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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 28 and 29: The EIAs should be harmonised to en
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?