Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments

2. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments Objective of WP3: • Evaluate existing international maritime spatial planning instruments and their impact on the development of offshore renewable energies and related grid infrastructure • Identify inconsistencies between offshore renewable energy plans and existing MSP instruments • Set up recommendations for an adaptation of International MSP instruments to facilitate the co-ordinated development of offshore renewable energy activities

3. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.1 Existing International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments: International instruments EU Instruments 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) • UNCLOS • IMO (COLREG, MARPOL, SOLAS) • RFMO • UNFSA • ICCAT • Espoo Convention • Protocol on SEA • CBD • MSFD • Habitat and Birds Directive • SEA-Directive & EIA-Directive • CFP • NEAFC • GFCM

4. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1 International MSP instruments: UNCLOS

5. 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

6. 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

7. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1 ENVIRONMENATL LEGISLATION : • led to the delineation of protected areas whereinactivitiescouldbeallowedunder conditions and a number of criteria, such as the assessment of the impact of the plannedactivity in the protected area (ex: AppropriateAssessmentrequired for NATURA 2000 zones). • led to the establishment of specific administrative and proceduralrules (EIA requiredunder SEA-and EIA-Directive) • The existingenvironmentallegislation do not excludeoffsorerenewableenergy installations/infrastructure, • but mayslown down or hamper in somespecific cases the deployment of offsorerenewableenergy installations/infrastructure (ESPOO Convention)

8. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments 3.1 CONCLUSIONS: • International/regional or Europeanregulations do not containexplicit 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 proceduralrules;  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 beoperationnal, theseneed to beimplementedinto the national policy and legalframework

9. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.2 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

10. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.2 • Until now, international MSP instruments have not been hampering in a substantial way the deployment of renewable offshore energies  initial phase of ORE • 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.

11. 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

12. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.3 • 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?

14. Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments3.3 Conclusion of the WP 3 : - recommendations for an adaptation of International MSP instruments to facilitate the co-ordinated development of offshore renewable energy activities

15. 3E in Belgium Kalkkaai - Quai à la chaux, 6 BE – 1000 Brussels T + 32 2 217 58 68 F + 32 2 219 79 89 info@3E.eu www.3E.eu sophie.jacques@3e.eu Work package 3: International Maritime Spatial Planning Instruments THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION CONTACT US: