15
Work package 3 Analysis of international MSP Instruments Sophie Jacques 3E Support by:
Work package 3Analysis of international MSP InstrumentsSophie Jacques3E
Support by:
Support by:
Objective of WP3: 1. Evaluate existing international maritime spatial planning
instruments and their impact on the development of offshore renewable energies and related grid infrastructure
2. Identify inconsistencies between offshore renewable energy plans and existing MSP instruments
3. Set up recommendations for an adaptation of International MSP instruments to facilitate the co-ordinated development of offshore renewable energy activities
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments
Support by:
Existing International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments:
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.1
International instruments
•UNCLOS•IMO (COLREG, MARPOL, SOLAS)•RFMO•UNFSA•ICCAT•Espoo Convention•Protocol on SEA•CBD
EU Instruments
•MSFD•Habitat and Birds Directive•SEA-Directive & EIA-Directive•CFP•NEAFC•GFCM
Regional Instruments
•OSPAR (North East Atlantic)•Bonn Agreement•Int Conferences on the protection of the North Sea•HELCOM (Baltic Sea)•ICZM Protocol•Barcelona Convention (Mediterranean Sea)•MAP (Mediterranean Sea)
Support by:
International MSP instruments:
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1
UNCLOS
Support by:
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1
UNCLOS : • defines the different maritime zones
at sea and the legal status of these zones.
• provides general rules, assuming that detailed regulation is organized through specialized bodies and specific agreements. Apart from the zoning provisions UNCLOS do not contain explicit provisions on renewable offshore development,UNCLOS creates more opportunities than obstacles for the deployment of renewable offshore energies: UNCLOS authorizes coastal states to extend their jurisdiction up to 200 NM to create EEZ’s in which offshore energies can be organized and regulated by the coastal state
Support by:
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1
SHIPPING& NAVIGATION LEGISLATION : • Shipping takes an important place and is regulated by IMO. • Navigation and shipping routes are considered as fixed and
reserved areas, benefiting from priority on space at sea, even if the principle to deviate shipping routes exist
• SOLAS and MARPOL introduced the possibility to define “special areas” requiring a higher level of protection of marine pollution: Particularly Sensitive Area (PSSA) A basic assumption is to treat the existing international system as fixed
FISHERIES LEGISLATION :• No regulatory restrictions on the establishment of RE offshore
activities in fishery areas, but incompatibilities exist between RE offshore activities and fisheries, for example: trawling activities are prohibited in the vicinity of offshore wind areas. Synergies and compatibilities between activities should be clarified and studied further
Support by:
ENVIRONMENATL LEGISLATION :• led to the delineation of protected areas wherein activities
could be allowed under conditions and a number of criteria, such as the assessment of the impact of the planned activity in the protected area (ex: Appropriate Assessment required for NATURA 2000 zones).
• led to the establishment of specific administrative and procedural rules (EIA required under SEA-and EIA-Directive)
The existing environmental legislation do not exclude offsore renewable energy installations/infrastructure, but may slown down or hamper in some specific cases the deployment of offsore renewable energy installations/infrastructure (ESPOO Convention)
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1
Support by:
CONCLUSIONS:• International/regional or European regulations do not contain
explicit provisions or restrictive elements on renewable offshore development Offshore renewable activities are newcomers in the sea space
• International MSP Instruments may have an impact/influence on the planning of offshore renewables, e.g on location and procedural rules; might slown down and hamper in specific cases / depends on interpretation level
• Several conditions are set up by international/European and regional instruments, but to be operationnal, these need to be implemented into the national policy and legal framework
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1
Support by:
Analysis of offshore renewable energies siting plans relatively to existing
international MSP instruments:
• Identification of inconsistencies between offshore renewable energy plans and existing MSP instruments
• Comparison of the planned/suggested “zoning information” and the international MSP Instruments
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.2
Support by:
• Until now, international MSP instruments have not been hampering in a substantial way the deployment of renewable offshore energies initial phase of ORE
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.2
State 2020 Target InstalledOWF
EEZarea
ORE area %
Germany 10 000 MW 180,3 MW NS: 28539 km²BS: 4454 km²
NS:880 km²BS:130 km²
NS: 3%BS: 3%
Netherlands 5978 MW 228 MW 59000 km² 1000 km² 2%
Belgium 2000 MW 186,5 MW 3600 km² 270 km² 7,5%
France 6000 MW 0 MW 334604 km² 533 km² (not in Mediterranean Sea
0,2%
• Specific conditions exist in each sea basin / Member State • The need to adapt existing International MSP Instruments will probably
appear differently in time (depending on spatial restrictions) and request specific content-wise clarifications/harmonisation.
Support by:
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.2
Mediterranean Sea:• Semi-enclosed sea, surrounded by
21 countries• Few countries only claimed an EEZ• Mediterranean States are reluctant to proclaim an EEZ,
and behind the choice of delaying the establishment of EEZ may be:– Difficulties of delimitation in this relatively narrow sea– The desire of the States to preserve basin-wide access
to fisheries• Some countries established particular areas as Fishing
zones (Spain) and zones of ecological protection (France). These zones allows to extend somehow its EEZ jurisdiction. Could be considered as a precedent to create a new MSP instrument that would authorize the creation of “renewable energy (RE) zones” outside national jurisdictions
Support by:
Is there a need to adapt existing International MSP Instruments? Or are these sufficient?
Is there a need for a new MSP Instrument or would it be easier to modify the current one?Is there a need to clarify the position/priority of particular functions and offshore renewable activities?
500m safety area around infrastructures and cables?NATURA 2000 as NO GO area
Should this clarification be done at International or European or Sea Basin level ? Should a quantitative objective for the creation of Offshore Renewable Energy Zones (% of EEZ) be identified and promoted?
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.3
Support by:
Support by:
Conclusion of the WP 3 :
- recommendations for an adaptation of International MSP instruments to
facilitate the co-ordinated development of offshore renewable energy activities
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.3
Support by:
Work package 3:International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments
15
CONTACT US: • 3E in Belgium• Kalkkaai - Quai à la
chaux, 6• BE – 1000 Brussels• T + 32 2 217 58 68• F + 32 2 219 79 89
• [email protected]• www.3E.eu• [email protected]
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
