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

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