European Territorial Co-Operation Maritime Cross-Border Programmes: The Maritime Dimension

Transcription

1 European Territorial Co-Operation Maritime Cross-Border Programmes: The Maritime Dimension Picture copyright Richard Hill Richard Hill (OCT) & Katerina Kring (INTERACT) FINAL, September 2013 INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund ERDF

2 Disclaimer: The purpose of this document is to serve as inspiration to maritime cross-border programmes and their programming committees in the process of preparing the Operational Programmes and in their discussions concerning the integration of the maritime dimension in the programmes structure. It should be noted that this document does not reflect or stem from an official requirement of the regulatory package for period. OCT 5 Luxfield Rd, Warminster, Wiltshire, United Kingdom, BA12 8HH Published by INTERACT INTERACT is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund ERDF

3 Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION Objectives of Paper Conceptual Logic Model Introducing the Marine and Maritime Dimension Defining Marine & Maritime Terminology EU Marine & Maritime Policy Macro Regions & Sea Basins in Europe 10 SECTION 2: INTEGRATING THE MARITIME DIMENSION INTO THE PROGRAMMES Introduction Existing and Potential Areas of Intervention Horizontal Integration within Cross-Border Programmes Impact of Sea-Basin Strategies & Macro Regional Strategies Overview of the Marine & Maritime Aspects of European Seas Fisheries Maritime Transport Renewable Energy Coastal & Marine Tourism Natura 2000 Network (Marine Protected Areas) Marine Pollution 29 SECTION 3 KEY MARINE & MARITIME ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS Introduction Maritime Jurisdiction Sectoral Stakeholders Marine Resource Specific Stakeholders Stakeholders identified by the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes 35 SECTION 4: FACTORS FOR PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIALLY SUCCESSFUL MARINE & MARITIME PROJECTS Introduction Factors for Programme Development & Horizontal Integration Assessment of Proposed Projects Eligibility Check Strategic Assessment Operational Assessment 42 SECTION 5: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS Introduction The context of Macro-Regional & Sea Basin Strategies Main Factors that support the development of marine and maritime projects Next Steps 45 ANNEX A: EU MARINE & MARITIME POLICY 46 ANNEX B: METHODS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT 51 ANNEX C: HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION: EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE MARINE & MARITIME PROJECTS 53 ANNEX D: EXAMPLES OF MARINE AND MARITIME PROJECTS FROM THE CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION PROGRAMMES 60 Abbreviations 66 Bibliography 67 3

4 Figures Figure Marine & Maritime Conceptual Logic Model...7 Figure European Commission, Directorate Generals marine and maritime policy areas Figure EUSBSR Objectives and Horizontal Actions Figure 2.2.2a Maritime Areas of Intervention ( ), based on responses from five responding programmes Figure 2.2.2b Possible Maritime Areas of Intervention ( ), Number of Responding Programmes Figure Proposed Thematic Objectives , Number of Programmes Figure Coastal regions in the EU, by sea and by NUTS3 Region Figure Total gross weight of maritime goods handled in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, Figure Maritime passengers in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, Figure Density of tourist accommodation in hotels, campsites and other tourist accommodation in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 Regions, Figure Percentage (%) Cruise Ship Passengers by Sea Basin Figure World Sources of Marine Pollution Figure Maritime Sovereignty under UNCLOS Figure UK Legislation- Marine Jurisdiction Figure Marine Protected Area (MPA) Stakeholder Groups 35 Figure Numbers of different types of Maritime Stakeholders identified by the Maritime CBC Programmes Figure Maritime CBC Stakeholders ( ). Number indicates total number of programmes which had this type of stakeholder Figure The degrees of co-operation

5 Section 1: Introduction 1.1 Objectives of Paper European Territorial Co-operation (ETC) maritime cross-border programmes represent a specific cluster of ETC programmes characterised by the presence of the sea in the geography of their programme areas. These stretches of sea separate entirely at least one of the countries from the rest of the programme area. In comparison to the traditional cross-border programmes, where participating regions share a land border and where cooperation is based on proximity of the regions, maritime programmes may involve several member states and regions of the EU along maritime borders separated by a maximum of 150 km According to the draft ETC Regulation, cross-border programmes are established to tackle common challenges in the border region, exploit the potentials of the border area and enhance the cooperation process in the cross-border region for the overall harmonious development of the EU 1. For maritime cross-border programmes all regions supported along the maritime borders should be on NUTS 3 level 2. The challenge these programmes face is promoting integration in spite of the maritime border; this challenge also presents specific opportunities for these programmes in terms of presenting natural fields for co-operation and involvement of maritime actors in ETC projects The requirement for thematic concentration and result-oriented approach during programming and implementation is ensured through the definition of Thematic Objectives (TOs) (Article 9, CPR). The challenge for the maritime programmes is that maritime issues are not the subject of a specific TO but rather should be seen as a horizontal matter when interpreting the TOs. This brings about the challenge of interpretation, prioritising and integrating the maritime dimension in the choice of TOs for these programmes The purpose of this paper is to provide support to the maritime cross-border (CB) programmes in interpreting and integrating the maritime dimension in their Operational Programmes (OPs) by: Highlighting the opportunities presented by international and European maritime policy priorities as well as by maritime agreements and strategies, and governance frameworks with maritime relevance; Providing overview of how the maritime dimension links to selected TOs, what could be the scope of maritime aspects under selected TOs; Providing inspiration of how maritime CB programmes could support the governance (including the framework provided by macro-regional and sea-basin strategies) of the sea as a common resource in the programme area, address the joint needs/ challenges and assets provided by the sea, and how to overcome the obstacles presented by the sea for co-operation, and; Elaborating on the range of maritime actors and stakeholders to be considered by programmes during programming, and providing an overview of what their competences are. 1 Draft ETC Regulation, preamble, point (5) 2 Draft ETC Regulation, Article 3 (1) 5

6 It should be noted that the information contained within this document is aimed as inspiration towards the maritime cross-border programmes and their programming committees during the process of preparing the Operational Programmes. The contents of this document do not stem from a legal requirement. 1.2 Conceptual Logic Model This document sets out marine and maritime issues that should be considered as a source of potential projects for the next programme ( ). The incorporation of marine and maritime issues into programme considerations can take place during: Programme Development; Programme Implementation; Project Development, and; Project Implementation The process can be illustrated in a Marine & Maritime Conceptual Logic Model (Figure 1.2.2) The processes illustrated in the model are documented throughout this report: Policy Drivers originate from the International level, European Union (Section 1.5 and Annex A) and Cross-Border States (member state/ participating country) of the CBC programmes; Key Actors & Stakeholder Drivers are primarily derived from the aspirations of the sea users of the programme area, together with the views of decision-makers who regulate this activity (Section 3); EU & Programme Area Information Drivers includes current information in trends in maritime activities and issues (Section 2) and the Situation Analysis undertaken by the CBC Programmes as part of Programme Development; Regional Policy & Objectives Drivers are those derived from the development of Sea Basin & Macro-regional strategies (Sections 1.5.6, 1.6, 2.4 and 5.3); The Situation Analysis produced for the programme areas will be the primary input of marine and maritime information to programme development; Programme Communication and Engagement with stakeholders and decision-makers should inform the Situation Analysis and Programme Development (Section 3 and 4.2) it should also be used as a method to feedback and inform stakeholders and decision-makers of the outcomes of Programme Development; Project Development will be informed by a similar Communication and Feedback process, primarily with the lead partner/ beneficiary. 6

7 Figur 1 INTERACT Figure Marine & Maritime Conceptual Logic Model Drivers Policy International European Union Member States Situation Analysis Programme Communication & Engagement Regional Macro-regional Sea Basin Programme Stakeholders Decision Makers Programme Communication & Feedback Programme Development CBC Programme Operational Programme Thematic Objectives Application CBC Programme Project Development Reporting Operational Project OCT, Richard Hill The Thematic Objectives (TOs) and Investment priorities selected for a programme will inform and shape the project development process. Section 4.5 demonstrates how marine and maritime projects can be integrated across a range of TOs, and; Assessment of projects will be the primary driving force for ensuring the quality of marine and maritime projects supported by a CBC programme and how the CBC can contribute to policy and regional strategies to ensure there is a practical impact which promotes the marine and maritime dimension (Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6). 1.3 Introducing the Marine and Maritime Dimension The marine areas of the EU are characterised by the geographical and environmental conditions which have shaped them: together with the present day human socio-economic activities the sea area supports. Some areas are enclosed, almost inland seas, such as the Baltic or Southern North Sea/ Channel; where there is competition between different uses (shipping, fishery, renewable energy generation, mineral extraction, etc.) for limited space The socio-economic activities of a maritime area can bring challenges. The Black Sea, Ionian Sea, Brittany and Normandy are popular tourist destinations, however the swelling coastal population and agricultural activity has led to high levels of nutrients from fertilisers and sewage. Such conditions can cause oxygen depleting algal blooms which kill marine organisms and undermine the 7

8 biodiversity of ecosystems. Increasing urbanisation of the Mediterranean coasts, together with a seasonal influx of tourist visitors, places strain on natural resources and the infrastructure of these regions. Rising populations and intensification of agriculture with industrial development has led to pollution problems in the Mediterranean and Baltic. Expanding human populations can also lead to higher demand for resources, leading to the decline of fish stocks. In addition, to the knock-on effects of coastal population growth, new challenges such as Climate Change, are likely to impact upon the ecosystems of a sea area and the activities it supports However, Europe s sea and ocean areas also provide enormous untapped economic potential, particularly in respect to energy generation, natural resources, seabed mining, marine biotechnology, etc. Development of these sectors, together with the revitalisation of traditional activities such as fisheries, aquaculture and tourism, could provide a sustainable source of jobs and economic growth in a so-called Blue Economy Within the maritime cross-border programmes, the sea is considered an important programme feature. However, the programmes also consider that a balance needs to be struck with other terrestrial priorities. As a result there was agreement among all responding programmes to this document that the sea should be considered as one of several features of the programme geography and only requires some co-operation activities to be related to it. This consensus has important implications to how maritime priorities and areas of intervention are structured within programme development The following paper has been developed from a literature review of information concerning the marine areas surrounding the EU. In addition, it was augmented with responses to a questionnaire provided by INTERACT to participating maritime cross-border programmes. 1.4 Defining Marine & Maritime Terminology For the purposes of this document, the marine and maritime dimension are defined as follows: marine relates to the natural features and resources of the sea within a programme area. For example: habitats and ecosystems, biodiversity (wildlife and marine species), estuaries, reefs, the seabed, mineral deposits, etc. maritime is defined as human activities which take place in or on the sea area of a programme, take place on the coastlines and are influenced by the sea area of the programme or use/ depend upon the natural resources found within the sea area of a programme. For example: shipping, coastal tourism, shoreline and sea recreation, fishing, etc. 1.5 EU Marine & Maritime Policy During the 2007 to 2013 period, the cross- border cooperation programmes developed and implemented funding priorities related to: Entrepreneurship; Natural Resources; Urban & Rural Areas; Transport & Communication Networks; Infrastructure, and; Employment and Equal Opportunities. By the beginning of 2007, EU marine policy was limited primarily to a communication on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, one framework Directive to improve water quality and maritime safety directives following the losses of the Erika and Prestige. The publication, however, of the Maritime Policy Green Paper in 2006 meant that the programme period corresponded with a step change in the development of EU marine and 8

9 maritime policy; policies which did not exist when the original maritime cross-border programmes (and associated priorities) were originally established. Maritime policy was therefore not fully elaborated at the time Operational Programmes were developed. As a result, it has been difficult to link programme activities to a comprehensive framework of maritime priorities By 2013 a marine and maritime policy framework has come into being at European level, together with an opportunity for programmes to investigate, as part of their situation analysis, how they can link to this framework. It is however important that in doing so programmes contribute to the overall cohesion of their respective areas by: Identification of the relevant challenges/needs/ assets of the territory to focus co-operation activities on, and where territorial co-operation and working together will bring added value (AV) these might include issues of maritime relevance, and; Identify on what level cross-border co-operation provides added value in the respective territories i.e. by mobilising what competences, how to engage the actors in the design of the programmes, and what governance structures already exist to support this Annex A provides an overview of the main marine and maritime policy developments to be considered by the maritime programmes. It is not a complete picture. Figure provides a summary of all EU policies with a marine or maritime dimension, together with identifying the parent DGs that are responsible for them. The principle policy areas which may be potential sources of projects are: Integrated Maritime Policy; Marine Strategy Framework Directive; Common Fisheries Policy; Integrated Coastal Zone Management; Maritime Transport; Ports; e-maritime; Maritime Safety; Water Framework Directive, and; NATURA 2000 and associated Birds and Habitats Directives; Annex A provides more in depth information about these policies. A principle concern is the Integrated Maritime Policy, which introduces Sea Basin Strategies, Maritime Spatial Planning and the concept of Blue Growth. It is likely that these policies will shape or influence the marine and maritime context of the Cross-Border Co-operation Programmes when taken up and implemented at regional level. Sea Basin Strategies are likely to interlink with the policies identified in Section and detailed in Annex A. 9

10 Figur 2 INTERACT Figure 1.5.4: European Commission, Directorate Generals marine and maritime policy areas Source: K. Ounanian, et al: Marine Policy - Volume 36, Issue 3, May 2012, Pages Macro Regions & Sea Basins in Europe The following section provides case studies of where EU Policy is being cascaded to the Macro- Regional and Sea Basin level, whilst being advised and shaped by the regional situation. Initiatives such as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea and the Baltic Sea Plan then take the next step by developing more local/ regional initiatives. Sea Basin initiatives, such as the Adriatic-Ionian, may also provide practical examples. As part of the questionnaire this document is based upon, an analysis of the current stage of CBC programme development was undertaken. All responding programmes indicated that they had a clear understanding of the geographical strategy areas they were within and the need to consider how these strategies may impact upon the CBC. Some programmes are within the areas of strategies which are yet to be agreed and finalised (particularly with regards to sea basin strategies). The contribution of the CBC programmes to the priorities of the proposed strategies is therefore, still under discussion. In these circumstances the role of the CBC programme ranges from being one of the main tools for strategy implementation to treat this aspect rather soft, i.e. be in line with one another EU strategy. In some areas, the CBC programme does not lie within a strategy, this simplifies the decision making process as to how marine and maritime projects should be developed and relies more heavily on national and regional authorities in the decision-making process, albeit with reference to policies at EU level. Given programmes and strategies are developing within similar time schedules, it is possible that a CBC addresses the issues as part of programme development, with the programmes undertaking awareness raising and providing information about the macro-regional and/ or sea basin strategy The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea: The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea Region (EUSBSR) is the first macro-regional strategy in Europe. It aims at reinforcing co-operation within this large region in order to face several challenges by working together as well as promoting a more balanced development in the area. The Strategy also contributes to major EU policies and reinforces the integration within the area. The strategy aims to bring together 10

11 initiatives in different sectors and promote co-operation between stakeholders in the region. In doing so, the strategy promotes Flagship Projects. The strategy is built around three objectives and a series of horizontal actions (Figure 1.6.2). Figur 3 Figure 1.6.2: EUSBSR Objectives and Horizontal Actions Source: EUSBSR Marine and maritime issues are addressed directly by the Save the Sea objective. However, the marine and maritime dimension, is also contained within the priorities which connect the region (e.g. ports and maritime transport) and increase prosperity (e.g. coastal and maritime tourism, innovation, SMEs, etc). For further information: Baltic Sea Plan: The plan was established to support the EU Integrated Maritime Policy by assisting the introduction of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) for the region and preparation of national Maritime Strategies. The Plan was also designed to contribute toward the recommendation of HELCOM concerning broad scale MSP. The Baltic Sea Plan was based upon activities to: Improve the joint information base Include spatial planning in National Maritime Strategies Develop a Common Spatial Vision for the Baltic Sea Demonstrate MSP in 8 pilot area Lobby and capacity building for MSP MSP pilots were undertaken in the Danish Straits, Pomeranian Bight, Western Gulf of Gdansk, Middle Bank, Lithuanian Coast, Western Coast of Latvia, Pärnu Bay, Hiiumaa and Saaremaa Islands. These pilot projects may be a source of best practice for the Cross-Border programmes given their similar geographical scale and numbers of beneficiaries/ actors/ stakeholders. For more information: 11

12 1.6.6 Atlantic Strategy: Brings together five countries with Atlantic coastlines (France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom) at regional, local authority, business and stakeholder levels. The Strategy addresses 5 key areas of challenges and opportunities for the Atlantic Ocean: Implementing the ecosystem approach, particularly in respect to fisheries, aquaculture, marine spatial planning and coastal zone management and observation systems; Reducing Europe s Carbon Foot Print through offshore renewable energy and associated energy grid; reduction of green house gas emissions from shipping, shifting freight from road to sea (Motorways of the Sea and Short Sea Shipping); Sustainable exploitation of the Atlantic seafloor s natural resources, with respect to mineral extraction, use of biodiversity for food, fuel and pharmaceuticals; access to research data. Responding to threats and emergencies with respect to maritime safety, natural events, risk assessment, prevention and preparedness, maritime security and surveillance; Socially Inclusive Growth with respect to high added value jobs in coastal areas, training for maritime professionals, working conditions for fishermen and seafarers, regional clustering of maritime industries and educational establishments, regeneration via use of tourism. The Atlantic Strategy is well advanced, and on 13 th May 2013, an Action Plan was approved to build on the Commission s Atlantic Strategy, to drive the blue economy in the area, and to help create sustainable and inclusive growth in coastal areas. The priorities of the Action Plan are: Priority 1: Promote entrepreneurship and innovation; Priority 2: Protect, secure and develop the potential of the Atlantic marine and coastal environment; Priority 3: Improve accessibility and connectivity, and; Priority 4: Create a socially inclusive and sustainable model of regional development It should be further noted that the Action Plan makes a link between the funding of these priorities and the European Structural and Investment funds (ESIF). Give the advanced schedule of the Atlantic Strategy, it is possible that it may form a blue print, which advises developing sea basin strategies in other areas. For further information see: While the strategic scale of the Atlantic Strategy, and the associated Action Plan, is far greater than that of a single cross-border programme, it does provide a useful source of information concerning priorities and areas to focus upon where CBC Programmes lie within a Sea Basin Strategy. This is with particular respect to the interaction between the ecosystem approach and coastal zone management, renewable energy, cross-border shipping routes, threats and emergencies and socially inclusive growth; together with the priorities of associated Action Plans. The potential for a cross-border region to provide land-based support services to offshore renewable energy and sustainable exploitation of natural resources could also be considered. For more information: Mediterranean Sea Policy: Bordered by 22 EU and non-eu countries the Mediterranean is a complex web of maritime governance. The central policy framework is still provided by the 12

13 international Barcelona Convention and associated Mediterranean Action Plan. EU implementation of the Integrated Maritime Policy is via three principle routes: Working Group for the Integrated Maritime Policy in the Mediterranean; Projects via European Neighbourhood Policy South programme (notably IMP-MED), and; Tripartite co-operation between the European Commission, European Investment Bank and IMO. For further information: Adriatic- Ionian Seas: Alongside the Mediterranean initiatives is the separate sea basin strategy for the Adriatic- Ionian Basins. This strategy is based around 4 pillars: Maximising the potential of the Blue Economy Healthier Marine Environment A Safer More Secure Maritime Space Sustainable & Responsible Fishing Activities For Further information, go to: Arctic Ocean: The EU is currently developing a policy for the Arctic Ocean based upon a series of studies. Areas of interest include: climate change, Arctic research, investing in sustainable development, reducing uncertainties and monitoring change, shipping and maritime safety. It should be noted that the 2012 European Commission Joint Communication 3 makes a link to funding actions in these areas with the European Regional Development (ERDF) and other funds. For further information: Black Sea: The Black Sea is bordered by 6 countries including EU members Bulgaria and Romania. It is a popular tourist destination, important transport route and victim of extensive pollution. For example, high levels of nutrients from fertilisers and sewage cause algae blooms, which deplete oxygen in the water, killing marine organisms. The countries concerned have set up a commission to protect the Black Sea against pollution. Development of governance for the sea basin is currently under discussion. For further information: North Sea: Policy for the North Sea Basin has yet to emerge at member and neighbouring state level. There are, however, developments at the regional level via the North Sea Commission. For further information: JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL; Developing a European Union Policy towards the Arctic Region: progress since 2008 and next steps {SWD(2012) 182 final} & {SWD(2012) 183 final} 13

14 Section 2: Integrating the Maritime Dimension into the Programmes 2.1 Introduction The following section provides an overview of areas of marine and maritime intervention included in the existing programmes, and under discussion for the next period ( )- together with the need for horizontal integration of marine and maritime priorities with traditional terrestrial ones. The Section has been developed, using the questionnaire responses of the programmes, to focus upon possible marine and maritime areas of intervention which could be included in programmes. The section then describes the importance of marine and maritime activity in the EU. Links to the macro-regional and sea basin strategies are then identified. 2.2 Existing and Potential Areas of Intervention Potential Areas of Intervention: Given the policy areas identified in Section 1 of this report, the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes were asked firstly to identify areas of maritime intervention included in the 2007 to 2013 programme; and secondly to identify possible areas of intervention where the programmes could have a potential impact During the 2007 to 2013 period, eleven maritime areas of intervention were identified by the maritime cross-border programmes (Figure a). Figure 2.2.2b represents the possible areas of marine and maritime intervention considered by the programmes for the period. It is important to keep in mind that, according to the responses provided in the questionnaire, programmes are still at an early stage of discussing and deciding on TOs for co-operation and deciding the focus/ concentration of activities within the TOs. Concerning maritime heritage, there has been no EU policy development in this area, with the remit primarily being at national and local levels. Aquaculture may need some further consideration, given its potential as a growth area to replace elements of wild fisheries and the added value of the products. Figur 4 Figure 2.2.2a. Maritime Areas of Intervention ( ), based on responses from six responding programmes. Marine P ollution; 6 B iotechnology; 2 Fisheries; 2 Maritime Heritage; 2 Ocean renewable energy; 3 Marine Conservation; 6 Aquaculture; 4 Maritime Transport; 6 Ship building; 3 OCT, Richard Hill Maritime & Coastal Tourism; 6 Maritime Governance; 4 14

15 5 Figure 2.2.2b Possible Maritime Areas of Intervention ( ), based on six responding programmes Marine P ollution; 6 Ocean renewable energy; 1 B iotechnology; 2 ; Ship building; 1 ; Fisheries; 1 Maritime & Coastal Tourism; 5 Marine Conservation; 6 Energy Production; 1 Aquaculture; 1 Maritime Governance; 4 Maritime Transport; 5 OCT, Richard Hill In the 2007 to 2013 programme period the principle areas of maritime intervention were marine conservation, marine pollution, maritime transport, maritime & coastal tourism and maritime governance. This remains the case for possible maritime areas of intervention in the 2014 to 2020 period. Provisionally, ocean renewables, energy production, biotechnology and ship building remain as areas of intervention- but only in respect to single programmes. It should be noted, that in addition to the specific features of each programme area, it is important that identification of priorities for co-operation take into consideration the specific policy priorities in the field in the case of renewables and biotechnology, the EU Integrated Maritime Policy encourages development, as has been seen with the growth in offshore wind energy. Potential conflicts between existing and developing maritime uses, together with resolution, could also be considered; as part of Maritime Spatial Planning under Maritime Governance Notable policy areas that are not included, but could be considered as potential opportunities to be considered in a programme are marine mineral resources and aggregate extraction. Neither of these areas was included in the programme or preparation for the programme; probably as mineral extraction is a deep sea enterprise. Although consideration of aggregates could take place; as this is normally a coastal waters/ continental shelf activity which contributes to economic development in building and infrastructure construction. However, the industry is successful, so as such there may not be a need for a direct intervention. That said, it does have impacts to marine resources and conservation, so could be included in Maritime Spatial Planning activities Fisheries interventions do also not figure highly, the exception being two cross-border programme for 2007 to 2013, and one indicating that this could be a topic in the future programme. This may have links to the emerging framework under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), where regional management is now being promoted. Although it could be considered, in relation to changes in the workforce and associated social-economic structure of coastal areas as fisheries decline. There may also be some requirement for intervention as fisheries management devolves to the regional level, or there is a need for added value projects linked to marketing, target species, value added initiatives. 15

16 2.2.6 Traditional marine energy production involving oil and/or natural gas did not figure in the programmes, although it is being considered by one of the programmes responding to the questionnaire as an area of intervention in the new period. 2.3 Horizontal Integration within Cross-Border Programmes Although EU Maritime Policy has developed further since the original maritime cross-border programmes were initially developed for the period; the existing programme priorities do show a great deal of integration of potential marine and maritime areas of intervention and potential project ideas. Horizontal integration of marine, maritime and coastal based priorities with more traditional terrestrial or freshwater should be seen as best practice in fostering an integrated approach to programme delivery An example of horizontal integration is provided by existing 2 Seas Programme 4, although the rest of the responding programmes also demonstrate integration of marine and maritime issues in the current period. The current 2 Seas Programme has two relevant priorities, where maritime or marine projects could be undertaken. Within these, the programme identified a number of possible marine or maritime related areas of intervention: Priority 1: Creating an economically competitive, attractive and accessible area. Joint activities in the maritime economy (e.g. port development, logistics co-operation, fisheries, etc.) Coastal and maritime tourism; Transport related pressure on infrastructure, environment and communities (driving force for Short Sea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea), and; Eco-innovations. Priority 2: Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy environment Protecting and improving environment of Channel and North Sea; Environmental state of the seas; Risk of conflict of interest (waste disposal, fishing, tourism and transportation); Eutrophication and hazardous substances; Environmental risk prevention; Coastal defence; Environmental best practice; Maritime and port safety; Marine resources; Links to EU Marine Strategy Directive and Water Framework Directive and Natura 2000(demonstrates policy link); Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), Maritime Resources and estuaries, and; Renewable energy and energy efficiency In addition, the 2Seas and adjacent Channel programme developed a common priority specifically dedicated to maritime issues. Such a system could be developed as a way of achieving economies 4 The example is based on review of the programme s OP. 16

17 of scale so that programmes could share expertise for programme development and operational review of project submissions The other responding programmes contained similar areas of intervention, particularly with respect to transport, ports and the environment. 2.4 Impact of Sea-Basin Strategies & Macro Regional Strategies Results of the questionnaire survey from the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes can be used for comparison with the priorities of the Sea Basin and Macro Regional Strategies. This provides an indication of where these strategies may potentially impact on planning of programmes. At present the picture is incomplete, as the programmes have yet to decide on the choice of Thematic Objectives. Although priorities have not been decided by the programming committees, at the time of writing of this report, Figure illustrates the most likely TOs for the new programmes, and where marine and maritime discussions will be integrated. 6 Figure Proposed Thematic Objectives , based on responses from six programmes Protecting the Environment & Promoting Resource E fficiency; 3 Information & C ommunications Technologies; 0 Small & Medium E nterpris es ; 3 Education S kills & Lifelong Learning; ; 1 Ins titutional Capacity & E ffic ient public S us tainable Administration; 0 Transport & Removing B ottlenec ks ; 3 Technological Development & Innovation; 2 Low Carbon Economy; 2 C limate Change Adaption, Risk Prevention & Management; 1 Employment & S upporting Labour Mobility; 2 Social Inc lus ion & Combating Poverty; 1 OCT, Richard Hill The key TOs which appear to be emerging as common for the maritime cross-border programmes are: Protecting the environment & promoting resource efficiency (three programmes); Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium sized enterprises (three programmes); Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures (three programmes) In addition, although not prominent in the discussions at present, the low carbon economy may become prominent as the relevance of off-shore energy sources increases. This would provide a linkage to priorities which seek to improve access to efficient energy markets at the macro regional level. 17

18 2.4.4 Within programme discussions concerning possible TOs, protection of the marine environment and resource efficiency links well to the concept of maritime spatial planning promoted by initiatives such as the Baltic Sea Plan and Atlantic Strategy/ Action Plan. Spatial planning also links well at the macro regional level, for example via the EUSBSR horizontal actions on maritime spatial planning. By making a link to shipping navigation services and aids to navigation, the promotion of sustainable transport & removing bottlenecks programmes could also assist maritime spatial planning initiatives. Once again, maritime transport improvements link well to macro regional priorities on transport, such as priorities to improve internal and external transport links under EUSBSR Marine environmental protection fits well with the objectives of other initiatives, such as HELCOM or the Mediterranean Action Plan. Within programmes the protection of the environment and resource efficiency TO would link well to the ecosystem approach of the Integrated Maritime Policy, and it s implementation by Sea Basin Strategies, such as the Atlantic Strategy/Action Plan; where the TO could also interlink with fisheries, aquaculture and marine spatial planning. Marine environmental protection will also link well to priorities at the macro region level, for example EUSBSR priorities on preserving biodiversity and fisheries and reducing nutrient inputs Promotion of sustainable transport could also make a Sea Basin Strategy policy link to reducing carbon footprints, particularly for shipping and the moving of freight from land transport to sea. Sustainable transport would also link well to the risk assessment and prevention elements of responding to threats and emergencies from maritime transport, i.e. oil and chemical spills from tanker accidents. It would also interlink well at the macro regional level, for example EUSBSR priorities concerning clean shipping and improving transport links In programme discussions within the Mediterranean and surrounding areas, links concerning protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency TO could be made with the objectives of the Barcelona Convention and its implementation under the Mediterranean Action Plan. This approach would also fit with the EU Working Group on the Integrated Maritime Policy in the Mediterranean. Although this is likely to have a wider remit than the Sea Basin Strategies for other areas (see Section 1.5 and annex A). The TO would also be supportive of macro regional policies for the sustainable use of fisheries. It should also be noted that support to SMEs can also be applied to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors as an area of intervention Given the development of the Sea Basin Strategies, programmes could consider providing support through enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration. Similarly, it would enhance the horizontal actions of macro regional strategies, for example the action of the EUSBSR concerning multi-level governance. However, when deciding incorporating this type of priority or the allocation of funds, programmes should consider the existing governance frameworks, particularly the ones addressing the programme territory (if such exist), how to create links to these and promote added value Horizontal integration with maritime areas of intervention could take place within programmes considering TOs linked to research, technological development and innovation, the low carbon economy and climate change adaptation, risk prevention & management. If taken forward, these would link well to the carbon foot print reduction, responding to threats and socially inclusive growth objectives of Sea Basin Strategies, for example concerning the Atlantic or the Adriatic- Ionian Basins. Technological development and innovation could link to the sustainable exploration 18

19 of the sea floor, but care should be taken with these types of innovation given the lack of competitiveness of such enterprises where technology is in the early stages of development. Such activities are likely to be outside the programme area, so investment could be limited to shore based support projects. Once again, there will be cross-over with the policies at the macro regional level, for example the innovation priority of the EUSBSR Changes in employment structures, such as that due to the decline in fisheries, could also be considered in TOs which promote intervention in employment and supporting labour mobility. It is noted that a number of programmes consider marine pollution as an area of intervention. In doing so, they have made a strong link with shipping, particularly maritime tanker traffic. It is hardly surprising given the past experiences of the Sea Empress, Aegean Sea, Erika and Prestige. A number of issues should be kept in mind. Firstly, that land based sources of marine pollution (notably nutrient enrichment and industrial chemicals) can have a chronic impact on the marine environment that can far outweigh an oil spill; secondly, operational spills from ships during cargo transfer and day to day activities can be as equally harmful; and thirdly hazardous and noxious chemicals carried at sea have serious public safety and environmental risks in addition to oil transport. It should also be kept in mind during programme development that whilst the EU does provide policy (particularly with respect to port state and flag state controls), the regulation of ship source marine pollution is largely determined at the international level (e.g. the MARPOL Convention). 2.5 Overview of the Marine & Maritime Aspects of European Seas EU statistical analysis of coastal regions is undertaken at NUTS3 level, and for maritime, marine and coastal activities is now being based upon sea basins. For statistical analysis, the EU has defined the following sea basins: North Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea and North East Atlantic Ocean (not including overseas territories and Arctic). It is within this framework that the Maritime Cross-Border programmes sit. It would be useful follow-up work to see if the trends and issues identified in this section apply to, or are contrary to, information concerning each of the programme areas The NUTS 3 areas can be subdivided into sea basins (figure 2.5.2). It should be noted that data coverage is not complete in all areas, as some basins are bounded by non-eu countries. This is the case in the North Sea, Mediterranean, Adriatic and Black Sea. Unless otherwise stated, all statistics in this section are provided from Eurostat. 19

20 7 Figure Coastal regions in the EU, by sea basin and by NUTS 3 regions Source: Eurostat 2.6 Fisheries Wild fish stocks in the waters surrounding the European Union are considered to be a common resource. The industry that exploits these resources provides a key economic activity for the coastal and fishing port communities of member states. Alongside these natural resource stocks, is the development of commercial fish farming and aquaculture. Total fishery production (landings of wild fish and aquaculture/ fish farming) in 1995 was over nine million tonnes for the EU, this declined by 35% to just over six million tonnes by By 2010, three member states accounted for 43% of total catches and production. These were Denmark (14%), Spain (16%) and the United Kingdom (13%). However, there is no indication as to what proportion of these landings are transported to other EU member states Whilst there has been a decline in overall fish production, aquaculture (the farming of fish, molluscs, crustaceans, aquatic plants and other aquatic organisms) has remained stable, at between 1.2 to 1.4 million tonnes between By 2010, four member states led aquaculture production: Spain (20%), France (17%), United Kingdom (16%) and Italy (12%). Combined, these states accounted for two thirds of total EU aquaculture production in However, it should be realised that among the EU s near neighbours in EFTA, Norway s production of nearly 280 thousand tonnes outstrips the combined output of the five largest EU producer states. It should be further noted that Norwegian production has not remained static, increasing by a staggering 267% from 1995 to Figures show that the static statistics for the EU as a whole mask fluctuations between member states. Whilst France, Italy, Germany, Denmark and the 20

21 Netherlands have decreased production; others, UK (115%) and Greece (270%), have increased output during the same period Continued productivity is also dependent upon sustaining and improving marine environmental quality, particularly with respect to fishing grounds, the spawning and nursery areas used by target species during their life cycle. Similarly, aquaculture is reliant on maintaining good water quality, particularly in respect to shellfish production and fish farming In 2010 wild fish catches were led by Denmark (17%), Spain (15%), United Kingdom (12%) and France (9%). However, this 53% of the total 2010 EU catch was a decline from the 60% in Between 1995 and 2010, there has been a decline of 39% in total wild fish catches to the EU. Primarily this is due to a sharp reduction in the Danish catch, and accompanied by smaller declines by France, Spain and the United Kingdom. With approximately three quarters of the EU catch, the most important fishing areas for the EU are the North East Atlantic, Eastern and Central Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea Different species command different monetary values. In 2010, the total value of the EU catch was 6627 million. Of all the EU countries; Spain ( 1869 million), Italy ( 1148 million) and the UK ( 719 million) had the highest value fish landings in In terms of volume; Denmark, Spain and the UK make the highest landings. Once again the EFTA countries lead EU member states, Iceland has a similar volume of landings to Denmark, but the species caught provide 43% more value ( 807 million). Similarly, the value of Norway s landings ( 1758 million) exceed those of all EU countries, with the exception of Spain In 2010, the EU fishing fleet comprised nearly 84 thousand vessels, with a combined tonnage of 1.75 million. Greece has the largest proportion of the fleet (20%), although these are comparatively smaller vessels than other countries. Greece, together with Italy (16%), Spain (13%) and Portugal (10%) make up 60% of the EU fleet s vessels. However, in terms of tonnage, 56% of the EU fleet is retained by Spain, UK, Italy and France. The fleet, corresponding to fish catches, is declining. This decline is also reflected in Norway and Iceland Trends within fish production, together with changes in aquaculture activity and the fishing fleet may provide opportunities for intervention. The continued decline in wild fish catches raises the potential need for retraining and avoidance of social exclusion of former fishing communities. There is also the potential for economic regeneration and reutilising of fishing infrastructure and redeployment of the workforce. The static aquaculture production figures for the EU indicate that there may be a need, particularly at the SME level, to improve competitiveness with neighbouring countries such as Norway. The need to maintain productive wild fish stocks and inshore aquaculture through good environmental quality makes an important link to sea basin strategies and could be a focus for project development. Before developing projects, however, there may be a need to define the importance, or potential, of fisheries to the programme areas- given the current figures are based on larger sea basin fishing areas. Similarly some consideration should be made of the importance of each programme areas fishing fleet and the factors impacting upon it. These activities could form the basis of project support as the Common Fisheries Policy devolves to regional management. 21

22 2.7 Maritime Transport Maritime shipping provides the main mode of transportation for EU imports and exports to the rest of the World. Approximately two fifths of the EU s external freight trade is seaborne; short sea shipping also plays a significant role in intra-eu trade between member states and with EFTA countries. Almost 90% of European external freight trade is seaborne, with short sea shipping representing 40% of intra-eu exchanges in terms of ton-kilometres (when compared to road and rail) In 2010, EU ports handled an estimated 3.6 billion tonnes of goods. The trade was dominated by the North Sea ports, which handled 38.3% of all maritime goods handled in EU coastal regions (figure 2.3.2). Approximately 15% of the total tonnage of goods handled in EU ports was via ports in the Netherlands, with the UK ports being the second largest handler of goods in and out of the EU (14.1%). Italy dominates the Mediterranean port activity, primarily due to its industrial base and gateway to southern Europe from the Mediterranean. Spain and France also handle significant amounts of freight, having ports on the coasts of both the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic. The three largest EU ports, both in terms of gross weight of goods and volume of containers handled, are all in the North Sea Region. These are Rotterdam, Antwerpen and Hamburg. Rotterdam alone accounting for more than 10% of the total EU tonnage in In addition, Seven of the EUs top 10 Short Sea Shipping ports are located within the NSR: Rotterdam, Antwerpen, Hamburg, Immingham, Goteborg (Baltic), London (Thames Estuary) and Amsterdam Outside of the Netherlands and Southern North Sea area, six other coastal regions have significant port activities. In France the region of Seine-Maritime has the ports of Le Havre and Rouen, which handle freight for the Channel and North East Atlantic trade. On the southern coast of France, in the Mediterranean sea basin, the region of Bouches-du-Rhône handles the largest proportion of freight due to Marseille. A similar dominance of certain regions is also seen in the Baltic (Trojmiejski in Poland with the ports of Gdansk and Gdynia) and in the Black Sea with Constanta in Romania (Figure 2.7.3). 22

23 8 Figure Total gross weight of maritime goods handled in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, 2010 ( 1 ) (million tonnes) Source: Eurostat (online data code: mar_go_aa) Maritime passenger traffic is dominated by ferry activities in EU waters, and not cruise ships (see Section 2.9.4). In 2010, million passengers were moved in and out of EU ports. Activity is centred amongst regions which provide access routes across sea basins, or routes to island communities within sea basins (notable in the France/ Italy region and areas bordering the Ionian Sea), Figure This is demonstrated by the Attiki region of Greece where the port of Piraeus serves the Greek islands. Napoli is also a significant region in Italy, with Kent and Pas-de-Calais providing the basis for the cross Channel trade between UK and France. Massina is also notable for the volume of passengers between mainland Italy and Sicily, and also provides connections to Malta and Tunisia. In the Baltic the Skåne Iän and Stockholms Iön of Sweden are notable for their large ferry connections around the Baltic, as is the Danish Region of Vest-og Sydsjælland which links to other parts of Denmark and Germany. 23

24 9 Figure Maritime passengers in EU coastal regions by NUTS 3 regions, 2010 ( 1 ) (1 000 persons) Source: Eurostat (online data code: mar_go_aa) Trends within maritime transport may provide opportunities for intervention. Deep water port regeneration or construction can be seen as a potential route to economic regeneration of coastal areas. However, in order to be able to do this a proposed port must have at least four qualities: access channels that can take deep water ships (12-20 metres in depth), sufficient anchorages to cope with large numbers of vessels, space to store containers and bulk cargoes, and access to the European hinterland by rail, road or inland waterways. This is why the deep water ports are situated in their historic locations. However, two areas of possible intervention exist and that is: the provision of port services (navigation, logistics management, infrastructure, etc) to increase efficiency and maintain safety at large ports. Secondly is the development of short sea shipping routes and ports which move cargoes in smaller vessels (particularly containers via ro-ro) to and from the deep water ports from smaller feeder ports. These would take advantage of the motorways of the sea concept to alleviate congestion and bottlenecks on traditional land based routes. 2.8 Renewable Energy Wind Energy: Industry figures indicate that in 2011, Europe was the global leader in offshore wind energy with more than 90% of the world s installed capacity. By 2012 the industry had installed and 24

25 grid connected 1662 turbines. These totalled 4995 MW in 55 windfarms established offshore in 10 member states waters. This represented a 31% increase in offshore capacity from In European waters, the average size of a wind turbine was 4 MW. The average size of an offshore windfarm is 271 MW. Developments in technology allow turbines to be sited in average water depths of 22 metres at average distances of 29 km from the shore. It should be noted that the offshore wind energy industry require not only turbines but superstructure suppliers, cable suppliers and transmission connectors to the grid supply. Growth in the industry has also seen a corresponding development in support and installation vessels capable of operating in deeper waters and harsher sea conditions. Technology continues to develop with the construction of larger turbines. In 1995 the average turbine rated capacity was 0.5 MW, by 2012 it was 4MW (source: European Wind Energy Association) The industry envisages that by 2020, a quarter of Europe s wind energy could be produced offshore. During 2012, 31 companies announced plans from 38 new models of turbine, 52% of these companies being European. In 2012, the offshore wind capacity in MW was dominated by the UK (73%). The other main EU member states being Belgium (16%), Germany (7%) and Denmark (4%). Geographically installations are predominantly located in the North Sea (80%), Atlantic (16%) and Baltic (4%). It should, however, be noted that the Mediterranean is seeing a growth in consents for new installations. The EU is a market world leader in offshore wind energy capacity at 90%. The nearest competitors are China (9%) and Japan (1%). Although it should be noted that Korea, the USA and Israel are developing new types of offshore wind turbine (source: European Wind Energy Association). For further information see: There are also key developments which will lead to further EU and EFTA growth. These include the North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative, UK- Norway Interconector and the Norway- Germany Interconnector Wave energy generation in the EU is developing. Developments are likely to be based around shoreline and near shore devices, although there is the potential for installations to be placed in deeper waters where wind energy facilities cannot be located. The EU Commission Strategic Energy Technologies Information System (SETIS) indicates that Europe's economic and technical electricity production potential from ocean wave energy is around TWh per year. In terms of resources, the Atlantic arc from Scotland to Portugal is the most favourable area. Taking baseline assumptions, SETIS forecasts that the installed capacity of wave energy will reach 0.9 GW in 2020 and 1.7 GW in Taking assumptions of the maximum potential for wave energy, forecasts predict capacity in the EU-27 of up to 10 GW by 2020 and 16 GW by This would generate 0.8% and 1.1% of the EU-27 electricity consumption projected for 2020 and 2030 respectively. (source: SETIS) Unlike wind energy, there are a number of barriers to wave energy generation. These include: Not cost competitive due to technology being in early stages of development and lack of grid framework and connections; High licensing and authorisation costs, combined with complex procedures, and; 5 European Wind Energy Association 25

26 High construction and maintenance costs. These factors combine to effectively exclude SMEs Similar issues impact upon other developing forms of energy generation involving: salinity gradients, ocean thermal energy conversion and marine current energy converters. For further information see: It should, however, also be noted that the Blue Growth policies of the integrated maritime policy, concentrate primarily on the more developed wind energy industry (see Section 1.3.2). This is a reflection of the confidence in tried and tested technology Trends within renewable energy may provide opportunities for intervention: The major issue for programmes assessing renewable energy projects is achieving a good return for investment. Wind energy appears to be a relatively achievable investment, with tidal and possibly wave energy secondary. Other forms of marine renewable energy may be too high a risk beyond small scale feasibility studies. Another option may be in the planning of grid systems in order to make these multi collection systems which different forms of energy generation can link to. This then brings forward the idea of multi-energy generation areas rather than just wind turbines- enabling sustainable use of sea space. 2.9 Coastal & Marine Tourism Two sets of statistics provide an indication of the significance of tourism in marine and coastal areas. These are for cruise passengers and tourist accommodation in coastal areas. However, these should be treated with caution as they do not provide an indication of widespread water-based recreation (sailing, wind surfings, jetski, etc) in coastal waters, nor do they include niche markets which may make promising intervention areas for SMEs such as marine wildlife watching, recreational/ sport fishing, diving, etc Within the EU in 2009 there were approximately 28.1 million tourist bed spaces (hotels, campsites, etc.). Of these, approximately 17 million were in coastal regions. The largest amount of tourist accommodation is found around the Mediterranean (7.1 million bed spaces) and North East Atlantic (4.9 million bed spaces). Within these basins, most tourist accommodation is concentrated along the coastlines of France, Italy, the UK and Spain. Figure provides information on tourist bed density on sea basin coastlines. 26

27 10 Figure Density of tourist accommodation in hotels, campsites and other tourist accommodation in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, 2010 ( 1 ) (bed per km 2 ) Souce: Eurostat (online data code: tour_cap_nuts3 and demo_r_d3area) The bed density information could be useful in demonstrating the need for identifying areas where interventions could promote growth in the tourist economy, but also to define areas (as with the Adriatic, Mediterranean or Ionian Sea) where there is a danger of tourist populations overwhelming resources and undermining the environmental assets of an area, particularly with respect to natural areas and environmental quality (e.g. water and air pollution) The vast majority of maritime passenger traffic in EU waters is generated by ferry traffic. However, there is a small, but high value proportion generated by the cruise ship industry. Although only 2-3% of all passenger traffic from EU ports in 2009 was related to the cruise industry, this actually represents over 10.5 million people. However, this annual figure fell by 7% between 2009 and probably as a reflection of the recession Figure demonstrates that the cruise industry is dominated by traffic in the Mediterranean sea basin, which accounts for 66.5% of all cruise passengers in the EU. The next most significant regions being the North East Atlantic, presumably due to the dominance of Southampton as a cruise gateway port and the Baltic Sea which has a tradition of circum sea cruises. 27

28 11 Figure 2.9.5: Percentage (%) Cruise Ship Passengers by Sea Basin Source: Eurostat (online data codes: mar_pa_aa Cruise ship related projects are often proposed as a source of economic regeneration for coastal regions. These should be approved with caution. The industry is well established, and revolves around traditional cruising waters and ports. The only likely source of intervention, as an economic benefit, is likely to be as a result of departure, visiting and arrival ports reaching capacity and needing to overspill into other areas. In such cases these are likely to be in adjacent regions and not new cruise routes in other sea basins Natura 2000 Network (Marine Protected Areas) Natura 2000 sites can be designated on both land and water. This is done primarily with the designation of Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive. It should also be noted that as well as SACs, there are significant numbers of Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated in coastal and estuarine areas under the Birds Directive. Marine SACs provide not only protection at EU level, but contribute to the international network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Marine SACs include a diverse range of habitats, from the near shore to deep sea. The network includes reefs or lagoons, intertidal areas, areas which are always covered by the sea or areas near the sea which is used by marine wildlife. Marine Natura 2000 areas should be protected by various conservation measures to deal with issues such as over-fishing, land based pollution from sewage or agriculture, risks from shipping traffic, etc In 2011, the EU undertook an update of the Natura 2000 lists. The update concerned six out of the nine EU bio-geographical regions, these were the Alpine, Atlantic, Boreal, Continental, Mediterranean and Pannonian regions. The update of the Natura 2000 lists concerned sixteen 28

29 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK. The number of "Sites of Community Importance" has increased by 166, expanding the network by nearly km². More than 90% of this area, km², was designated for marine sites, primarily in the Atlantic biogeographic region (the UK, France and Belgium), but also in the Mediterranean (Greece and Cyprus). At present the total area of the EU seas covered by some form of protection is km². This includes a range of MPAs in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Atlantic The update provided protection to a number of new sites further offshore than previous designations. In the Atlantic, the UK additions feature 9 coldwater reefs, including reefs off Rockall Island which are biodiversity hotspots home to coral, sea spiders and numerous as yet unnamed species. In the Mediterranean, the new sites were provided or the protection of endangered species Marine Pollution The majority of marine pollution originates from land based run-off from agricultural, urban and industrial areas into rivers and estuaries. Figure illustrates the percentage by weight of marine pollution sources around the globe. 12 Figure World Sources of Marine Pollution Source: GESAMP 1990, The State of the Marine Environment, United Nations Environment Programme Marine pollution can be further defined by type: Degradable wastes: organic material that can be biologically broken down by bacteria from organic compounds to stable inorganic compounds such as carbon dioxide, water and ammonia. Sources include agricultural waste, urban sewage, food processing waste, industrial waste and oil spillages. If the rate of accumulation exceeds the rate of bacteriological degradation, wastes can accumulate and lead to the deoxygenation of water. In certain cases anaerobic bacteria will produce hydrogen sulphide and methane; Fertilizers: Similar to organic wastes. Nitrates and phosphates from agricultural land run-off into the sea causing algal blooms which can lead to eutrophication and anoxic conditions; Dissipating wastes: Primarily industrial sources which rapidly loose the damaging properties after entering water. For example heat from industrial effluents, acids and alkalis with localised impacts due to buffering of sea water, some material such as cyanide, where impact is normally restricted to area of outfall; 29

30 Conservative wastes: Substances which cannot be broken down by bacterial action and do not dissipate, but react with plants and animals to bioaccumulate within organisms and biomagnify up food chains. Includes wastes such as heavy metals, halogenated hydrocarbons, organochlorines, and radioactivity; Solid wastes: Inert wastes such as litter, plastics, fishing gear. Waste can smother habitats and/or clog the feeding and respiratory structures on animals, reduce light penetration through the water column causing a reduction in photosynthesis by marine plants. Can also include: dredge spoil, mining waste, coastal dredging for aggregates, fly ash from power stations, china clay waste, etc Pollution from degradable pollutants and fertilizers has been identified as a problem in the North Sea, particularly the area of the German Bight. The Wadden Sea is particularly at risk to algal blooms due to nutrient enrichment. The Black Sea has also seen the build up of hydrogen sulphide, with degradable waste from agriculture and industrial activity causing eutrophic conditions. The growth of towns and cities has also contributed to the nutrient loading leading to algal blooms. The situation is similar in parts of the Mediterranean, with surrounding cities and industrial areas creating hot spots. Problems are acute in enclosed sea basins, however the fringes of the Atlantic sea basin are not immune, with localised algal blooms in the Channel, and the estuaries and coastal waters of surrounding countries Due to their long retention time conservative pollutants such as heavy metals and organochlorines have been identified as a pollution problem in the North Sea, Baltic, Black Sea and Mediterranean, together with estuarine areas of the Atlantic. Given the risk of acute damage to natural resource, ecosystems and the socio-economic fabric of EU coastlines there is a concern amongst programmes from ship source pollution. This is primarily centred upon oil spills, although it should be noted that all the types of possible pollutant discussed in this section are carried as bulk and container cargo by vessels in EU waters. There is an increasing realisation that pollution from ships carrying Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) can pose risks, in addition to that of oil transportation. 30

31 Section 3 Key Marine & Maritime Actors and Stakeholders 3.1 Introduction There are a number of methods which can be utilised to identify maritime stakeholders. The following section outlines three possible options. These are: 1. Maritime Jurisdiction 2. Sectoral Actors and Stakeholders 3. Marine Resource Specific The section will discuss the stakeholders already identified by the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes and will then outline methods for stakeholder engagement and involvement. 3.2 Maritime Jurisdiction Stakeholders who could be involved in programme or project development can be determined by those national government organisations and decision-makers with responsibility and jurisdiction over an area of sea and its resources; together with those users or stakeholders who work within or are licenced to use resources or the seabed within this legal framework. For example: Aquaculture facilities (fish pens, mussel rafts, etc); Oil and natural gas production; Wind turbines and other offshore electricity generation; Aggregate dredging and other mineral extraction; Ports (particularly with respect to development and dredging operations); The key legislation which establishes sovereignty and member state powers is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This international convention establishes a national government s rights to exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the resources of the surrounding sea area (water, seabed and subsoil). Figure (next page) summarises the sovereignty and jurisdiction of a nation state under UNCLOS Given the nature of the maritime cross-border areas, programmes will generally be dealing with project proposals which concern the internal (estuarine), territorial (out to 12 nautical miles), contiguous and possibly part of the Exclusive Economic Zone ( nautical miles). The distance of these areas in cross-borders will be curtailed due to one member state abutting the waters of another member state, however, it is useful to understand the system where programme areas border open ocean or are adjacent to non EU Member states. 31

32 13 Figure 3.2.2: Maritime Sovereignty under UNCLOS Source: Fisheries & Oceans Canada Individual member states will have established a legislative framework for the governance of their sea areas, for example the UK frame work (figure 3.2.4). 14 Figure 3.2.4: UK Legislation- Marine Jurisdiction Source: UK Marine Management Organisation Such legislative frameworks (as the UK s) establish which key decision makers should be involved. For example planning and development decisions in the UK down to the mean low water mark normally fall under the jurisdiction of a local authority. Works affecting a port will normally require consent from a harbour authority. The setting up of structures such as wind turbines will 32

33 require the consent of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). The framework can often be confusing and is not the same for every EU Member state. For example, under the German federal system, an individual state s jurisdiction extends to 12 nm, with the Federal Government taking responsibility for the EEZ. In contrast a UK local or unitary authority s jurisdiction only normally extends to the low water mark However, the framework also establishes which statutory agencies should also be consulted or approvals sought from. In England this can involve the Environment Agency (for discharges to air and water), the relevant Inshore Fisheries and Conservation authority, Natural England, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and various ministries within central government (particularly those with respect to energy, transport and fisheries), etc. There are also key Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the Wildlife Trusts who would be involved as consultees in associated environmental impact assessments for coastal or offshore developments. 3.3 Sectoral Stakeholders The users of a given coastal and sea area will be diverse; including shipping companies, recreational users (boats, windsurfing, diving, etc), inshore and deep sea fisheries, aquaculture, aggregate dredging, renewable energy generation, oil and natural gas companies, etc. Not all these activities stakeholders will be readily identifiable under the Maritime Jurisdictional framework (Section 3.2). It should also be noted that many trade associations for ports, shipping, renewables, etc. will have European or international level representation which is often outside of the programme area, although their members may be engaged in activities within the programme area In such circumstances, a more complete picture of a sea area s key stakeholders may be to identify which maritime sectors operate within or use a cross-border area. There is no definitive list of key stakeholders for a given programme area, indeed there is likely to be significant variation across a programme area and between different programmes. However, the key to identifying an area s stakeholders comes from understanding which maritime sectors use the sea within a programme. Such identification can form part of a comprehensive stakeholder analysis system: which is a process of identifying individuals or groups that are likely to affect or be affected by a proposed action and then sorting them according to their impact on the action and the impact of the action on them. The goal being to develop co-operation between the stakeholder and the programme or project In the context of maritime activities, a stakeholder can be defined as generally those who have an interest in or are affected by a decision. Stakeholders are also those who have influence or power in a situation. Stakeholders interests in an issue can be monetary, professional, personal, or cultural, or can arise from a host of other motivations The development of Maritime Spatial Planning (see Section 1.4.6) in EU waters provides a good example of how stakeholders can be identified for a sea area such as a maritime cross-border programme. The basis for stakeholder involvement is set out in COM(2010) 771 final: All 6 NOAA: Coastal Services Centre, Introduction to Stakeholder Participation 33

34 stakeholders should be involved early in the MSP process. This is essential when looking for synergies and innovation and for making the goals and benefits of the process clear. An open debate must take place between the different sectors in order to identify conflicts and a means of coexistence between them. It is important to demarcate roles and responsibilities and encourage interaction between stakeholder groups and not just between policy-makers and stakeholders. Stakeholder Involvement: Baltic Sea Example The Baltic Sea Plan demonstrates how this policy can be put into practice. The Plan defines stakeholders in Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) as those individuals, groups and/or organizations that: Are or will be affected by MSP decisions; Are dependent on the resources of the management area where MSP decisions will be taken; Have or make legal claims or obligations over areas and resources within the management area; Have special seasonal or geographic interests in the management area and Have a special interest in the management of the area. Stakeholders are individuals, or groups, or organisations, that are (or will be) affected, involved or interested (positively or negatively) by MSP measures or actions in various ways. Based upon this definition the Baltic Sea Plan has been able to identify stakeholder groups and the sectors which are likely to be involved in MSP, figure This methodology is documented within: BalticSeaPlan Report 24: Stakeholder Involvement in MSP by Tim-Ake Pentz. A similar approach could be applied to Maritime Cross-Border Programme development, possibly as part of the Situation Analysis. BalticSeaPlan MSP Stakeholder Groups & Sectors 3.4 Marine Resource Specific Stakeholders An alternative method of stakeholder identification is based upon determining the marine resources of a given area and then identifying those stakeholders who utilize that resource. This is a methodology that has been used in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and initiatives based upon the sustainable use of marine resources such as Marine Spatial Planning in North America. 34

35 3.4.2 When applied to an MPA, such as a Nutura 2000 offshore Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) or a coastal Special Protection Area (SPA), the purpose is to identify all those stakeholders who utilise the natural marine/ coastal resources of a given geographical area. Given the detailed understanding of an areas marine resources, it is likely that at this stage of Programme and Sea Basin Strategy development in the EU, such a process should be undertaken at a project level scale, for example for a group of MPAs, a length of coastline for ICZM, management of an estuary or river basin. Figure demonstrates Stakeholder identification for a EU MPA near Malta, note the more localised type of stakeholders. 15 Figure Marine Protected Area (MPA) Stakeholder Groups Source: Prassede Vella, Robert E. Bowen and Anamarija Frankic: An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholder-influenced indicators of coastal change: the case of Marine Protected Areas (Malta) 3.5 Stakeholders identified by the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes Maritime Cross-Border Programme answers to the INTERACT Questionnaire demonstrate that there has already been maritime stakeholder engagement by the programmes for the programme period, Figure

36 16 Figure 3.5.1: Numbers of different types of Maritime Stakeholders identified by the Maritime CBC Programmes Seas; 12 Central Baltic; 26 IP A Adriatic; 20 ÖKS; 10 South B altic; 16 CBC Italy France; 16 OCT, Richard Hill Further analysis of the types of stakeholders involved during the Programme Period (Figure 3.5.2), demonstrates a similarity with those involved in examples of MSP and MPA management, so it is likely that similar methods of stakeholder identification and engagement could be applied at programme and project levels. 17 Figure 3.5.2: Maritime CBC Stakeholders ( ). Number indicates total number of programmes which had this type of stakeholder Coastguard organisations Ship companies National administrations Coastal administrations (local and regional) Port authorities/companies Coastal management authorities (ICZM) NGOs Marine environmental managers Tourism agencies Recreational organisations Chaimbers of commerce with maritime members Universities and research institutions Training organisations Counter pollution organisations Meteorogical organisations Hydrographic offices Marine management authorities Health and safety organisations Aquaculture Fisheries management Source: OCT, Richard Hill It should be noted that, traditionally, CBC Programmes are focused on involving local and regional actors. The participation of national actors has usually being based on the benefits their support creates for the Programme area, and in the period their participation in cross-border cooperation has been limited. The figure above however illustrates the wide range of actors involved in cross-border cooperation through maritime activities. In many cases, these are specific thematic actors and represent unique niche in the cooperation stakeholder spectrum. It is therefore advisable for programmes to 36

37 identify and target these potential stakeholders in order to engage and involve them from the beginning of the programme period and in order to make them aware of the Programme. Such involvement of maritime actors, on the one hand, provides an expression of the added value maritime programmes create, and is beneficial for providing early feedback to the programme design, for creating ownership, and for the development of relevant and good quality projects during programme implementation. 37

38 Section 4: Factors for Programme Development and the Assessment of potentially successful Marine & Maritime Projects 4.1 Introduction The following section sets out how marine and maritime issues could be integrated within project development, it then sets out the factors that should be considered by the assessment phase of an operational programme on receiving a marine or maritime project application. Development of a marine or maritime project should be no different from any other well managed CBC project. However, the decision making process of those who review applications should be adapted to ensure marine & maritime considerations form part of the selection process. 4.2 Factors for Programme Development & Horizontal Integration Marine and maritime factors which will influence programme development will primarily originate from the current situation in the programme area, as documented in the Situation Analysis. This should be informed by policy, key actor and regional strategy (Sea Basin Macro-Regional) drivers Discussions with the responding CBC programmes indicate that there is general agreement that marine and maritime programme priorities should be integrated horizontally across all programme priorities, rather than have a specific stand-alone marine/ maritime priority. Examples of the types of projects that could be achieved through horizontal integration across Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities are included in Annex C. These demonstrate that with proper stakeholder engagement and awareness raising of the relevance of CBC Programmes to funding marine and maritime projects a diverse variety of projects can be integrated across all TO and investment priorities. 4.3 Assessment of Proposed Projects The generic assessment process relates to the following phases: 38