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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 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 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?