cross-sectoral and verticalcoordination. For instance, the United Kingdom has opted to establish a new organisation (referred to as aMarine Management Organisation) specifically to coordinate MSP and to develop maritime spatial plans.8.2.5 Pre-planningThere are likely to be a range of activities required before it is possible to start a MSP process. For instanceit may be necessary to review maritime policy and legislation. It will also be important to ensure there aresufficient financial resources for developing a plan, involving stakeholders and for its implementation.There may also be a period of data collection and analysis in order to determine current state and use ofresources. It is often considered a critical step to include a forecasting exercise in preparation of MSP toreview potential future development scenarios and consider impacts of future environmental change (e.g.climate change).Sweden could be considered to be in this pre-planning phase as they have recently developed a maritimepolicy and appointed a committee to propose a planning model for the maritime area. Without politicalpressure this phase may be drawn-out and in some cases it can be useful to set time limits. For exampleMSP legislation in the State of Massachusetts (USA) allows eighteen months to develop a first plan.Although most of the planning team considers this time frame very short, it has nevertheless made theMSP process very efficient in setting goals, finding the best way to achieve them, and specifying moreclearly what is possible and what not given the available resources and constraints (Ehler and Douvere,2009).8.2.6 Developing the planThe experience of MSP in Nordic countries stresses the importance of ensuring a Marine Spatial Plan - totake into consideration national, sub-national and local levels. The role of the Maritime Spatial Plan is toprovide overarching guidelines on implementing planning at a cross-sectoral level. Depending on thegovernance arrangements in any one country it may need to consider current planning systems at a rangeof scales e.g. within the coastal zone, estuaries, territorial seas and the EEZ. It will need to determine howthese different systems interact or develop new planning units that allow for more coherent managementand complete coverage. For instance, currently in Finland there are detailed regional development plansthat cover the territorial seas but no plans for the EEZ.The UNESCO guidelines (Ehler and Douvere, 2009) suggest that preparing and approving the spatialmanagement plan includes the following tasks:1. Identifying alternative spatial and temporal management measures;Deliverable 2.345 | P a g e

2. Specifying criteria for selecting maritime spatial management measures;3. Developing the zoning plan;4. Evaluating the spatial management plan;5. Approving the spatial management plan.It is worth highlighting that given the different spatial scales involved there may not be only one „zoningplan‟ but a series of nested zoning plans for different areas or scales. In some cases the zoning plan maybe visually defined on a map and in other case may be set out as a series of criteria.8.2.7 Integrate current toolsRather than starting as a blank canvass, a number of MSP experiences (such as the Irish Sea Pilot) havefound that it is effective to build on current coordination tools, such as sectoral plans, SEAs and ICZM, andbuild these into the process.8.2.8 Cross-border interactionA key element will be cross-border coordination and collaboration in developing a plan as activities mayhave transboundary impacts. There are pilot regional studies at the EU level such as the BaltSeaPlaninternational project: International Pomeranian Bight Pilot (Poland, Germany, Denmark & Sweden) whichshould provide important lessons in this respect.8.2.9 Stakeholder involvementStakeholder consultation has been considered in detail within Section 5, but it in the context of developinga Maritime Spatial Plan it is worth considering what steps stakeholders should be involved. There are fourmain possibilities for involvement during:1. Pre-planning process: this can also be used as an opportunity to collect spatial data andinformation as was undertaken in Belgium;2. Development of the Plan: involve stakeholder in developing different options or in consulting on adraft plan (as done in Germany);3. Implementation: ensure effective dissemination of the plan and encourage stakeholder ownershipfor effective enforcement and compliance;4. Monitoring: allow stakeholders to comment on the implementation and give input into itsadaptation and review.8.2.10 Time-frame of planBest practice in MSP suggests that plans should have a 20–25 year planning horizon but with regularreviews every 5 years. It is also useful to have a forecasting element to the plan that looks at scenarios forDeliverable 2.346 | P a g e

the next 50–100 years. For instance the Netherlands is planning to review its Water Plan every 6 years,and Germany has foreseen an evaluation in 2012.8.2.11 Implementation/EnforcementBefore implementing a Maritime Spatial Plan there may be institutional steps that need to be taken (Ehlerand Douvere, 2009), for example:Formal adoption of the spatial management plan, its goals and objectives, rules, and spatialmanagement measures (including zoning plans and regulations, as appropriate);Approving any new changes in management boundaries, if necessary;Establishing any new institutional arrangement, e.g., an inter-agency coordinating council or intersectoralcoordinating bodies, if proposed;Approving any new staffing or organizational changes, if necessary; andApproving the allocation of new funds to implement, monitor and evaluate the maritime spatialplan, if proposed.Effective implementation and enforcement of a Maritime Spatial Plan will then depend on a number ofelements, not least the effectiveness of the rule of law and good governance. However there have been anumber of practical elements identified that can help a Maritime Spatial Plan from being implementedthrough zoning regulations, permits and licences (Ehler and Douvere, 2009):Define which sources or activities are subject to the requirements;Define the requirements and any exceptions or variances;Clearly address how compliance is to be determined by specifying procedures;Clearly state deadlines for compliance; andBe flexible enough to be constructively adapted through individual permits, licences or variancesto different regulatory circumstances.Implementation of Maritime Spatial Plans and enforcement is partly through planning regulationsand as such permits and licensing are obviously critical to achieve the long-term aims of MSP.8.2.12 Monitoring and ReviewMonitoring the progress and achievements of a Maritime Spatial Plan allows it to be assessed against itsobjectives, and allows for review of elements that need to be changed or updated. Specific indicators willtherefore depend on the nature of the plan, but examples of generic outcome indicators may include:Reduced spatial conflict;Deliverable 2.347 | P a g e

Optimal spatial use of the maritime zone that maximises economic, social and environmentalcriteria;Reduced bureaucracy in obtaining permits or licenses;Increased transparency on sectoral plans; andImproved data and information base on resources and resource use in the maritime zone.In some cases zone specific targets must be set up more explicitly for the locality or sub-region. A range ofexamples are given in the Balance experience of MSP in the Baltic Sea (Balance, 2009).Biodiversity targets: e.g. cover of key habitats and key species, sites with red-listed species,abundance and cover of alien species etc.Social targets e.g. target values for permanent residents, summer residents and visitors in thearea. These make it possible to follow up how well the demographic structure in the area has beenmaintained but also allow for economic assessments or assessment of user related pressure onnature values.Economic targets: e.g. target values of jobs categories related to marine areas such as MPAs,professional fishermen, marine traffic, tourism etc.Governance targets: Targets for measuring the performance of the MSP process and thegovernance of the planned marine area.8.3 RecommendationsBased on the criteria designed for assessing MSP progress and experiences of the different memberstates, it is possible to define characteristics of best practice in terms of sector conflict management:Marine spatial planning implemented as a statutory system;Clear objectives and priorities set;There is a central institution responsible for coordinating the development, implementation andreview of MSP;A pre-planning process provides the building blocks for effective development of a plan: obtainingfinancial resources; legal and policy basis; data & information collection and analysis;MSP accounts for all spatial scales and ensures coverage of all relevant maritime activities. It alsotakes account of transboundary interactions;Current tools such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM) are integrated into the process;Stakeholders are involved throughout the process including during pre-planning, development ofthe plan, implementation and monitoring;Deliverable 2.348 | P a g e

The MSP is for a defined planning horizon (recommended 20 years) with a statutory requirementto regularly review (e.g. every 5 years). There is monitoring of the plan progress;Plans are practical for implementation through existing planning mechanisms.Deliverable 2.349 | P a g e

9 FINAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS9.1 Overarching recommendationsMost of the recommendations from this report are grouped under the sub-categories selected forevaluating progress towards MSP. However there are some more general recommendations that aresummarised below: The specifics of MSP will always have to be context specificAlthough general recommendation for best-practice can be given, how MSP should best be undertaken inany one country will always be context specific and will depend on the particular institutional structure inplace and the economic drivers for MSP. This is particularly the case for the development of policy andlegislation for MSP as while general recommendations can be given it is not possible to outline exactlywhat such policies or legislation should look like. It is possible however to recommend that overarchingprimary legislation is needed, implemented through secondary legislation as necessary, and that suchlegislation should be comprehensive in the sense that it should cover all maritime space (inland waters,territorial sea/EEZ or continental shelf) and all relevant procedures (consultation, permitting, enforcement,dispute resolution etc). Legislation needs to form the basis of an effective MSP systemWhile it is possible to achieve a number of good outcomes through voluntary mechanisms, it was foundwithin each of the sub-categories that a basis in legislation was the best way of ensuring that no short-cutswere taken that would undermine an integrated approach to MSP. For example, legislation can: set outplanning zones or criteria for making spatial planning decisions; detail defined rules for consultation ofstakeholders along with time lines; identify institutions responsible for data collection and ensure theywere legally obliged to update and share data; and ensure that the permitting procedures requires SEAs orEIAs covering all relevant impacts as well as giving authorities the authority to consult at a transboundarylevel. A centralised organisation is highly valuable for providing a coordination mechanismThere appears to be a strong case for a centralised institution to coordinate integrated MSP. There maystill be a number of parties involved in data collection or permitting but there should be one institution thatprovides a focal point and coordinates inputs. Ensure MSP covers all the relevant scalesEnsure MSP accounts for all spatial scales and ensures coverage of all relevant maritime activities, as wellas transboundary interactions.Recognise the importance of stakeholder involvementDeliverable 2.350 | P a g e

Stakeholders should be involved throughout the process including during pre-planning, plan development,implementation and monitoring. Integrate existing tools such as EIAs, SEAs, the INSPIRE Directive and ICZM into the MSP processThese tools provide the legal basis for many of the requirements for MSP such as consultation and sectorconflictresolution and can be incorporated and built on within a MSP system. EU Projects provide a useful lead, but approaches should to be mainstreamed into national policy andlegislationEU MSP projects such as BaltSeaPlan provide an opportunity to pilot approaches and share lessons, butthe key findings need to be integrated into national policies and legislation to be effectively implemented. Ensure sufficient financial resourcesIt is a common theme that effective MSP requires sufficient financial and human resources across all thedifferent sub-categories.9.2 Specific recommendationsSpecific recommendations per sub-category are provided in the paragraphs that follow..9.2.1 Policy & LegislationFirst of all there is a need for the adoption of comprehensive primary legislation, in the form of anact or a law, for MSP. It is difficult to see how an appropriate legal framework for MSP couldordinarily be adopted on the basis of subordinate legislation, given that to be effective it will needto guide and indeed regulate the implementation of other items of primary legislation that relate todifferent sectoral activities (e.g. a navigation act or renewables law).Second, such legislation should be comprehensive in the sense not only that it clearly sets out thebasic procedures for MSP (in terms of consultation, the planning process, enforcement, disputeresolution etc) but also because it brings all activities that use maritime space within a definedarea (within the territorial sea and/or the EEZ and/or on the continental shelf) within its purview.Thirdly the legal framework for MSP will need to be completed through the adoption of subordinatelegislation and guidance notes as appropriate. It goes without saying that adequate resources willneed to be made available in order to ensure effective implementation.9.2.2 Data and Information managementComprehensive ecological, socio-economic and geo-technical data is required throughout theterritorial sea and EEZ.Data collection should be coordinated by an overarching strategy to avoid duplication of effort andto ensure that formats are compatible.Deliverable 2.351 | P a g e

There should be a central institution that coordinates data collection and integration into a GISformat useful for planning. Other institutions can act as „owners‟ for certain data types arerequired by law to regularly update data (at specified intervals) and report this to the centralcoordination institution.Data should be publically available in a GIS format.9.2.3 Permitting & LicensingPermitting should be conditional on a full and satisfactory environmental appraisal or EIA.The EIAs should be harmonised to ensure that all of the most significant impacts andconsiderations of the interactions between offshore installation and operation are adequatelytaken into account.Properly established maritime zones and EEZs are a prerequisite for the proper planning processas exemplified by the wind farm experience in the Mediterranean.Properly formulated policies with clear commitment towards both Offshore Renewables and MSPneed to be promoted since these tend to lead to the development of more streamlined permittingprocesses.The permitting stage offers the ideal point at which proposers can only be given permits providingthey fulfil some essential conditions consistent with a precautionary approach. These include:clearance of a fully evaluated EIA or equivalent;a binding commitment to dismantle infrastructure and cables after the project lifetimebeing a condition of the permitting;an evaluated emergency action plan.Planning conditions in the Mediterranean outside territorial seas to be clarified.Policies and planning conditions for wave and tide power to be promoted.A more integrated approach between infrastructure permitting and grid connection permitting tobe promoted.9.3 ConsultationThis is a need for defined and legally-binding systems for consultation on individual projects,sector plans and overarching maritime spatial plans.All relevant stakeholders should be represented in the process. However, where appropriatestakeholders should be organised into associations or representative groups to streamline theconsultation process.Deliverable 2.352 | P a g e

There is a need for a central institution that is responsible coordinating consultations and allowingcooperation between partners.Stakeholders should be „actively‟ consulted so that they are specifically sent relevant informationand directly invited to participate.Stakeholders should be able to provide input into projects, sector plans and MSPs at variousstages of the process including initial scoping phase; detailed presentation and a finalpresentation.Stakeholders should be provided with sufficient information to make informed choices. Thisinformation is provided in a timely manner and is easily accessible.For sector plans and overarching maritime spatial plans, stakeholders should be involved inongoing consultations for regular plan reviews and updates.There should be a legally binding system for appeal with defined rules and time limits.Informal consultation should be encouraged before the formal processes starts for earlyidentification of potential conflicts or issues.Consultations should cover all potential impacts – including the laying of sea cables for transportof electricity from energy platforms to onshore sub-stations.9.3.1 Sector Conflict ManagementGovernment authorities and institutions representing different sectors need to be effectivelycoordinated. There may be different mechanisms for this including the existence of a centralorganisation responsible for inter-sector coordination.Effectively share information between sectors in a common forma, including up-to-date maps oncurrent and future anticipated use of the maritime zone.Outline legally-binding Maritime Zones (or clearly defined criteria) that define priority and reservezones, as well as decision rules for resolving conflicts. There is however a need for flexibility withinthe zoning by not ruling out developments outside of priority areas.Carry out effective and active consultation for overall Maritime Spatial Plans, sector plans andindividual projects, as well as for their review.Provide accompanying sector guidelines to minimise conflicts. Some guidance may need be legallybinding where appropriate.There should be the possibility of compensation mechanisms.Deliverable 2.353 | P a g e

9.3.2 Transboundary cooperationUse the SEA Directive to ensure transboundary consultation where there are likely to beenvironmental impacts on another Member State and build on the joint sea-basin planning andcoordination measures foreseen in the MSFD.Draw on experience of other EU mechanisms for transboundary cooperation such as the WFD aswell as the Espoo Convention.Support regional sea-basin cooperation approaches including agreed recommendations orguidelines for MSP.Ensure that national legislation directs decision-makers to taken into consideration relevant MSPactivities in bordering member states.Work towards transboundary consultation and coordination procedures that are mandatory,starting with a review on whether the EU has the necessary legal competence to adopt suchlegislation.Implement transboundary consultation and coordination procedures through appropriatemechanisms for joint decision-making and conflict resolution.Ensure sufficient legislation to facilitate transboundary cooperation and coordination across subnationalor boundaries, such as administrative boundary between land-planning and MSP.9.3.3 Developing Maritime Spatial PlansConduct a pre-planning process that provides the building blocks for effective development of aplan: obtaining financial resources; legal and policy basis; data & information collection andanalysis.Provide a defined planning horizon (recommended 20 years) for MSP with a statutory requirementto regularly review (e.g. every 5 years). Also ensure that there is monitoring of the plan progress.Ensure plans can be practically implemented through existing planning mechanisms.Deliverable 2.354 | P a g e

10 REFERENCESBalance (2008) Towards Marine Spatial Planning in the Baltic Sea. Technical Summary Report 4. Availablefrom: http://www.baltseaplan.eu/index.php5?node_id=Downloads;17&lang_id=1Baltcoast (2005) The INTERREG IIIB BaltCoast Project Final Report: A Pilot Initiative on Integrated CoastalZone Management in the Baltic Sea 2002–2005BaltSeaPlan 2007–2013 http://www.baltseaplan.eu/Blæsbjerg, M., Pawlak, J.F., Sørensen, T.K. and Vestergaard, O. 2009. Marine Spatial Planning in theNordic region - Principles, Perspectives and Opportunities. Nordic Council of Ministers. Available from:http://www.baltseaplan.eu/index.php5?node_id=Downloads;17&lang_id=1Blažauskas, N. & Suzdalev, S (2010a) Report defining the criteria for assessing national MSP practicesaffecting the deployment of marine renewable energy sources in EstoniaBlažauskas, N. & Suzdalev, S (2010b) Report defining the criteria for assessing national MSP practicesaffecting the deployment of marine renewable energy sources in LatviaBlažauskas, N. & Suzdalev, S (2010c) Report defining the criteria for assessing national MSP practicesaffecting the deployment of marine renewable energy sources in LithuaniaBlažauskas, N. & Suzdalev, S (2010d) Report defining the criteria for assessing national MSP practicesaffecting the deployment of marine renewable energy sources in PolandCameron, L., Westra, C., Veum, K. (2010) National MSP practices in the Netherlands affecting thedeployment of marine renewable energy sourcesCOM (2008a) Communication from the Commission: Roadmap for Maritime Spatial Planning: AchievingCommon Principles in the EU 791 final, Brussels, 25.11.2008.COM (2008b) Guidelines for an Integrated Approach to Maritime Policy: Towards best practice in integratedmaritime governance and stakeholder consultation. Communication from the Commission to the Council,the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of theRegions COM (2008) 395COM (2010) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, theEuropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Maritime Spatial Planningin the EU, Achievements and Future Development, 771, Brussels, 17 December 2010.Ehler, C., & Douvere, F. (2007) Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the First International Workshop onMarine Spatial Planning. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and the BiosphereProgramme. IOC Manual and Guides, 46: ICAM Dossier, 3. Paris: UNESCO, 2007 at page 24.Ehler, Charles, and Fanny Douvere (2009) Marine Spatial Planning: a step-by-step approach towardecosystem-based management. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission and Man and theBiosphere Programme. IOC Manual and Guides No. 53, ICAM Dossier No. 6. Paris: UNESCO.European Commission (2010) Maritime Spatial Planning for Europe‟s Oceans and Seas – What‟s it allabout?Fernandes, M., Costa, P. & Estanqueiro, A. (2011) Portugal: Report on the national MSP regimes and theirperformanceFernandes, M., Couto, A., Costa, P., & Estanqueiro, A. (2011) Spain: Report on the National MSP Regimesand their PerformanceDeliverable 2.355 | P a g e

Iuga, D (2010) Analysis of MSP in the Baltic Sea – Country report FinlandJacques, S. (2011) National maritime spatial planning regimes – BelgiumJaques, S & Joseph, P (3E) (2011) National maritime spatial planning regimes – FranceJustino, P., Costa, P., & Estanqueiro, A (2011) Ireland: Report on the National MSP Regimes and theirPerformance.MRAG (2008) Legal Aspects of Marine Spatial Planning: Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 –LOT2. Final Report to DG Maritime Affairs & FisheriesPlancoast (2008) Handbook on Integrated Maritime Spatial Planning: Experience, Tools & Instruments andCase Studies from the INTERREG III B CADSES PlanCoast Project.http://www.plancoast.eu/files/handbook_web.pdfRodrigues, G., Iuga, D (2010) Country Report: Analysis of MSP in SwedenRodrigues, G., & Iuga, D. (2010) Analysis of MSP in the Baltic/North Sea. Country Report Denmark.Stefanou, I., Rossis, K. (2010) Assessment of the National MSP regimes and their performanceGreece & ItalyToke, D (2010) Report on EEZ and inclusive waters under the authority of the United Kingdom and itsdevolved administrations (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland) – covering the Irish Sea and North SeaWagner, A (2010) Report defining the criteria for assessing national MSP practices affecting thedeployment of marine renewable energy sourcesWagner, A., & Segelken, K (2011) National MSP practices in Germany affecting the deployment of marinerenewable energy sourcesWolf, R., (2004) “Rechtliche und naturschutzfachliche Aspekte beim Bau und Betrieb von Stromkabeln”,Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, BfNDeliverable 2.356 | P a g e

Part II:TASK 2.7: Barriers and obstacles, good practices and national policyrecommendationsDocument Name:NATIONAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONSDocument Number: Task 2.7, Part of D 2.3Author:Annemie Vermeylen, revised by SEANERGY 2020 consortium andWP 2 Leader, SOWDate: June 2011WP:WP 2, National Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) RegimesTask: 2.7Deliverable 2.357 | P a g e

Task 2.7: Table of Contents1 ATLANTIC OCEAN AND IRISH SEA ............................................................................................ 592 MEDITERRANEAN SEA .......................................................................................................... 683 NORTH SEA .............................................................................................................................. 124 BALTIC SEA .............................................................................................................................. 87Deliverable D 2.358 | P a g e

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTIONThese policy recommendations, based on national Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) regimes in 17EU countries 21 in four different sea basins, address good practices as well as barriers andobstacles related to the development of offshore renewable power. They are developed for thefour sea basins (Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the NorthSea) taking into account the seven indicators identified within SEANERGY 2020, namely: a) policyand legal framework, b) permitting and licensing, c) stakeholder consultation, d) data andinformation management, e) sector conflict management, f) cross-border and regionalcooperation and f) implementation of MSP.21 Comparison of national maritime spatial planning procedures across EU (17)Deliverable D 2.359 | P a g e

2. ATLANTIC OCEAN AND IRISH SEAThe maritime activities 22 in this vast maritime area are less dense than in the other EU sea basins.There are no major commercial ports in the region, apart from Le Havre. The English Channel,however, is one of the world's major maritime routes between North Sea ports and the rest of theglobe. There is still an active fishing industry, with local small-scale fishing in the Bay of Biscay.Compared to other EU sea basins, population density along the coasts of the Atlantic Ocean and theIrish Sea is rather low.Wind resources and tidal potential are considered to be very high in this area, but harsh winterstorms may constitute a particular technical challenge for both wind and tidal energy in the outerwest of Europe.2.1 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK2.1.1 Barriers and obstaclesFrance has started to show policy ambitions in relation to the development of offshore wind energyby designating areas where offshore wind can be developed. This offshore renewable energy (ORE)zoning exercise kicked-off in 2009 in France has resulted around mid-May in five defined winddevelopment zones/sites 23which are all situated on the Atlantic side and English Channel. It is anexample of the more classical Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) approach in which ORE only can bedeveloped in designated maritime zones. This policy evidently reduces the development possibilitiesfor ORE from a spatial point of view. Given the vast available maritime areas (11,000,000 km² whichcorresponds to the total French maritime area, including the French overseas), it is surprising thatFrance has so far only reserved five zones for the development of ORE. In spite of the almostunlimited possibilities to harvest wind and other ocean energies in French maritime areas, thepotential for ORE development remains largely untapped, even with the designation of the fivedefined sites of a total capacity of 3,000 MW. Each of these zones represents a lot that will betendered during 2011. As long as the full terms of the offshore tender are not launched, OREdevelopment cannot yet take off in French maritime zones.2.1.2 Good practicesWith its Marine and Coastal Access Act (2009) and the Marine Scotland Act (2010), the UK providesan interesting experience of setting up a comprehensive legal framework for marine planning policy.This MSP approach does not exclude any zones in the territorial seas nor in the EEZ, but allowsallotting sites (“leasing zones”) for ORE development based on criteria. This „criteria based‟ MSP isinteresting since it does not put, from a spatial point of view, a limit to the deployment of OREprojects within UK‟s maritime areas. The 4,046 MW already approved capacity for offshore wind inthe UK can be considered a good indicator of the effectiveness of this less restrictive criteria based22 Source: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/seabasins.23 According to the French National Renewable Action Plan, the ZDE (Zones de dévelopment éolien) in thesea have been abandoned since the adoption in 2010 of the tender process.Deliverable D 2.360 | P a g e

MSP approach. The National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP) offshore target of 12,990 MW ofoffshore wind and 1,300 MW of wave and tidal energy by 2020 further illustrates that the MSP policyof the UK has been designed with the intention to leave as much maritime space as possible for OREdeployment.Ireland has also given a clear signal in favour of ORE development by including an OffshoreRenewable Energy Development Plan (OREDP) within its Strategic Environmental Assessment Plan(SEA). The OREDP contains a series of defined areas for offshore energy deployment in Ireland: someareas are reserved for offshore wind only, others are reserved for wind and wave, others only forwave and tidal. The designation of the zones in the Irish Sea seems rather unrestricted: almost allmaritime areas can be considered for ORE development. The total targeted ORE capacity by 2020remains however very modest in the NREAP: 555 MW for offshore wind and 75 MW for wave andtidal energy. But the OREDP sets out more ambitious targets: with three case scenarios from low tohigh. The last one targets 500 MW of offshore wind and 1500 MW of wave and tidal energy by 2030.This is an interesting illustration that the MSP process integrates ORE targets beyond the 2020horizon.The Portuguese Planning and Ordering of Maritime Space (POEM), approved in 2008 and currently indevelopment, identify areas of higher potential for offshore renewable energies. POEM also regulatesall other activities in Portugal‟s EEZ. However, the modest ORE target set up by the government in theNREAP for 2020 (325 MW including offshore wind and wave and tidal energy) does not seem tomatch with the designation of several maritime areas defined for offshore wind and wave energydeployment. On the other hand, the national grid authority (REN Réd Electrica) seems to haveplanned the integration of 500 MW of offshore wind by 2020.2.1.3 Policy recommendationsA successful MSP policy for ORE deployment should be based on the following preliminary conditions:• Availability of maritime space,• Clear policy and legal framework for MSP related to ORE,• High wind and tidal resources.All these conditions are combined in the Atlantic basin, in particular the availability of maritime spaceand high wind and tidal resources. However, a possible restraint to a rapid and important OREdeployment in this area may reside in the question of moderate electricity demand. The combinationof a relative low population density and the almost optimal conditions for ORE production in this seabasin may, one day, result in a surplus of offshore renewable electricity production. An ambitiousMSP policy, such as implemented in the UK and Ireland, could, for instance, bring about a series ofORE production plants at the outer western maritime boundaries of Europe because of the almostideal production circumstances. That is why a visionary MSP strategy for the Atlantic sea basinshould integrate in an anticipative way the question of how the possibly abundant ORE power can beexported in the most cost efficient way to denser populated areas.Deliverable D 2.361 | P a g e

• MSP on a sea basin level should take into account the ORE production potential and, if available,also interconnection plans and grid expansion,• The „North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative‟, of which UK, France and Ireland aresignatories, seems to be an appropriate policy structure to tackle the efficient transport of OREproduction by integrating future offshore grid design in MSP.2.2 PERMITTING AND LICENSING2.2.1 Barriers and obstaclesAbsence of specific legislation for licensing maritime energy systems (Portugal), multistep licensingprocesses (Spain), announced but delayed tender procedures (France) constitute factual barriers tothe deployment of ORE in this Sea basin. If, on top of that, there is no certainty related to gridcapacity reinforcement (Spain) or if grid expansion is only in the planning studies phase (Portugal), itis not surprising that not a single ORE project has been finalised to date in France 24 , Portugal andSpain.2.2.2 Good practicesPermitting and licensing processes in the UK (other than Scotland as from 06 April 2011) and Irelandappear to be conducted in the classical way: several separate permits are needed in order to be ableto start the construction of an ORE plant.A remarkable practice in the UK is that ORE permits last indefinitely under UK planning law, whichseems an interesting supplementary legal certainty for ORE investors.When French authorities grant a license or a permit for any activity in the marine environment, theywill have to take into consideration the recommendations, comments and the objections of a widerange of stakeholders. Consultations of the relevant public stakeholders (ministries, administrations,local authorities, other stakeholders such as commercial fisheries.) are included in the tenderprocedure for offshore wind zones/sites.2.2.3 Policy recommendations• The creation of a single office for licensing marine projects, currently under evaluation inPortugal and active in Scotland since 06 April 2011 25 , should be encouraged,• Grid connection possibilities for ORE generation should be planned and secured prior to thelicensing process, particularly in Portugal and Spain: the adaptation of the grid is yet inplanning phase which creates an important risk for ORE development in these countries.24 The Côte d‟Albâtre (105 MW) project went through the approval procedure, but it was stopped onceFrance launched its spatial planning exercise in 2010.25 http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/Licensing/marine,Marine Scotland regulates licensing scheme on behalf of the Scottish Government within United Kingdomwaters adjacent to Scotland (0-12nm and 12-200nm).Deliverable D 2.362 | P a g e

2.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION2.3.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn Spain, it is not possible to identify the different stakeholders in the process. The consultationrelated to the licensing process of ORE projects, as regulated by the Royal Decree of 2007 foroffshore renewables, seems to be restricted to government bodies. Other stakeholders may not beofficially invited to participate in the consultation process, which will reduce the degree oftransparency of the licensing process.2.3.2 Good practicesAll countries in the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Sea practice some form of classical stakeholderconsultation, involving public authorities and administrations, the scientific community and NGOs.France has developed a zoning policy with a „bottom up‟ stakeholder consultation exercise prior tothe designation of the suitable offshore wind zones). The central government requested the localgovernments of the coastal departments of the Channel, the Atlantic and the Mediterranean toidentify and propose appropriate zones for the deployment of offshore wind energy. The result of thisexercise to date 26 is the delimitation of five offshore zones. This bottom up approach may provide alarger public support for the development of ORE than if it had been „dictated‟ from the centralgovernment in Paris.The designation of these suitable offshore wind zones/sites has been prepared with the support oflocal authorities, which is expected to enhance the local public support for future ORE projects. Thefact that the local communities and stakeholders have co-decided the delimitation of the offshorezones, will diminish the risk of local protests leading to juridical actions, which reduces investmentrisks for ORE investors. Once legally binding, the tender process is expected to boost the offshorerenewable energies in France, which remain to date inexistent. But the downside of this bottom-upapproach is that too much decision power in the hands of local communities may limit the spatialpossibilities of ORE development.2.3.3 Policy recommendations• Grid upgrades and impacts landside should be taken into account when developing ORE at theearliest possible stage,• The grid operator should be the number one stakeholder in the consultation process for OREdeployment, especially in Portugal and Spain where the grid development is still in the studyingphase,26 June 2011. The ZDE exercise is expected to be concluded end of 2011.Deliverable D 2.363 | P a g e

• Possible impacts of grid expansion land side should be taken onboard as soon as possible inorder to increase social acceptance for, e.g., new high voltage lines to bring the ORE power fromthe Atlantic Ocean to metropolitan areas.2.4 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT2.4.1 Barriers and obstaclesThe quality of environmental, socio-economic and other relevant data and information in Spain is notequal and detained by the Spanish Central Administration. This seems an illustration of a closedattitude towards data and information which may hinder an active participation of other than officialstakeholders in the MSP process.2.4.2 Good practicesData and information on offshore energy resources and on the maritime activities are mostly welldeveloped and publicly available. An interesting practice in this domain, in France, is a GIS-toolcreated and used by regions‟ prefects used in the consultation process as a basis to definefavourable areas for offshore wind development.2.4.3 Policy recommendations• Encourage the use of common and web based GIS tools, given the existing high quality of dataand information in the countries of the Atlantic sea basin,• Such a toll should make all relevant data and information available to stakeholders who cancontribute to the quality of the MSP and/or the ORE zoning exercise.2.5 SECTOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT2.5.1 Barriers and obstaclesWhen some authorities or sectors have the right of veto, MSP is likely to be determined by thedominant sector interests. In the case of the UK, defence and aviation seem to have such a right,which can reduce the spatial possibilities for ORE development.2.5.2 Good practicesThe Portuguese have involved all sectors from the beginning of the MSP process in order to obtainthe widest possible acceptance for the spatial allotment of ORE activities. The French obligation toinclude in the tender procedure information on assessment and proposed mitigation of the possiblenegative impacts of the offshore wind project is a classical measure of sector conflict management.A more sector conflict prevention oriented approach was adopted in the delimitation of the offshorewind zones/sites: the integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) process involved local andregional organisations representing the fishing community. But this sector conflict preventionapproach resulted in no suitable zones for the moment in the French Mediterranean Sea. From theDeliverable D 2.364 | P a g e

investor‟s point of view, this offshore exercise will certainly establish legal certainty: ORE developerswill no longer lose time and money in preparing a project that eventually, in a later stage, would getstranded in the licensing process because of a conflict with one of the other sectors.2.5.3 Policy recommendations• The bottom-up approach, used in France is an interesting experience that could be replicated inother ORE zoning exercises, particularly in territorial seas, where sector conflicts tend to occurmore than in EEZs. The right balance, however, should be maintained between the rights of theexisting and the „new‟ sectors such as ORE,• Decentralising the decision making process in ORE zoning, i.e. letting the local governments ofthe coastal areas propose and regulate offshore energy development (like in France) will mostlikely contribute to increased social acceptance of the new activity and will, to a certain extent,prevent sector conflicts that can lead to legal actions from local communities against OREdevelopment in the territorial seas. This approach has not been used in Spain and Portugal forthe designation of the ORE zones in the territorial sea, but it would be interesting to integrate theactive involvement of local representatives of the maritime sectors in the licensing processes atthe earliest possible stage.A comprehensive and fair MSP exercise becomes difficult if a particular sector benefits of a dominantposition in some maritime areas. This dominant position can be translated into a right of veto againstORE development. This seems to be the case in the UK where defence and aviation are statutoryconsultees with such a right. This can hamper ORE development in areas where all the other limitingconditions are optimal. A comprehensive MSP policy should pursue to balance sector interests andstrive to treat all sector interests in an equal way, which is an important condition for fair sectorconflict management.2.6. CROSSBORDER AND REGIONAL COOPERATION2.6.1 Barriers and obstaclesPortugal has not foreseen direct cooperation with neighbouring countries in the Planning andOrdering of Maritime Space (POEM). The defined areas for offshore wind farm deployment, link in theNorth as in the South with the Spanish borders. The lack of institutionalised cross border cooperationaspect in POEM is a missed opportunity of cooperation. This could lead in the future to borderproblems if/and when offshore renewable energies will be developed in the border zones of Portugal.2.6.2 Good practicesAll countries in this sea basin are signatories of the most important initiatives in regional cooperationrelated to the protection of the marine environment, like the OSPAR convention. Recently, some newcross-border cooperation initiatives related to offshore renewable energy generation have beenDeliverable D 2.365 | P a g e

undertaken like the „North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative‟, ENTSO-E and the PentalateralEnergy Forum. These cooperation initiatives are all focused around the grid aspect of OREdevelopment. Ireland, the UK and France have joined most of these initiatives.2.6.3 Policy recommendations• In order to match current and future MSP developments with the necessary grid connections andreinforcements, it would be useful to present and discuss current and future MSP related to OREwithin the international or regional „grid‟ organisations such as ENTSO-E and other initiatives.2.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP2.7.1 Barriers and obstaclesA comprehensive MSP policy has not yet been implemented in the Atlantic Ocean and Irish seas,except for the UK side of the Atlantic and Irish coast. One of the reasons may be the vast maritimespace of this sea basin and, compared to other sea basins like the North Sea and the Mediterranean,the relatively low density of maritime activities. One could say that MSP in such a context is a „nice tohave‟ policy but not a real urgent priority.2.7.2 Good practicesNevertheless, MSP or MSP-like instruments may be useful or even necessary, especially in theterritorial seas of this sea basin. France is expected to implement its ORE zoning policy also in theterritorial seas at the end of this year. It remains to be seen whether the other limiting conditions ofthe tender for the wind energy zones will attract sufficient ORE developers. A comparable, thoughless participative ORE zoning practice, is also in place in Portugal (in progress), Spain and Ireland.The UK has an interesting criteria based approach for offshore wind development, which, a priori,does not exclude offshore renewables from any maritime zone. This practice has the advantage ofgiving freedom to install ORE plants at a location of choice and the almost indefinite perspective forORE deployment in UK waters.2.8. CONCLUSIONThe table below gives a succinct overview of the MSP progress related to ORE development andtargets for 2020 in the EU member states of the Atlantic Ocean and Irish Seas. It illustrates that OREdevelopment has not yet really taken off in this sea basin. In order to spur ORE deployment in theAtlantic Ocean and Irish Seas, it is important to adopt a MSP policy reserving the necessary space forthis new activity within the maritime area of a State.A comprehensive MSP legislation may not be necessary for this purpose. The ORE zoning approachcan turn out to be an equally effective MSP-like instrument if it has a legally binding effect.Deliverable D 2.366 | P a g e

The spatially (more free) criteria based MSP, as implemented in the UK, can be recommended forother EU coastal states, provided that the licensing procedures and the stakeholder consultationsare legally anchored.It is equally important for an ORE investment friendly climate that the grid authority anticipates theexpected offshore renewable production that may result from a MSP or ORE zoning policy, byenhancing the grid capacity for the new ORE production.Table 1: Overview state of play MSP process and NREAP 2020 targets in the Atlantic Ocean and theIrish CoastMSP process Installed offshore NREAP 2020 EEZcapacity(MW)offshore target(MW)IrelandAssessmentareas for ORE(OffshoreRenewableEnergyDevelopmentPlan - OREDP)25,2 555 wind75 wave and tidal(OREDP highscenario 2030:4,500 wind1,500 wave andtidal)YesFranceORE zones/0 6,000 windYessitesand380 wave andtidalPortugalSpainUKPlanning andordering ofMaritime Space(POEM)Defined OREareas 27Criteriabasedapproach0 75 wind250 wave andtidalYes0 3,000 wind No1,341 28 12,990 wind Yes1,300 wave andtidal27 Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.28 Most of the UK installed capacity is situated in the North Sea.Deliverable D 2.367 | P a g e

3. MEDITERRANEAN SEAThe Mediterranean Sea has a total surface of 2.5 million km², a narrow continental shelf (with theexception of certain areas such as the North of the Adriatic Sea, the Strait of Sicily and the AegeanSea) and great depths: over 3 000 m in the large basins, with records of over 5000 m in sometrenches. There is little tidal variation, with amplitudes below 50 cm in most places. The water ishighly saline and has a rich biodiversity. The Mediterranean represents a unique ecosystem.The EU has almost 4 000 km of Mediterranean coastline. 150 million people live along the shores ofthe Mediterranean. Tourism represents the number one economic activity in this sea basin. 30 % oftourists worldwide visit the Mediterranean countries, with 1 million cruise passengers a year. TheMediterranean is, with 30 % of all international cargo traffic passing, a major shipping channel. Thelargest port, Marseilles (France) is ranked fourth in Europe. Container traffic is experiencing particularexpansion. Passenger transport activities are the most developed in Greece, Italy and Spainconcentrated and represent an important navigational activity as well. Aquaculture (fish farming) iswell established, and the fishing industry (mainly small-scale) is a significant source of employment.Overfishing is a problem for the majority of fishery resources. The Mediterranean is also ageostrategic area of importance with large naval bases 29 .These specific geophysical features and the importance of tourism, navigation and fisheries can beconsidered important natural barriers and obstacles for the development of offshore renewableenergy. Since there is almost no tidal movement in this semi-enclosed sea, tidal and wave energy arelikely not to be developed in this region very soon. Given the narrow continental shelf and the greatwater depths, locations for offshore wind energy are mostly limited to near shore in the territorial sea.However, the socio-economic interests for coastal communities are also more important in theterritorial zone, which may hamper the acceptance for offshore wind energy deployment. However,these geophysical and socio-economic barriers could also be considered as an opportunity to pushthe development of offshore wind energy into very deep waters. The Mediterranean could become aninteresting European test site for innovative floating substructures.To define a maritime spatial planning policy in favour of offshore renewable energy development mayturn out to be quite a challenge in the Mediterranean, given the well-established position of theexisting maritime sectors. More than in other sea basins, they constitute a very important part ofregional employment (fishing, tourism, ports). The military activities around the important navalbases in the Mediterranean are equally a limiting factor for the deployment of offshore renewableenergy at some locations.Although these geophysical, geopolitical and economic particularities are likely to remain importantbarriers to the development of offshore renewable energies in this sea basin, they are not necessarily29 This part is based on information from DG Maritime Affairs, available athttp://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/seabasins/mediterranean/index_en.htm.Deliverable D 2.368 | P a g e

insurmountable. There are a number of good reasons to stimulate the development of offshore windenergy, also in this area.High population density means high electricity demand in the coastal states surrounding theMediterranean. This important regional electricity demand of potentially 150 million consumers couldbecome one of the driving forces if this region chooses to stimulate the development of clean, safeand local ORE 30 . An ORE driven energy policy in the Mediterranean could generate a beneficial socioeconomicimpact by creating a new maritime industry sector with new employment opportunities.A sea basin specific MSP policy and adapted legal framework may help overcome the „natural‟disadvantages of the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean coastal states could be supported, like theBaltic countries, in their exercise to develop pilot MSPs in territorial seas and in high seas areas. TheEU could support the development of demonstration zones by, for instance, co-funding soilinvestigation campaigns, Strategic Environmental Assessments and Research and Development inthe floating substructures technology.3.1 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK3.1.1 Barriers and obstacles for offshore RE: the maritime zones delimitation issue 31The Mediterranean Sea basin is a particular case since 53 % of its maritime zones are under the highseas regime. Territorial waters, established by coastal States over a width of 12 nautical miles (6nautical miles for Greece) represent only 16 % of the total surface area. Few states have asked foran exclusive economic zone, but some have declared new types of zones, which are not covered bythe law of the sea, such as fishing zones or ecological protection zones. These specific zones cover31 % of the surface of the Mediterranean.As stated before 32, legally binding delimitation of maritime zones is considered to be a prerequisitebefore any marine spatial planning policy can begin to develop. This basic principle equally applies tothe Mediterranean. The fact that no Mediterranean state33 so far has extended its jurisdictionbeyond the territorial sea is considered as an important obstacle for developing offshore renewableenergy in this area.30 ORE combined with solar energy and hydro-electricity to balance the intermittent nature of offshore windenergy.31 Source: www.fao.org/32 See MRAG report on comparison of MSP procedures in 17 EU countries, April 201133 Except for MonacoDeliverable D 2.369 | P a g e

3.1.2 Good practicesGreece has recently promulgated a law 34 that is expected to facilitate the siting of offshore windfarms. The Act lays down a special regime for offshore wind farms with strategic zone planning andpublic tenders for the construction and exploitation of offshore wind farms. It is however too early toassess the results of this policy since the ongoing Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) willdefinitively set out the appropriate sites for offshore wind farms and their maximum installedcapacity. Although it is not a comprehensive MSP policy, this sectorial zoning, combined with theplans for grid connection with the mainland and the SEA exercise, is supposed to create thenecessary legal certainty for ORE investors.Similar to Greece, Spain has established a specific ORE zoning practice. In 2009, a StrategicEnvironmental Assessment (SEA) was published for the installation of offshore wind farms. This SEAclassifies the territorial sea in three categories: green areas are available for offshore energydeployment, red areas are excluded for offshore energy deployment and yellow areas („maybe-zones‟)can be considered for ORE but possible conflicts with other activities or environmental impact shouldbe analysed in detail. Surprisingly, quite a number of zones in the territorial sea along theMediterranean coast seem to be green areas, even some around the highly touristic Balearic isles.However, despite the enormous potential of maritime zones in Spain and a proven track record inonshore wind energy, the NREAP 2020 target of 3,000 MW offshore wind for all its coasts, not only inthe Mediterranean but also on the Atlantic coast, seem to be rather modest. In spite of the difficultcontext of the Mediterranean Sea basin with the maritime barrier delimitation issue, some interesting„MSP like’ policy practices favouring the development of ORE in the territorial seas are beingdeveloped by Greece and Spain, whereas the pre-definition of zones in view of an offshore tender inFrance has excluded any ORE development on its Mediterranean coast. It is further interesting toobserve that the ORE planning practices arise from national renewable energy acts, not fromcomprehensive marine spatial planning legislation.3.1.3 Policy recommendationsThe importance of the shipping and fisheries sector for the Mediterranean economy, and thesensitive geopolitical situation in the Mediterranean basin (Middle East, North Africa,) may explainthe ongoing difficulty of Mediterranean coastal states to implement the extension of its coastal statejurisdiction beyond the territorial seas.• In the absence of EEZs, a policy that aims at developing offshore energy within the 20% REStarget by 2020, should primarily try to develop MSP or sectorial ORE zoning legislation in theterritorial seas, like Greece and Spain have recently done,• The tourism, fisheries and shipping sectors should be involved in determining the ORE zoningpolicy in the territorial sea at the earliest possible stage, since it will substantially reduce the riskof conflicts between historic users and ORE „newcomers‟,34 Act No. 3851/2010 on “Accelerating the Development of Renewable Energy Sources to Combat ClimateChange”.Deliverable D 2.370 | P a g e

• As long as no EEZs are claimed, and with a „beyond 2020‟ perspective, it would be interesting toexplore the legal possibilities of delimitating one or more ORE test zones in the high seas , anarea which constitutes 53 % of the Mediterranean maritime space. -This may be an interestingMSP experiment, but should be best discussed at international level (i.e. IMO, FAO) or at seabasin level (EUROMED). Such test MSPs (like the ones that are currently conducted in the BalticSea) or ORE zoning experiments in the high seas may create a perspective to liberate the largepotential of ORE zones in the Mediterranean Sea. This possibility will be further analysed in thepart focusing on international MSP instruments and approach,• Any MSP or ORE zoning policy should also take into account the geopolitical significance of theMediterranean Sea Basin. The important presence of national and NATO naval bases with theirperimeter for military exercises such as fly zones, clearing of subsea mines, military explosionzones, is likely to have an impact on the spatial availability for ORE development.3.2. PERMITTING AND LICENSING3.2.1 Barriers and obstaclesThe absence of designated zones for offshore wind farms appears to be an important barrier since itleaves the developer with a fundamental basic legal uncertainty in terms of appropriate ORE siting.This is illustrated in the Italian licensing process.However, designated ORE zones may be an insufficient condition for sound permitting procedures ifthey are not preceded by a SEA, which seems to be the case in Greece. Specific ORE zones havebeen designated through the Renewables Act of 2010, but the outcome of the ongoing SEA processfor the specific ORE areas may eventually undo the legal certainty for certain areas.Having a „multi-step‟ approach to licensing may equally discourage ORE development: the permittingand licensing regime in Spain, in spite of being soundly rooted in legislation, seems a rather heavyprocess with a minimum of five steps, which multiplies the risk of refusals during or, worse, at theend of the long multi-stage process.The grid connection licensing regime often constitutes the most decisive barrier for ORE investments.If the possibility to inject the produced electricity is not guaranteed by air-tight legislation orcontractual agreement, investors are likely to go to other ORE markets where the grid connection fornew electricity generation is guaranteed. In Spain no concrete planning studies for enhancing thegrid capacity have been published so far, which may turn out to be the most important barrier in thelicensing process.3.2.2 Good practicesHandling the permitting process through a single procedure for the authorisation to construct on theone hand and a single authorisation procedure for electricity transmission on the other, like in Italy,Deliverable D 2.371 | P a g e

simplifies the permitting and licensing process for the ORE developer and provides, in general, betterguarantees for a coordinated analysis and assessment of applications for ORE development.In Greece, the Renewables Act of 2010 provides the legal basis for permitting and licensingprocedures, and an international tender procedure will be launched after the results of the SEAprocedure are published. As mentioned before, the outcome of the SEA may alter the conditions inthe specific Greek maritime zones, or even withdraw some, so at this stage it is too early to evaluatethe results of the permitting and licensing practice in Greece.Legally binding ORE zoning instruments, such as the SEA process in Spain (2009) have recentlyestablished a certain regulatory certainty. Nevertheless, it is still too early to assess the effectivenessof these MSP instruments in terms of promoting investment in ORE.3.2.3 Policy recommendations• Reduce the number of required licenses and permits for ORE development to a scatteredlicensing regime where one administration can authorise a project which can be undone byanother ministry,• Establish - where possible - the one single procedure for the authorisation and operation ofoffshore renewable energy projects, likely to guarantee the best possible coordination of allconcerned administrations, at cross-sectorial level as well as at national, regional and local level,• Based on the licensing process practices of the Mediterranean Sea basin, coordination of the„one-stop-shop‟ licensing process should be assigned to the Energy administration of the coastalstates. In general, the Energy administration is well aware of the need and the urgency to deliverthe 20/20/20 energy target (ORE deployment can contribute substantially to this target, asillustrated below) 35 . The Energy administration will also be able to integrate from the outset thegrid connection element into the general licensing process. The Energy administration seems tobe, in general 36 , the most appropriate administration to push the ORE development througheffective and streamlined permitting and licensing. Taking into account the lack of developmentof ORE in the Mediterranean so far, it is important that the most ambitious administration interms of ORE development takes the lead in the licensing process.• Develop a criterion based MSP in their territorial seas such as in UK which appears to be the bestsolution for the Mediterranean Sea, or alternatively use the example of Greece and Spain todelimitate ORE zones,• Early and active stakeholder consultation in the licensing process will result in a broader supportfor ORE development in the territorial seas, which may reduce significantly the risk ofadministrative or juridical appeals against granted permits or licenses.35 Belgian case study: 6,6 % of maritime zon can generate 10 % of gross national electricty production. Seechapter North Sea.36 This may not automatically be the case in countries with low ORE ambitions.Deliverable D 2.372 | P a g e

3.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION3.3.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn Greece and Italy no specific consultation mechanisms are foreseen in the legislation. This mayconstitute a barrier either in the MSP process or in the ORE licensing process because interests ofsome stakeholders may not have been taken in to account and may influence negatively the MSP orlicensing process for ORE projects.3.3.2 Good practicesThe most common stakeholder consultation is done publicly, involving all relevant ministries andauthorities in order to gather the necessary and relevant information on the maritime zone whereORE projects are to be planned. This is the case in Greece, Italy and Spain. It constitutes a minimalcondition for successful ORE zoning or larger MSP policy. In Greece, public consultation in the EIAprocedure is statutory within the licensing process for an offshore renewable project.3.3.3 Policy recommendationsIn the MRAG report, the most important criteria and best-practice approach for a consultationprocess have been described and analysed. These criteria do a fortiori apply for the Mediterraneanterritorial seas where the importance of established interests cannot be underestimated.• Create an institutionalised, statutory broad and active stakeholder consultation 37 process:having a legal obligation to consult all stakeholders, and not only the public authorities, is thebest guarantee for the necessary broad support for the new „entrant‟ in the territorial seas.This becomes even more important when it concerns a new activity in the territorial sea whereestablished sector interests may conflict. As a rule, activities are denser in the territorial sea,and the risks of user‟s conflicts are, consequently, higher than in EEZ,• Focus primarily on MSP related to ORE will concern primarily the territorial seas, given theabsence of EEZ in the Mediterranean Sea,• Establish consultation mechanisms for MSP and ORE zoning delimitation in theMediterranean that should include the following minimum standards:a) provide clear and concise information and data,37 In this context, it may be interesting to build on the experience of the French exercise for definingoffshore (wind) zones. France launched in 2009 a „search-and- find‟ exercise for ORE zones in theirmaritime areas. The French authorities integrated at the earliest possible stage the local stakeholders inthis ORE zoning exercise. The French „bottom-up‟ MSP experience, interesting as it may be because of itsdecentralising approach, did not result in the delimitation of one single ORE zone along the Mediterraneancoast. Of course, the competition with the Atlantic Ocean (more wind resources, less pressure from tourismand small scale fisheries sectors and other sectors) is a very unequal one, so the exclusion of theMediterranean coast may seem an expected outcome of the French consultation process. However, inSpain, it seems that more green ORE zones are situated in the Mediterranean seas than along the Atlanticcoast. It appears that the locally piloted consultation process in France has influenced in a radicallyrestrictive way the designation of ORE areas. An excessively comprehensive and active consultationprocess, with too much power for the local authorities may have its downsides for MSP or ORE zoning in theterritorial seas, as demonstrated in the French case. However, good consultation procedures will remain animportant requirement in order to obtain the necessary public and stakeholder support for the developmentof ORE in the territorial seas in the Mediterranean.Deliverable D 2.373 | P a g e

) consult all relevant groups and stakeholders with a particular attention to balancing thesector interests; this could imply, for instance, involving actively wind energy associations,environmental NGO‟s, pro-ORE citizen movements,c) give sufficient publicity at relevant places,d) provide sufficient time for consultation: 4 weeks is considered to be a minimum,e) disseminate results of the consultation,f) provide feedback to comments.3.4 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT3.4.1 Barriers and obstaclesThe absence of a common data gathering methodology, the lack of use of a geographic data systemsuch as GIS, the fragmented storage of data and information on the sea, the sometimes incompletenature of data and information, its fragmentation - storage (location) and its update, unavailability tothe public of the oceanographic data and information, disparate sources of information, as observedin Italy and Greece, constitute barriers for the development of a comprehensive MSP policy and/or ofan ORE zoning policy.3.4.2 Good practicesA centralised system of data and information is a recommendable practice which Spain and Franceseem to apply. GIS is a universally applied information system which is used partially in Spain. InFrance, GIS is adopted for all maritime data and has been used by region prefects in the consultationprocess to define favourable areas for offshore wind development.The public availability of data and information is an additional good measure since it will enable toinvolve as many people as possible in the consultation process. It will also help ORE investors in theirsite prospecting exercise.3.4.3 Policy recommendations• Reach an agreement on data and information management among all EU Mediterranean coastalstates, ideally also including the non-EU states bordering the Mediterranean Sea, if acomprehensive MSP process were to be launched for this sea basin,• Establish an efficient data and information management system, which should ideally include:a) a commonly agreed data gathering methodology,b) a common information system that integrates, stores, edits, analyses, shares and displaysoceanographic information, ideally GIS,c) a data and information coordination centre where all relevant data and information are storedand updated in a centralised way and available at one single point (e.g. website),d) public availability of all (non) classified data and information concerning the Mediterraneanmaritime space.Deliverable D 2.374 | P a g e

3.5 SECTOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT3.5.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn countries where no special mechanisms for conflict resolution in the maritime areas are foreseen,opposition from maritime users to ORE projects is likely not to be discussed in a constructive way andvia open dialogue. There are high chances for sector conflicts to be dealt with at juridical level. Thisrisk seems higher in Greece and Italy where no special conflict resolution mechanisms are foreseen.Given the strong economic and social interests of the current maritime users of the Mediterranean,the sector representatives will not hesitate to defend their interests before the courts. These types ofconflict management represent a real barrier for the deployment of ORE in the Mediterranean Sea.3.5.2 Good practicesSector conflicts are often managed within the different administrations issuing licenses. This is thecase of Spain. The Spanish licensing administration has to manage and reduce sector conflicts thatmay arise from an application for an ORE project from the beginning of the licensing process.France has a more sector based conflict prevention practice. For the delimitation of offshore zones,France has adopted the integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) process and has involved localand regional organisations representing the fishing community. However, the outcome of this sectorconflict prevention model (together with the geo-technical conditions) could be one of the reasons ofno ORE zones in the French Mediterranean for the time being. Although this creates a legal certaintyfor ORE developers, who will no longer lose time and money in preparing a project that would becomestranded in the licensing process, it can also be seen as an obstacle to France‟s offshore deploymentstrategy and the country‟s ability to reach its renewable energy targets.3.5.3 Policy recommendationsSector conflict management is positive, but sector conflict prevention is better. Consultation andparticipation in the MSP exercise for ORE development at the earliest possible stage is a key successfactor in conflict prevention, as it has been seen in the French experience.• Possible sector conflicts are best identified and mitigated prior to the permit application process:this can be done by delimitating preferential ORE zones in the maritime areas. This appears to bea successful practice to prevent most sectoral conflicts. Nevertheless, sector conflicts may stillarise during, potentially even after the licensing process 38 .• Establish a neutral sector conflict prevention and management body in order to prevent sectorconflicts in the Mediterranean in an institutionalised way, with both public and privatestakeholders at a regional level.38 This is illustrated in the Belgian North Sea, where during an application process for an ORE project withinthe delimitated zone, the navigation and port sector protested to 2 project proposals, even if they weresituated in the official ORE zone.Deliverable D 2.375 | P a g e

• Explore the role of the existing EUROMED - aiming at political and economic cooperation in theMediterranean Sea - as model of an efficient institutional framework, to host a cross-bordersector conflict management body to deal with fishery and navigation sector conflicts in theMediterranean that often touch cross border issues.• Explore - ideally prior to conflicts arising - the opportunity of compensation measures for certainmaritime sectors. If only one EU sea basin should be stimulated to find structural compensationmeasures for the most impacted sectors, it would be the Mediterranean. The followingcompensation measures for, e.g., small scale fishing communities could be explored incollaboration with all relevant sectors:a) sharing the allotted ORE zones for sea farming projects, fish restocking projects, perhapsaround the wind farms,b) low financial participation threshold in ORE projects with fixed return on investment.3.6 CROSSBORDER AND REGIONAL COOPERATION3.6.1 Barriers and obstaclesAny unilateral proclamations of extra-large EEZs (Libya) or supersized fishing zones (Tunisia), crossborder fisheries issues, historic conflicts (Greece/Turkey), and more generally, the sensitivegeopolitical situation, represent particular challenges for cross-border and regional cooperation in theMediterranean Sea basin. Since the impact of MSP and/or ORE zoning in a EU coastal state will notonly have consequences on its lateral neighbouring states, but also on the non-EU states situatedopposite of them, the cross border cooperation cannot be limited to EU coastal states.3.6.2. Good practicesThe EU countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea are all involved in the major Europeaninternational agreements like the Barcelona Convention, the Bonn Convention and the EspooConvention. These conventions concern principally cross-border collaboration in protection of themarine environment.3.6.3 Policy recommendations• Establish new mechanisms to deal with the cross-border socio-economic impacts of MSP relatedto ORE. The existing EU or international mechanisms for joint sea basin planning andcoordination 39 may not be the most appropriate mechanisms to deal with these aspects, as theycover the protection of the marine environment.• Establish new regional cooperation initiatives similar to EUROMED, aiming primarily atcooperation in the socio-economic domains to best deal with appropriate and pacific siting ofORE projects; in fact, the most environmentally friendly offshore activity. EUROMED brings EUand non-EU states together, around a variety of policy priorities, amongst which also energy39 As suggested earlier.Deliverable D 2.376 | P a g e

elated topics such as the Mediterranean solar energy plan that explores opportunities fordeveloping alternative energy sources in the region,• Lay the foundations of a “win-win model”: cross border cooperation within the MediterraneanSea basin related to MSP comes with a possible win-win model for EU and non-EU memberstates alike. A joint initiative defining ORE zones within the Mediterranean and the subsequentdevelopment of innovative ORE technology in this area may create a new sector with economicand employment opportunities and enhance the security of supply of energy.3.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF MSP3.7.1 Barriers and obstaclesAs mentioned above, a series of typical characteristics of the Mediterranean Sea basin has so farbeen standing in the way of a comprehensive maritime spatial planning:• socio-economic importance of maritime activities: tourism, fisheries, ports, navigation,• geopolitical importance - major naval bases,• delimitation issue - only territorial seas, no EEZ, half of the Mediterranean high seas,• not always adequate data and information gathering and management,• no real tradition of comprehensive consultation procedures,• absence of preventive sector conflict management mechanisms.3.7.2 Good practicesSome MSP-like instruments have, nonetheless, been recently developed by Spain, France, andGreece, countries in which a sectoral zoning exercise has led to the delimitation of zones andappropriate sites for ORE development. Given that these ORE zoning exercises are not finalised orimplemented to date, it is too early to assess whether these ORE zoning instruments will generateresults in terms of attracting the development of offshore renewable energy production.3.7.3 Policy recommendations• Set up an ORE zoning approach as recently developed by three out of the four Mediterranean EUstates as the most:a) promising path for the implementation of ORE siting,b) efficient way to obtain within a reasonable time frame, i.e. before 2020 the legal certaintyrequired for the development of ORE in the Mediterranean, given the obstacles and barriershighlighted in this report, and the absence of MSP.3.8. CONCLUSIONAs illustrated in table 2, no offshore renewable energy has been developed in the Mediterranean Seabasin to date, which is related to a series of limiting conditions for ORE development in this area.The main constraints for ORE development in this sea basin are:• geophysical characteristics: narrow continental shelf, very deep sea bed,Deliverable D 2.377 | P a g e

• limited availability of maritime zones: only territorial seas (16%), no EEZ, more than half of themaritime areas are under international high seas regime,• major socio-economic importance of maritime sectors such as navigation and ports, fisheries,important naval bases.Table 2: Overview state of play MSP processes and NREAPs 2020 offshore targets in theMediterranean SeaMediterranean MSP process Installed offshore NREAP 2020 EEZcountriescapacity (MW) offshore target(MW)France Five predevelopment0 6,000 wind and nozones 40380 MW wave andtidal 41GreeceSuggested 0 300 MW wind noORE 42 areasItaly No 0 680 windno3 wave and tidalSpain Defined ORE 0 3,000 wind 44 noareas 43Nevertheless, the NREAP 2020 offshore targets for Greece, Italy and Spain express an ambition todevelop offshore wind energy in the coming years. To that end, Greece and Spain have recentlydeveloped an MSP like instrument in the form of specific ORE zones within the territorial seas.France has excluded, for the time being, any ORE development in its Mediterranean territorial zones.For those countries that have not yet developed a MSP policy, such as Italy 45 , it could be interestingto build on the most fruitful test MSP experiences in the Baltic Sea 46 . The opportunity of a similarMediterranean Sea basin specific approach for MSP related to ORE development in the territorialseas should be explored. The best practices of MSPs in other sea basins should be taken on boardas well, with a particular emphasis on comprehensive stakeholder consultation, sector conflictmanagement and cross-border cooperation. For the largest part of the Mediterranean seas, currentlyunder high seas regime, MSP test experiences at an international level could be explored.40Five zones have been identified in France after a first zoning exercise and the 2010 tender process; stillunder development (final tender to be launched this year), but no sites within the Mediterranean Sea basin.41 Not in the Mediterranean Sea.42 ORE: Offshore Renewable Energy.43 Atlantic ocean ad Mediterranean Sea.44 Offshore renewable target for both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.45 And Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, and new EU member states such as Croatia.46 BaltSeaPlan: see chapter Baltic Sea.Deliverable D 2.378 | P a g e

4. NORTH SEA4.1 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK4.1.1 Barriers and obstaclesThe absence of MSP or defined zones for ORE development may represent an obstacle to therealisation of ORE projects. This was the case in Belgium in 2002 where the first two offshore windprojects were stranded either in the licensing process or further to appeals against an issued permit.These offshore wind projects, situated in the territorial sea, have encountered different forms ofopposition from a series of stakeholders/sectors such as the fishing sector, nature conservationsector, neighbouring countries (the Netherlands), coastal citizens, and the coastal provincialauthorities. Even if a legal framework for licensing and stakeholder consultation was in place at thattime, the fact that there was no MSP or ORE zoning policy constituted an obstacle to establishingoffshore energy.4.1.2 Good practicesAn MSP like exercise in Belgium, called „Master Plan North Sea‟, has resulted in the adoption byRoyal Decree (2004, as modified in 2011) of a preferential offshore wind zone within the EEZ. Sincethe delimitation of this exclusive ORE zone, offshore wind energy cannot be developed in theterritorial seas, but tidal and wave energy 47 can. The Belgian MSP like practice could be seen as analternative to the other three basic MSP models as outlined above 48 . A legally binding MSPinstrument for ORE zoning has been developed, not based on primary MSP legislation, but givingeffect to the Electricity Act of 1999 and its implementing Royal Decrees 49 .The designation of a preferential ORE zone outside the territorial sea was decided due to the juridicalaspects (appeals before the Council of State) of the first generation 50 of offshore wind farmauthorisations in the territorial sea. This decision has provided since 2004 the necessary legalcertainty for offshore wind farm investors, as it prevented to a large extent appeals against offshorewind farms situated within the zone 51 . Another indicator of this measure effectiveness andattractiveness is that almost all 7 offshore wind allotments have been assigned to date, except forthe last lot for which several project proposals were introduced in May 2011.47 Wave energy demonstration project FlanSea (2010) in Belgian territorial sea.48 Comparison of Best Practice across the EU in Maritime spatial planning, MRAG Ltd, 2011, p.10.49 Royal Decree of 2000,as modified by the RD of 2004, 2008 and 2011.50 In 2001, a series of investors introduced application files for the development of an offshore wind farm inthe Belgian North Sea. C-Power received a domain concession but no environmental permit for its projectproposed on the Wenduine bank and Seanergy received a domain concession and an environmental permitin 2002 for its project on on Vlakte van de Raan. However, a series of appeals against the Seanergy projectbefore the State Council blocked for several years the execution of the permit.51 Although 1 granted concession (Seastar) has been withdrawn further to an appeal before the StateCouncil.Deliverable D 2.379 | P a g e

In Denmark, the Integrated Marine Strategy lays down a comprehensive governmental action tooptimise and coordinate current regulation in maritime zones. In terms of zoning for offshore winddevelopment, 23 possible locations for future offshore wind locations have been identified but arenot yet approved by the government.In its Maritime Spatial Plan (2009) for the North Sea, Germany defined priority areas for offshorewind energy use in its EEZ. The competence for MSP in the territorial sea is left to the regionalauthorities (Länder). Even though this decision can be interpreted as dividing federal and regionalcompetences, however, it has the advantage of local governance in the territorial seas. Localdecision-makers also appear to invest in careful consultation of local stakeholders. Also, localauthorities reportedly develop a better understanding of possible sector conflicts. Decentralisedgovernance often seems to result in larger local support and wider acceptance of ORE developmentin the territorial seas.The Netherlands have agreed in December 2010 an overall policy framework for MSP in theirmaritime zones, called the National Water Plan. This plan contains 2 main offshore wind energyareas (OWE), and also defines two large search areas.The criteria based MSP policy for ORE development in the UK leaves, in theory, all spatial optionsopen, as long as a series of MSP criteria are respected.4.1.3 Policy recommendationsMSP policies and legal frameworks are in general well developed in the North Sea basin, so policyrecommendations may seem rather superfluous in this EU maritime zone. However, even goodpractices can always benefit from „better and best‟ practices:• Ensure best possible legal certainty of ORE development though comprehensive MSP primarylegislation. The most integrated MSP policy related to ORE development has recently beenestablished in the Netherlands where a National Water policy defines 2 categories of ORE zones.Anchoring ORE preferential zoning to a comprehensive primary MSP legislation seems to offerthe best possible legal certainty for ORE development, at least from a siting point of view 52 ,• Ensure local and public sectorial support, for the development of MSP policy related to ORE interritorial zones in the North Sea. Without this support, legal actions against ORE in the territorialseas can be expected. That is why the German practice of delegating the decision makingprocess for ORE development in the territorial seas to the local authorities (Länder) is interestingand can be an example to inspire ORE related MSP for the territorial seas in the Mediterranean.52 The most important drivers for ORE development remain RE support schemes and grid connection,Deliverable D 2.380 | P a g e

4.2 PERMITTING AND LICENSING4.2.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn „cascade‟ licensing processes, such as in Belgium, permits are not valid until the last requiredpermit has been obtained. The last necessary and utterly essential license is the grid connectionagreement. If grid capacity is not ready for the injection of ORE production, the permits and theproject cannot be executed. This is the case for 3 consented projects in Belgium that received thefirst required license in 2009 and launched the rest of the permitting process. However, as long asthe grid operator has not reinforced its transmission capacities 53 , the domain concession,construction and environmental and subsea cable permits will remain suspended.The permitting process in the Netherlands seems to be very disparate with 11 laws and regulationsto consider, of which five are related to environmental protection, which may seem to some extendexaggerated. After all, ORE production is the most environmental friendly way of producing energy, sothe environmental permits could be harmonised or merged for the purpose of ORE projects. The gridconnection and the permit for the subsea cable are excluded from this licensing process and must behandled at local level.4.2.2 Good practicesDenmark has based the licensing process on the Act for the Promotion of Renewables (2009). Otherauthorities are involved in the licensing process with a statutory role. It is certainly interesting to seethat a licensing process for ORE is piloted by a national energy administration.In Germany, the legal basis for the licensing process in the EEZ is the Maritime Spatial Plan for theNorth Sea and the Baltic Sea. In the 12 nautical mile zone (TS), the Spatial Plans of the Länder apply.As regards the grid license, a federal law obliges the transmission grid operators (TSO) to ensure gridconnection of a consented offshore wind farm. The obligation to connect ORE production to the gridhas a firm legal basis in Germany, situation which offers tight legal certainty and results in lessinvestment costs 54 for ORE developers. The UK requests six types of licenses for ORE projects, but aunique advantage of the permitting system of the UK is that once they are obtained, the permits arevalid indefinitely.4.2.3 Policy recommendations• Ensure a good permit and licensing process based – ideally – on a combination of all goodNorth Sea MSP practices related to ORE development that:53 Expected in 2014-2015, but dependent on successful outcome of onshore permitting process oftransmission lines.54 Since the ORE developer does not have to invest in the subseacable which constitutes +/- 15 % of CAPEXof an offshore wind farm.Deliverable D 2.381 | P a g e

a) is legally anchored on renewable energy legislation (such as in Denmark, Germany), this willensure that the sense of urgency to develop ORE is the dominant concern and motivationthroughout the licensing process,b) is integrated in a comprehensive MSP legislation (Netherlands),c) is valid indefinitely (United Kingdom),d) gives the permitting and investment responsibility of the grid connection to the grid operatorand not to the project developer (Germany, Denmark).4.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONAll North Sea countries consult the relevant maritime and non-maritime sectors as well as the publicstakeholders within the ORE consenting process.4.3.1 Good practicesIn Germany stakeholders were involved extensively during the MSP drafting process (2008), so priorto the consenting process for ORE projects, as well as after the exercise (2009) was finalised.4.3.2 Policy recommendations• Consult stakeholders within the licensing processes and offer to institutional as well as noninstitutionalstakeholders the possibility to participate in the preparatory works of acomprehensive MSP policy.• Take account of relevant comments of the different stakeholders to improve the quality of theMSP and to anticipate and/or prevent recurrent opposition from certain stakeholders in theconsenting processes of ORE projects.4.4 SECTOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT4.4.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn Belgium, some maritime sectors are subject to regional legislation (e.g. access to ports,maintenance of navigation channels, coastal conservation), however, the principal maritime sectorsare governed by federal laws. This may result in the institutionalisation of conflicts between sectors.In the UK, as mentioned above, some sectors (defence, aviation) have a veto right in the MSP orlicensing process, which may not always lead to a fair and constructive dialogue between sectors.4.4.2 Good practicesIn 2004, Belgium adopted a zonal delimitation for offshore wind, which was the legal outcome of anMSP-like cross sectoral exercise that originated from a sector conflict management. This MSPprocess was driven by the need to manage sector conflicts in a structural way and to put an end toCouncil of State appeals blocking the execution of permits for offshore wind farms. The zoningdelimitation managed to shift established sand extraction zones to another maritime area in order toDeliverable D 2.382 | P a g e

free up space for ORE development. Although not of a comprehensive nature, this MSP like measuremanaged to successfully solve existing sectoral conflicts. Another sector conflict managementmeasure in Belgium is the establishment of an „offshore wind farms‟ workgroup within the CoastGuard Centre (Kustwachtcentrale). It is a public coordination service for conflict management andprevention between all federal and regional authorities acting in the Belgian maritime zones.In Denmark, a hearing process prior to the application of an ORE project gives other authorities theopportunity to express major concerns about public interests that may be impacted by an OREproject. Denmark is one of the only countries where compensation measures for commercial fishingare expected.The UK a working strategy to solve potential conflicts with other sectors (i.e. fishing, navigation,radar) is also interesting as it involves agreement during „pre-screening‟ consultations by liaising withstakeholder groups established to address issues relating to specific projects. The policy strategy, inaccordance with the „criteria based‟ approach previously mentioned, does not rely on „priority zones‟being established, but rather in identifying constraints and having site and project specificdiscussions about how the developments can be fitted around these constraints e.g. avoiding oil andgas installations, dredging sites and major shipping routes.The involvement of the maritime stakeholders in the drafting of the MSP and the designation of OREzones in Germany has mitigated the risk of sector conflicts.4.4.3 Policy recommendations• Actively involve all concerned sectors, public services and private organisations when preparing acomprehensive MSP or an ORE zoning process, in order to integrate at the earliest possible stagethe respective concerns of different sectors. This will enable in a structural way a conflict-freecoexistence of the concerned maritime sectors. If one sector is identified as unjustlydisadvantaged, it is important to explore all reasonable and structural compensation measures,in close collaboration with the afflicted sector. One of these options could be to developinnovative compensation measures such as the establishment of a vocational training centre forORE related professions (construction, operation and maintenance and dismantling services).4.5 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT4.5.1 Good practicesCountries in the North Sea basin are rather advanced in the field of ocean related data andinformation management. In most North Sea countries, the GIS standard is used and the informationpublically available.Deliverable D 2.383 | P a g e

4.5.2 Policy recommendations• The use of GIS standard for all ocean related data and information in all North Sea countries isrecommended in order to have better exchange and communication possibilities, the use of theGIS standard for all ocean related data and information in all North Sea countries isrecommended.• Data should be regularly updated, publicly available and managed and published in a centralisedway.4.6 CROSSBORDER AND REGIONAL COOPERATIONAll North Sea countries are active in the regional cooperation initiatives in the domain of protection ofthe marine environment, such as OSPAR, Bonn agreement. More recently, a new type of regionalcooperation has emerged around the issue of offshore grid development (North Seas CountriesOffshore Grid Initiative, ENTSO-E).4.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF MSPBelgium implemented a zonal delimitation for offshore wind with a legally binding instrument (RoyalDecree). This created the necessary legal certainty and attracted many ORE developers. Denmarkhas adopted a comparable zoning approach by appointing specific ORE locations, but thegovernment has not yet approved the ORE zones to date. An adequate legal framework for MSP hasbeen equally adopted recently (the “Integrated Marine Strategy”). Germany has adopted a MaritimeSpatial Planning plan for its EEZ, in which designated priority areas for offshore wind are defined. TheNational Water Plan of the Netherlands sets a comprehensive legal framework for MSP. The zoningof ORE areas is included in this Plan.4.8 CONCLUSIONThe North Sea basin has the most advanced practices in MSP and the highest installed offshoreenergy capacity to date, as well as the most ambitious NREAP 2020 targets, as illustrated in table 3.Deliverable D 2.384 | P a g e

Table 3: Overview state of play in MSP processes and NREAP 2020 offshore targets in the North SeaNorth Sea MSP process Installed NREAP 2020 EEZStatesoffshore wind(MW)offshore target(MW)Belgium 1 ORE area 195 2,000 55 wind YesDenmark ORE zoning 56 386 57 1,339 58 wind YesGermanyMSP in EEZ 90 59 10,000 60 wind Yes(2009)Netherlands 2 OWE areas 228 5,178 wind YesUKCriteria based 1,341 12,990 wind YesMSPand1,300wave and tidalMSP policies and legal frameworks in the North Sea basin have progressed well over the last decade,as well as licensing processes, stakeholder consultation, sector conflict management, data andinformation management, cross border and regional cooperation and implementation of MSP. Withinthe North Sea basin different MSP models coexist but they appear to generate more or less the sameoutcome in terms of installed and projected offshore energy capacity 61 .Countries like Germany and the Netherlands have recently finalised a comprehensive MSP legalframework policy in which reserved maritime zones are delimitated. Denmark and Belgium haveconducted an MSP-like exercise resulting in the delimitation of ORE zones. The difference withGermany and the Netherlands is that the ORE zoning legislation is based on energy laws rather thanon MSP legislation. The UK has a completely different policy: it works with a zoning approach that isnot defined by the state but based on criteria, which leaves more freedom to the developers and, intheory, more spatial possibilities for ORE development.It is difficult to state whether one approach is more efficient than the other; all the above modelshave so far attracted ORE developers. This indicates that all the (maritime) spatial planningapproaches have their benefits in term of legal certainty. What is likely to stop or slow down the55 The Belgian NREAP does not provide an on- and off-shore split for the overall wind energy capacity figure.However, information subsequently obtained by EWEA indicates that the 2020 target for offshore windcapacity is 2,000 MW,56 In progress, remains to be agreed,57 Just for the North Sea,58 Including the Baltic Sea,59 Just for the North Sea60 Including the Baltic Sea,61 In proportion to the respective available maritime spaces of every North Sea country.Deliverable D 2.385 | P a g e

development of ORE in the North Sea basin is probably not a lack of MSP policy, but uncertaintyrelated to financial support mechanisms and/or the possibility to connect to an electric powertransmission. Nevertheless, the developed MSP policies and practices, and the lessons learned maybe interesting to share with coastal states of other EU sea basins. A final question remains: is theprogress of MSP policy related to ORE deployment in the North Sea basin a consequence of the OREdevelopment or is MSP a preliminary condition for the development of ORE? The facts 62 tend tosuggest that comprehensive MSP followed the first batch of offshore renewable energydevelopments in the North Sea.A recent form of regional cooperation between North Sea coastal states is related to how to transportthe production from ORE in the sea basin. To this end North Sea countries have developed a regionalcooperation framework at policy and grid transmission system operator level to discuss possiblefuture offshore grid interconnections. It seems necessary to include at some point new developmentsrelated to offshore grid design within existing North Sea MSP policies. It seems important as well tohave the ORE sector more formally involved in this regional cooperation framework, e.g. as constantmembers of the NSCGI and its working groups.62 D: Vindeby (1991), Horns Rev I(2002), Samso (2003),Deliverable D 2.386 | P a g e

5. BALTIC SEA5.1 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK5.1.1 Barriers and obstaclesMost Baltic Sea countries have no comprehensive MSP legislation in place, or sectoral zoning foroffshore energy development (with the exception Germany for its Baltic EEZ and to a certain extentDenmark). The main reason seems to be the absence of a policy stimulating ORE development, ascan be seen in table 4 (below): the offshore renewable energies NREAP targets are minimalistic, orjust lacking.5.1.2 Good practicesPoland has a legal possibility for preparing maritime spatial plans since 2003. A test MSP wasrecently launched in the Gulf of Gdansk. Sweden has proposed a Cohesive Swedish Maritime Policyin 2008 and a series of legislative acts that are the legal basis for ORE development both in theterritorial sea and EEZ. Germany has adopted a spatial planning policy for the Exclusive EconomicZones in the Baltic Sea in 2009. Estonia has no MSP policy but it adopted its National RenewableEnergy Action Plan in 2010, with an offshore wind target of 250 MW.5.1.3 Policy recommendations• Provide additional policy incentives for offshore, as the EU-RES Directive appears not to havegenerated ambitious ORE targets for 2020 in the Baltic Sea countries.• Build on results of the BaltSeaPlan 63 initiative - a regional cooperation initiative aiming atpreparing national MSP processes in the Baltic Sea area - to further integrate the futuredevelopment of ORE. This would considerably contribute to the regional coherence of nationalMSPs in the Baltic region.• Cooperate with organisations such as VASAB 2010 64 , the intergovernmental organisation ofMinistries responsible for spatial planning in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). VASAB expressedsupport to MSP in its recent Long Term Perspective for the BSR, which represents a clearpolitical signal that will help pave the way for MSP in this sea basin.5.2 PERMITTING AND LICENSING5.2.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn most Baltic countries, no specific ORE licensing processes have been set up so far. The absence ofan ambitious national ORE 2020 target may constitute a barrier for the establishment of a legislativepermitting procedure for ORE development.5.2.2 Good practices63 http://www.baltseaplan.eu64 http://www.vasab.orgDeliverable D 2.387 | P a g e

Estonia has established a four stage licensing process starting with obtaining a state permit, with avalidity of 50 years which is, compared to other countries, a very long period. This long term legalcertainty may increase the attractiveness of the ORE licensing regime. A grid upgrade investment hasbeen decided in Finland in order to accommodate the wind power production that has been targetedby the government. This initiative can be seen as a pro-active investment meant to create security forORE investors. The Swedish permitting process is composed of different stages with permitsobtained at different levels. The permission to use the territorial waters is to be approved by theSwedish government, but it needs to be managed at the regional level, situation similar to theGerman and French licensing approaches for the territorial seas.Denmark and Germany offer other good practice models, with a one-stop-approach in Denmark anda streamlined process in Germany. However, the German development of offshore wind in the BalticSea is still limited (50 MW launched officially in May 2011).5.2.3 Policy recommendations• Simplify the permitting process with a minimum of authorities involved. As shown earlier, themultiplication of permitting stages and the fragmentation of decision levels do not contribute toan attractive investment climate for ORE development,• Upgrade grid capacity once the official ORE targets are approved in order to reassure investorsthat the ORE production will be connected to the grid,• Streamline the validity period for all ORE licenses in the Baltic Sea to an extended number ofyears (e.g. 50 years), as already practiced by Estonia.5.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION5.3.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn most of the Baltic Sea countries only sectoral or ad hoc consultation between ministries seems totake place.5.3.2 Good practicesPoland has no legally binding consultation obligation, but it has nevertheless involved a broad rangeof public and private stakeholders for the test MSP exercise in the Gulf of Gdansk. In Sweden, thereis a legal obligation to consult. In Germany stakeholders were involved during and after the spatialplanning exercise as well as during the consenting phase of ORE projects. In Denmark, a hearingprocess prior to the application of an ORE project gives other authorities the opportunity to expressmajor concerns about public interests that may be jeopardized by an ORE projectDeliverable D 2.388 | P a g e

5.3.3 Policy recommendations• Establish in all Baltic countries a legal obligation to organise stakeholder consultation, prior tothe establishment of MSP policy as well as when ORE projects are submitted (the Swedishpractice could be used as a model).• Enhance the interest of the public for offshore renewable energy by promoting an activestakeholder participation in the consultation process (see Poland).5.4 SECTOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT5.4.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn Sweden, some maritime sectors like fishing, shipping and defence seem to have a dominantposition in sector conflicts. This is often not the best possible starting point for fair sector conflictmanagement in maritime areas. Most of the sector conflicts in the Baltic Sea basin are managed ona case-by-case basis and are addressed during the EIA process.5.4.2 Good practicesPoland addresses possible sector conflicts in a preventive way by actively involving a maximum ofstakeholders at the earliest possible stage of the MSP process, as illustrated during the test MSP inthe Gulf of Gdansk. Denmark is one of the only countries where compensation measures forcommercial fishing are expected. The involvement of the maritime stakeholders in the drafting of anMSP and the designation of the ORE zones in Germany has mitigated the risk of sector conflicts.5.4.3 Policy recommendations• Create a level playing field in order to best prevent sector conflicts in MSP policy. Every maritimesector should, in principle, have equal rights to claim some parts of the maritime space for itsactivity, be it defence, fishing, or offshore renewable energy.• Engage in early discussions with the maritime sectors that cannot displace their activities: allrelevant sectors should be involved from the beginning of the MSP process to help shape anMSP that enables the safe and conflict free co-existence of „old‟ and „new‟ users of the sea. ThePolish pilot MSP in the field of sector conflict management (Gulf of Gdansk) could bedisseminated to other Baltic coastal states.5.5 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT5.5.1 Barriers and obstaclesThe majority of Baltic countries dispose of maritime data and information related to geology, windstatistics, measurements in the air and water, marine biodiversity, socio-economic activities, andothers. The information is not available in GIS format in most Baltic countries which may hamper thecentralisation and inter-operability of the data and information for the purpose of preparing MSPs.Deliverable D 2.389 | P a g e

5.5.2 Good practicesPoland and Latvia have the maritime data and information available in GIS format but it appears tobe insufficient for detailed spatial planning purposes.5.5.3 Policy recommendations• Create a comprehensive marine database covering the entire Baltic Sea region under a GISformat for quality national MSPs. Guidelines for data management have already beenprepared under the BaltCoast 65 project.• Integrate the guidelines of the INSPIRE 66 Directive.5.6 CROSSBORDER AND REGIONAL COOPERATION5.6.1 Good practicesAs mentioned in the policy chapter, a series of interesting regional cooperation initiatives related toMSP in the Baltic Sea region have been developed lately: VASAB, BaltSeaPlan and the Baltic SeaRegion Energy Cooperation (BASREC). There is also regional cooperation related to grid connections(BEMIP 67 ). All Baltic countries are member of the Committee on Spatial Planning and Development inthe Baltic Sea region of VASAB. This experience in regional cooperation will most likely impactpositively the cross border cooperation in the respective countries when putting the basis of anational MSP. One of the seven test MSPs within BaltSeaPlan is conducted in the area of theSouthern Middle Bank, situated in the maritime areas of Poland and Sweden. This test MSPillustrates the interest of cross border cooperation, since the area is situated on both sides of theborder between the two EEZs of Poland and Sweden. Moreover, this area is situated in a marineprotected area and hosts activities such as offshore wind energy, pipelines and aggregates mining.5.6.2 Policy recommendations• Integrate cross border and regional cooperation in the respective national MSP plans, given thegeographical situation of a semi-closed sea, where trans-boundary effects of activities in themaritime zones of neighbouring states may easily generate conflicts. This will enable themanagement and prevention of conflicts related to cross-border impacts of maritime activities.65 BaltCoast was a pilot initiative on ICZM in the Baltic Sea (2005),66 Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing anInfrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) was published in the officialJournal on the 25th April 2007. The INSPIRE Directive entered into force on the 15th May, 2007.67 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/infrastructure/bemip The Baltic Energy Market Interconnection Plan waslaunched at the initiative of Commission President Barroso at the 2008 autumn European Council. The twomain goals of the BEMIP initiative, within the context of the EU's 20/20/20 objectives are: the full integrationof the three Baltic States into the European energy market, through the strengthening of interconnectionswith their EU neighbouring countries.Deliverable D 2.390 | P a g e

5.7 IMPLEMENTATION OF MSPNo formal and integrated MSP legislative framework has yet been implemented in the Baltic Seabasin, with the exception of Germany and Denmark. The most important progress towardsimplementation of MSP to date is the active involvement of all Baltic countries in the BaltSeaPlan,which will provide key input into National Maritime Strategies. The overall objective is to develop acommon spatial development vision for the Baltic Sea as a synergy of the national visions and plansof all Baltic Sea Region countries. The pilot MSPs are an interesting implementation exercise on asmall scale. Seven important Baltic areas were chosen for pilot maritime spatial plans, among themthe Gulf of Gdańsk (PL), the Middle Bank (SE), the Pärnu Bay (EE). It is expected that the MSP pilotprojects will contribute to the development of MSP implementation experience.5.8 CONCLUSIONAs can be seen in table 4, the level of ambition for development of ORE in the Baltic area is very low.Not a single NREAP target for ORE exceeds 500 MW. Lithuania does not seem to have any ambitionto develop ORE, Latvia and Sweden plan to build offshore wind of only 180 MW installed capacity.Poland, Estonia and Finland are slightly more ambitious with a prudent 500 MW offshore renewableenergies by 2020.Table 4: Overview of the MSP processes and NREAP 2020 offshore targets in the Baltic SeacountriesMSPInstalled NREAP 2020 EEZprocess offshore wind Offshore target(MW)(MW)DenmarkORE zoning 467 MW 68 1,399 wind 69 Yesin progressEstonia BaltSeaPlan 0 250 wind YesFinland BaltSeaPlan 26 n/aYes400 (consentedoffshore wind,10 wave andtidal)Germany MSP (2009) 2.5 70 10,000 wind 71 Yesfor EEZLatvia BaltSeaPlan 0 180 wind YesLithuania BaltSeaPlan 0 068 Only in the Baltic Sea,69 Including the North Sea,70 Only in the Baltic Sea,71 Including the North Sea,Deliverable D 2.391 | P a g e

Poland BaltSeaPlan 0 500 wind YesSweden BaltSeaPlan 163 182 wind YesIt is no surprise that the MSP policy and legal framework for ORE development is far from beingadvanced. That is why the initiative BaltSeaPlan is a very useful experience in the MSP field. Theregional cooperation approach introduces the important cross border element of MSP in this basin.Germany and Denmark, who have gathered useful MSP experience, related to offshore renewableenergies in the North Sea, are actively participating in the BaltSeaPlan, which will contribute to thedissemination of MSP knowledge and the exchange of proven policy experiences with the other BalticSea Partners.One is tempted to compare the Baltic Sea with the North Sea: both sea basins are situated in theNorthern part of Europe, they have more or less a comparable surface 72 , shipping and ports activitiesare very important economic sectors, and both seas are surrounded by densely populated and highlyindustrialised areas. Many similarities as to geographical characteristics and economic activities butquite a difference in MSP policy related to offshore renewable energies. The North Sea basin ORE2020 target amounts to 43,000 MW 73 , the cumulated Baltic Sea ORE 2020 target is 1,772 MW.That is why the MSP process in the Baltic Sea region should integrate at the earliest possible stage amore ambitious ORE target. This more ambitious target should be based on the geotechnical andspatial potential of ORE in this sea basin, rather than taking the overly modest national ORE 2020targets into account. It would be a proof of a sound and proactive MSP policy to integrate thetechnical ORE potential in the design of the future national MSP policies, so that maritime spatialplans in this sea basin reserve anticipatively enough place for the future development of ORE in theBaltic Sea region.72 North Sea: 570.000 km², Baltic Sea: 400.000 km² (source: DG Mare).73 This is with the total German and Danish NREAP ORE target included.Deliverable D 2.392 | P a g e