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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• limited availability of maritime zones: only territorial seas (16%), no EEZ, more than half of themaritime areas are under international high seas regime,• major socio-economic importance of maritime sectors such as navigation and ports, fisheries,important naval bases.Table 2: Overview state of play MSP processes and NREAPs 2020 offshore targets in theMediterranean SeaMediterranean MSP process Installed offshore NREAP 2020 EEZcountriescapacity (MW) offshore target(MW)France Five predevelopment0 6,000 wind and nozones 40380 MW wave andtidal 41GreeceSuggested 0 300 MW wind noORE 42 areasItaly No 0 680 windno3 wave and tidalSpain Defined ORE 0 3,000 wind 44 noareas 43Nevertheless, the NREAP 2020 offshore targets for Greece, Italy and Spain express an ambition todevelop offshore wind energy in the coming years. To that end, Greece and Spain have recentlydeveloped an MSP like instrument in the form of specific ORE zones within the territorial seas.France has excluded, for the time being, any ORE development in its Mediterranean territorial zones.For those countries that have not yet developed a MSP policy, such as Italy 45 , it could be interestingto build on the most fruitful test MSP experiences in the Baltic Sea 46 . The opportunity of a similarMediterranean Sea basin specific approach for MSP related to ORE development in the territorialseas should be explored. The best practices of MSPs in other sea basins should be taken on boardas well, with a particular emphasis on comprehensive stakeholder consultation, sector conflictmanagement and cross-border cooperation. For the largest part of the Mediterranean seas, currentlyunder high seas regime, MSP test experiences at an international level could be explored.40Five zones have been identified in France after a first zoning exercise and the 2010 tender process; stillunder development (final tender to be launched this year), but no sites within the Mediterranean Sea basin.41 Not in the Mediterranean Sea.42 ORE: Offshore Renewable Energy.43 Atlantic ocean ad Mediterranean Sea.44 Offshore renewable target for both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.45 And Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus, and new EU member states such as Croatia.46 BaltSeaPlan: see chapter Baltic Sea.Deliverable D 2.378 | P a g e
4. NORTH SEA4.1 POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK4.1.1 Barriers and obstaclesThe absence of MSP or defined zones for ORE development may represent an obstacle to therealisation of ORE projects. This was the case in Belgium in 2002 where the first two offshore windprojects were stranded either in the licensing process or further to appeals against an issued permit.These offshore wind projects, situated in the territorial sea, have encountered different forms ofopposition from a series of stakeholders/sectors such as the fishing sector, nature conservationsector, neighbouring countries (the Netherlands), coastal citizens, and the coastal provincialauthorities. Even if a legal framework for licensing and stakeholder consultation was in place at thattime, the fact that there was no MSP or ORE zoning policy constituted an obstacle to establishingoffshore energy.4.1.2 Good practicesAn MSP like exercise in Belgium, called „Master Plan North Sea‟, has resulted in the adoption byRoyal Decree (2004, as modified in 2011) of a preferential offshore wind zone within the EEZ. Sincethe delimitation of this exclusive ORE zone, offshore wind energy cannot be developed in theterritorial seas, but tidal and wave energy 47 can. The Belgian MSP like practice could be seen as analternative to the other three basic MSP models as outlined above 48 . A legally binding MSPinstrument for ORE zoning has been developed, not based on primary MSP legislation, but givingeffect to the Electricity Act of 1999 and its implementing Royal Decrees 49 .The designation of a preferential ORE zone outside the territorial sea was decided due to the juridicalaspects (appeals before the Council of State) of the first generation 50 of offshore wind farmauthorisations in the territorial sea. This decision has provided since 2004 the necessary legalcertainty for offshore wind farm investors, as it prevented to a large extent appeals against offshorewind farms situated within the zone 51 . Another indicator of this measure effectiveness andattractiveness is that almost all 7 offshore wind allotments have been assigned to date, except forthe last lot for which several project proposals were introduced in May 2011.47 Wave energy demonstration project FlanSea (2010) in Belgian territorial sea.48 Comparison of Best Practice across the EU in Maritime spatial planning, MRAG Ltd, 2011, p.10.49 Royal Decree of 2000,as modified by the RD of 2004, 2008 and 2011.50 In 2001, a series of investors introduced application files for the development of an offshore wind farm inthe Belgian North Sea. C-Power received a domain concession but no environmental permit for its projectproposed on the Wenduine bank and Seanergy received a domain concession and an environmental permitin 2002 for its project on on Vlakte van de Raan. However, a series of appeals against the Seanergy projectbefore the State Council blocked for several years the execution of the permit.51 Although 1 granted concession (Seastar) has been withdrawn further to an appeal before the StateCouncil.Deliverable D 2.379 | 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 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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?