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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Before going any further in terms of assessing the extent to which existing legal and policy frameworks giveeffect to MSP it is perhaps useful to examine in more detail what is meant by MSP. An immediate problemin this respect is that there is no internationally accepted definition of MSP. Nor, of course, is there aformal EU definition given that there is no EU legislation on MSP.One broadly accepted definition, which has been proposed by UNESCO Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission (IOC) is that MSP is: ‘a process of analysing and allocating parts of three-dimensional marinespaces to specific uses to achieve ecological, economic and social objectives that are usually specifiedthrough the political process: the … process usually results in a comprehensive plan or vision for a marineregion. (MSP) is an essential element of sea use management’ (Ehler & Douvere, 2007).Although none of the EU‟s formal Communications on MSP to date have sought to define the concept, abrochure that has recently been produced by the European Commission (European Commission, 2010)contains the following definition:MSP is a process for planning and regulating all human uses of the sea, which also sets out toprotect the marine ecosystems in which these activities take place and safeguard marinebiodiversity. MSP is a process for planning and regulating all human uses of the sea, which alsosets out to protect the marine ecosystems in which these activities take place and safeguardmarine biodiversity.Of course while this too is not legally binding, two clear messages emerge from both of the definitions,namely: (a) that MSP is a process; and (b) moreover one that takes a comprehensive approach to humanactivities at sea.The adoption of policy statements and legislation in support of the development of the O-RE sector clearlyrepresents an important step forward in the development of a robust legal and policy framework for thesector. Examples of such legislation include the Spanish Royal Decree (RD) 1028/2007, a series ofBelgian Royal Decrees 4 including the Decree of 3 February 2011. However such instruments cannot, in4 Royal decree of 7 September 2003 concerning the procedure for licences and the authorization of certain activitiesin the marine areas under Belgian jurisdiction (License Decree), Royal decree of 9 September 2003 concerning therules of an environmental impact assessment (Environmental Impact Decree), Royal Decree of 16 July 2002concerning the mechanisms to promote electricity production from renewable energies sources, Royal Decree of 20December 2000 giving the conditions for granting a domain concession and modified by the Royal Decree of 17 May2004 (MB26/06/2004), as well amended by the Royal Decree of 3 February 2011, Royal Decree 28 September 2008on the location of wind plants as a sine qua non condition to obtain a domain concessionDeliverable 2.38 | P a g e
themselves, fully address MSP because of their single-sector focus. However, they provide benefits of MSPfor the wind energy sector in terms of conferring the necessary legal security for investment and avoidingpotential negative impacts from planning related decisions of other sectors.Nevertheless, in most European countries a comprehensive legal framework for MSP has yet to bedeveloped. The key issue relates to legal certainty: if MSP does not lead to binding results and the contentsof a given plan are not mandatory across different sectors or on the authorities responsible for themanagement of such sectors, then it cannot provide for the legal certainty necessary for investors. This isof course a particular issue for investors in O-RE given the significant capital costs involved.Consequently in its Communication on a Road Map on MSP the European Commission noted that „MSPshould be legally binding if it is to be effective‟ (COM, 2008a). In a more recent Communication describingprogress regarding MSP in the EU (COM, 2010), the European Commission noted that MSP is „crucial forlegal certainty, predictability and transparency‟ and again stressed the importance of MSP having legaleffect.However, as previously noted, the progress in establishing formal legal frameworks for MSP by the MemberStates has been relatively modest to date. Since 2001 the most significant progress has been made byGermany, largely as a result of pressure from the wind energy sector. By reason of its federal constitution,Germany enjoys a split approach to MSP with competence over the EEZ held by the Federal Government,with the Laender being responsible for MSP within the territorial sea.In the UK progress has been made in terms of the development of a legal framework for MSP with theadoption of the comprehensive Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCA 2009). Moreover under the UK‟sdevolved Constitutional settlement, Scotland adopted its own MSP legislation the Scottish Marine PlanningAct in 2010, passed within the overall framework for the MCA 2009. Poland too has now modified its landuseplanning legislation (through the Act on Maritime Areas of Poland and Maritime Administration) to alsoapply to MSP, while in the Netherlands the Water Act provides a legal basis for MSP. Other Member Stateshave yet to develop MSP legislation.In terms of overall approach three basic models can be identifieda) The approach of Germany and Poland has been to extend the basic (land-use) spatial planning regimeout to sea. There are potential benefits and disadvantages to this approach. One disadvantage is thatthere are clear differences between land-use planning and MSP. These include: (a) the fact that MSP mustoperate in three dimensions (the seabed, water column and surface) while land-use planning is concernedprimarily with activities on the surface of the land; (b) the fact that MSP must take account of both fixedstructures (such as oil rigs and wind energy plants) and mobile activities such as fishing and navigationmarine tourism; and (c) the fact that land-use planning is implemented around private land ownership anduse which does not find an obvious equivalent at sea. On the other hand, though, land-use planningDeliverable 2.39 | 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 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 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?