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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 54 and 55: 9.3.2 Transboundary cooperationUse
Page 56 and 57: Iuga, D (2010) Analysis of MSP in t
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?