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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Estonia has established a four stage licensing process starting with obtaining a state permit, with avalidity of 50 years which is, compared to other countries, a very long period. This long term legalcertainty may increase the attractiveness of the ORE licensing regime. A grid upgrade investment hasbeen decided in Finland in order to accommodate the wind power production that has been targetedby the government. This initiative can be seen as a pro-active investment meant to create security forORE investors. The Swedish permitting process is composed of different stages with permitsobtained at different levels. The permission to use the territorial waters is to be approved by theSwedish government, but it needs to be managed at the regional level, situation similar to theGerman and French licensing approaches for the territorial seas.Denmark and Germany offer other good practice models, with a one-stop-approach in Denmark anda streamlined process in Germany. However, the German development of offshore wind in the BalticSea is still limited (50 MW launched officially in May 2011).5.2.3 Policy recommendations• Simplify the permitting process with a minimum of authorities involved. As shown earlier, themultiplication of permitting stages and the fragmentation of decision levels do not contribute toan attractive investment climate for ORE development,• Upgrade grid capacity once the official ORE targets are approved in order to reassure investorsthat the ORE production will be connected to the grid,• Streamline the validity period for all ORE licenses in the Baltic Sea to an extended number ofyears (e.g. 50 years), as already practiced by Estonia.5.3 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION5.3.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn most of the Baltic Sea countries only sectoral or ad hoc consultation between ministries seems totake place.5.3.2 Good practicesPoland has no legally binding consultation obligation, but it has nevertheless involved a broad rangeof public and private stakeholders for the test MSP exercise in the Gulf of Gdansk. In Sweden, thereis a legal obligation to consult. In Germany stakeholders were involved during and after the spatialplanning exercise as well as during the consenting phase of ORE projects. In Denmark, a hearingprocess prior to the application of an ORE project gives other authorities the opportunity to expressmajor concerns about public interests that may be jeopardized by an ORE projectDeliverable D 2.388 | P a g e
5.3.3 Policy recommendations• Establish in all Baltic countries a legal obligation to organise stakeholder consultation, prior tothe establishment of MSP policy as well as when ORE projects are submitted (the Swedishpractice could be used as a model).• Enhance the interest of the public for offshore renewable energy by promoting an activestakeholder participation in the consultation process (see Poland).5.4 SECTOR CONFLICT MANAGEMENT5.4.1 Barriers and obstaclesIn Sweden, some maritime sectors like fishing, shipping and defence seem to have a dominantposition in sector conflicts. This is often not the best possible starting point for fair sector conflictmanagement in maritime areas. Most of the sector conflicts in the Baltic Sea basin are managed ona case-by-case basis and are addressed during the EIA process.5.4.2 Good practicesPoland addresses possible sector conflicts in a preventive way by actively involving a maximum ofstakeholders at the earliest possible stage of the MSP process, as illustrated during the test MSP inthe Gulf of Gdansk. Denmark is one of the only countries where compensation measures forcommercial fishing are expected. The involvement of the maritime stakeholders in the drafting of anMSP and the designation of the ORE zones in Germany has mitigated the risk of sector conflicts.5.4.3 Policy recommendations• Create a level playing field in order to best prevent sector conflicts in MSP policy. Every maritimesector should, in principle, have equal rights to claim some parts of the maritime space for itsactivity, be it defence, fishing, or offshore renewable energy.• Engage in early discussions with the maritime sectors that cannot displace their activities: allrelevant sectors should be involved from the beginning of the MSP process to help shape anMSP that enables the safe and conflict free co-existence of „old‟ and „new‟ users of the sea. ThePolish pilot MSP in the field of sector conflict management (Gulf of Gdansk) could bedisseminated to other Baltic coastal states.5.5 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT5.5.1 Barriers and obstaclesThe majority of Baltic countries dispose of maritime data and information related to geology, windstatistics, measurements in the air and water, marine biodiversity, socio-economic activities, andothers. The information is not available in GIS format in most Baltic countries which may hamper thecentralisation and inter-operability of the data and information for the purpose of preparing MSPs.Deliverable D 2.389 | 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 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 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?