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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Page 2 and 3: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis study forms p
Page 4 and 5: TASK 2.6: TABLE OF CONTENTSTASK 2.6
Page 6 and 7: 1 INTRODUCTIONThis report responds
Page 8 and 9: Before going any further in terms o
Page 10 and 11: procedures, in terms of for example
Page 12 and 13: 3 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT3.
Page 14 and 15: 3.3 Best practice in data and infor
Page 16 and 17: the required data. Once the „cada
Page 18 and 19: Encourage the use of legislation to
Page 20 and 21: As the effectiveness and efficiency
Page 22 and 23: seabed without an EEZ claim being m
Page 24 and 25: een granted. A similar indicator wa
Page 26 and 27: The national reports indicate that
Page 30 and 31: Levels of public consultation are m
Page 32 and 33: What particularly distinguishes som
Page 34 and 35: All relevant stakeholders are repre
Page 36 and 37: 6.3 Best practice in sector conflic
Page 38 and 39: 6.3.3 Conflict minimisation agreeme
Page 40 and 41: 7 TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATIONThe aim
Page 42 and 43: Support regional sea-basin cooperat
Page 44 and 45: 6. Stakeholder participation;7. Pre
Page 46 and 47: 2. Specifying criteria for selectin
Page 48 and 49: Optimal spatial use of the maritime
Page 50 and 51: 9 FINAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS9.1 O
Page 52 and 53: There should be a central instituti
Page 54 and 55: 9.3.2 Transboundary cooperationUse
Page 56 and 57: Iuga, D (2010) Analysis of MSP in t
Page 58 and 59: Task 2.7: Table of Contents1 ATLANT
Page 60 and 61: 2. ATLANTIC OCEAN AND IRISH SEAThe
Page 62 and 63: • MSP on a sea basin level should
Page 64 and 65: • Possible impacts of grid expans
Page 66 and 67: undertaken like the „North Seas C
Page 68 and 69: 3. MEDITERRANEAN SEAThe Mediterrane
Page 70 and 71: 3.1.2 Good practicesGreece has rece
Page 72 and 73: simplifies the permitting and licen
Page 74 and 75: ) consult all relevant groups and s
Page 76 and 77: • Explore the role of the existin
Page 78 and 79:
• limited availability of maritim
Page 80 and 81:
In Denmark, the Integrated Marine S
Page 82 and 83:
a) is legally anchored on renewable
Page 84 and 85:
4.5.2 Policy recommendations• The
Page 86 and 87:
development of ORE in the North Sea
Page 88 and 89:
Estonia has established a four stag
Page 90 and 91:
5.5.2 Good practicesPoland and Latv
Page 92:
Poland BaltSeaPlan 0 500 wind YesSw
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?