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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

In Denmark, the Integrated Marine Strategy lays down a comprehensive governmental action tooptimise and coordinate current regulation in maritime zones. In terms of zoning for offshore winddevelopment, 23 possible locations for future offshore wind locations have been identified but arenot yet approved by the government.In its Maritime Spatial Plan (2009) for the North Sea, Germany defined priority areas for offshorewind energy use in its EEZ. The competence for MSP in the territorial sea is left to the regionalauthorities (Länder). Even though this decision can be interpreted as dividing federal and regionalcompetences, however, it has the advantage of local governance in the territorial seas. Localdecision-makers also appear to invest in careful consultation of local stakeholders. Also, localauthorities reportedly develop a better understanding of possible sector conflicts. Decentralisedgovernance often seems to result in larger local support and wider acceptance of ORE developmentin the territorial seas.The Netherlands have agreed in December 2010 an overall policy framework for MSP in theirmaritime zones, called the National Water Plan. This plan contains 2 main offshore wind energyareas (OWE), and also defines two large search areas.The criteria based MSP policy for ORE development in the UK leaves, in theory, all spatial optionsopen, as long as a series of MSP criteria are respected.4.1.3 Policy recommendationsMSP policies and legal frameworks are in general well developed in the North Sea basin, so policyrecommendations may seem rather superfluous in this EU maritime zone. However, even goodpractices can always benefit from „better and best‟ practices:• Ensure best possible legal certainty of ORE development though comprehensive MSP primarylegislation. The most integrated MSP policy related to ORE development has recently beenestablished in the Netherlands where a National Water policy defines 2 categories of ORE zones.Anchoring ORE preferential zoning to a comprehensive primary MSP legislation seems to offerthe best possible legal certainty for ORE development, at least from a siting point of view 52 ,• Ensure local and public sectorial support, for the development of MSP policy related to ORE interritorial zones in the North Sea. Without this support, legal actions against ORE in the territorialseas can be expected. That is why the German practice of delegating the decision makingprocess for ORE development in the territorial seas to the local authorities (Länder) is interestingand can be an example to inspire ORE related MSP for the territorial seas in the Mediterranean.52 The most important drivers for ORE development remain RE support schemes and grid connection,Deliverable D 2.380 | P a g e
4.2 PERMITTING AND LICENSING4.2.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn „cascade‟ licensing processes, such as in Belgium, permits are not valid until the last requiredpermit has been obtained. The last necessary and utterly essential license is the grid connectionagreement. If grid capacity is not ready for the injection of ORE production, the permits and theproject cannot be executed. This is the case for 3 consented projects in Belgium that received thefirst required license in 2009 and launched the rest of the permitting process. However, as long asthe grid operator has not reinforced its transmission capacities 53 , the domain concession,construction and environmental and subsea cable permits will remain suspended.The permitting process in the Netherlands seems to be very disparate with 11 laws and regulationsto consider, of which five are related to environmental protection, which may seem to some extendexaggerated. After all, ORE production is the most environmental friendly way of producing energy, sothe environmental permits could be harmonised or merged for the purpose of ORE projects. The gridconnection and the permit for the subsea cable are excluded from this licensing process and must behandled at local level.4.2.2 Good practicesDenmark has based the licensing process on the Act for the Promotion of Renewables (2009). Otherauthorities are involved in the licensing process with a statutory role. It is certainly interesting to seethat a licensing process for ORE is piloted by a national energy administration.In Germany, the legal basis for the licensing process in the EEZ is the Maritime Spatial Plan for theNorth Sea and the Baltic Sea. In the 12 nautical mile zone (TS), the Spatial Plans of the Länder apply.As regards the grid license, a federal law obliges the transmission grid operators (TSO) to ensure gridconnection of a consented offshore wind farm. The obligation to connect ORE production to the gridhas a firm legal basis in Germany, situation which offers tight legal certainty and results in lessinvestment costs 54 for ORE developers. The UK requests six types of licenses for ORE projects, but aunique advantage of the permitting system of the UK is that once they are obtained, the permits arevalid indefinitely.4.2.3 Policy recommendations• Ensure a good permit and licensing process based – ideally – on a combination of all goodNorth Sea MSP practices related to ORE development that:53 Expected in 2014-2015, but dependent on successful outcome of onshore permitting process oftransmission lines.54 Since the ORE developer does not have to invest in the subseacable which constitutes +/- 15 % of CAPEXof an offshore wind farm.Deliverable D 2.381 | 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 78 and 79: • limited availability of maritim
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?