Work package 3 Analysis of international MSP Instruments Sophie Jacques 3E 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 Instruments 3.1 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 Instruments 3.2

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 Instruments 3.2 State2020 TargetInstalled OWF EEZ area ORE area% Germany MW180,3 MWNS: km² BS: 4454 km² NS:880 km² BS:130 km² NS: 3% BS: 3% Netherlands5978 MW228 MW59000 km²1000 km²2% Belgium2000 MW186,5 MW3600 km²270 km²7,5% France6000 MW0 MW km²533 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 Instruments 3.3

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 Instruments 3.3

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 F THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Support by: Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.2 State2020 TargetEEZ area ORE area%Installed OWF Germany MWNS: km² BS: 4454 km² NS:880 km² BS:130 km² NS: BS: 180,3 MW Netherlands5978 MW59000 km²1000 km² UK13 500MW, or 33 GW ? km²1341 MW Belgium2000 MW3600 km²270 km²186,5 MW France6000 MW km²533 km²0 MW Sweden182 MW39960 km²163,65 MW Finland26 MW52472 km²1000 km²26,3 MW Denmark1 339 MW1012 km²853,7 MW

Support by: Impact of existing International MSP Instruments on the phases of offshore renewable energy development: Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments Monitoring Permitting & Licensing Location Construction & Operation Removal & Decommissionning UNCLOS, IMO, RFMOs, CBD, Birds and Habitat Directive, CFP, GFCM, NEAFC, Barcelona Convention Espoo Convention, Birds and Habitat Directive, SEA-Directive, EIA- Directive, OSPAR UNCLOS, OSPAR UNCLOS, CFP, GFCM, NEAFC, Bonn Agreement UNCLOS, IMO, CFP, GFCM, NEAFC, OSPAR