Review of consenting processes for ocean energy in selected European Union Member States

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2014.12.001Get rights and content

Highlights

  • This review describes and compares consenting processes for ocean energy in Europe.

  • Aspects that hamper the ocean energy consenting processes are identified.

  • This evidence-based review enables suggestions for streamlining the processes.

Abstract

Consenting is still generally regarded as a non-technological barrier to the progress of the marine renewable energy industry, caused by the complexity of consenting processes and the lack of dedicated legal frameworks. Existing consenting systems for ocean energy projects tend to be based on procedures designed for other sectors and are seen as inappropriate for the specific needs of ocean energy. Licensing procedures are also viewed by developers as time-consuming because regulators see ocean energy as a new activity with unknown or uncertain effects and consequently often apply strong interpretation of the precautionary principle. Consenting processes for ocean energy are, nevertheless, evolving throughout Europe, driven by national and European policies and incentives on renewables, changing legal and administrative frameworks to facilitate development and more integrated marine governance. This review compares the consenting processes for ocean energy in different European countries, focusing on aspects thought to hamper operation of the process. It shows that different systems of governance across the EU Member States have resulted in diversity in the design of consenting processes, though common features can also be identified. This evidence-based review enables suggestions for streamlining consenting processes for wave energy.

Introduction

Marine renewable energy (MRE – offshore wind, wave and tidal) holds considerable potential for enhancing the diversity of energy sources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and stimulating the economies of coastal communities. Harnessing this potential nevertheless depends on a variety of factors, including: safe and reliable technology; appropriate policy and regulatory frameworks; stable funding and cost-effective energy production to compete with existing sources of renewable and non-renewable energy; and effective consenting procedures [1]. Under current regulatory frameworks, consenting processes for MRE are still regarded as a non-technical barrier because of the existence of complex consenting procedures and/or the absence of dedicated legal frameworks to support MRE [2], [3], [4].

More specifically, most EU Member States still lack a dedicated consenting process for ocean energy (wave and tidal) projects. Procedures designed for sectors such as oil and gas, offshore wind, and aquaculture tend to be used instead, contributing to ambiguity and delays in consenting [5]. This absence of clear and fit-for-purpose consenting processes for ocean energy can lead to the submission of incomplete applications, the use of inappropriate administrative procedures, and uncertainty over Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) requirements and procedures, with the latter being further fuelled by limited information on the significance of the environmental impacts of different ocean energy technologies [5].

Consenting processes for ocean energy are, however, gaining increased attention and evolving across Europe as a result of the development of national and European policies on renewable energies and the requirement for more integrated marine governance. Due to the different governance systems operating in EU Member States, consenting systems will always have differences although some requirements are more universal, such as those related to the EU Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and Habitats Directive.

Another factor which may influence consenting processes for ocean energy is Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP), which is already operating in countries like Belgium and Germany, where ambitions to develop offshore wind farms has motivated the design and implementation of MSP [6]. Spatial planning is already recognised as having the potential to make an important contribution to the consideration of proposals for offshore wind developments [7], [8], [9], [10]. Systems to allocate space for ocean energy are still nevertheless required in several EU countries where applications are generally dealt with on a “first-come, first-served” basis with no over-arching national siting or planning policy. Nevertheless, different licensing procedures tend to operate for designated test centres where demonstration ocean energy projects are being installed (e.g. EMEC, Scotland; Bimep, Spain; Ocean Plug, Portugal; Wave Hub, England). In many test centres device deployments are already pre-consented, so developers do not have to submit a full application comprising all the typical consents providing certain initial conditions are met, including an environmental appraisal (usually less comprehensive and onerous than a full EIA).

The requirement for EIA of ocean energy projects varies across Europe, from countries where it is compulsory to those where EIA is dependent on the nature, size and location of the development [5]. Uncertainty over the social acceptability and socio-economic impacts of wave energy developments may also hamper consenting, although public attitudes towards wave energy seem generally to be positive [11].

Despite the importance of these issues and the rapidly evolving nature of the sector and consenting procedures, there remains a paucity of peer-reviewed literature on ocean energy consenting across Europe [5], [12]. Further appraisal of issues affecting consenting processes is thus required to promote discussion on changes to legislation, streamlining of requirements, improvements in administrative procedures, and the broader aim of more consistent interpretation and application of legislation across Europe, whilst nevertheless still taking into account differences in the national policies, energy strategies, regulatory frameworks and administrative entities operating within individual Member States.

This paper compares the consenting processes for ocean energy in different European countries and considers aspects of these processes that may need to be improved with the broader aim of informing the development of good practice in ocean energy consenting. Part of the information presented herein has been collected under the SOWFIA project (www.sowfia.eu/), which aimed to achieve the sharing and consolidation of pan-European experience of consenting processes and environmental and socio-economic impact assessment (IA) best practices for offshore wave energy conversion developments. It should be noted that the term ‘consenting process’ is used in this paper to describe all of the consents or permissions necessary to deploy a device or array of devices in an area of sea space. The actual name of the consent required is usually determined by the legal instrument governing it and consequently it may be a ‘licence’, ‘permit’, ‘concession’, ‘consent’ or ‘permission’ depending on the term used in the governing legal instrument. For ease of understanding, in this paper these terms are generally used synonymously unless otherwise specified.

Section snippets

Methods

As mentioned above, since part of this paper has been developed under the EU-funded SOWFIA project partners together with relevant stakeholders (mainly regulators) have compiled information on the consenting procedures for ocean energy in their respective countries: France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom. The assimilation of such information included a review of any pertinent existing national strategy and policies, guidance on consenting or other aspects of development

National strategy for ocean energy

To support the analysis of the consenting process on ocean energy across Europe a review of pertinent national strategies and policies has been made and is presented in Table 1, Table 2. Table 1 focus on the strategies and policies in Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. Since the United Kingdom has a devolved system of government with parliaments and assemblies in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, a dedicated table (Table 2) is presented which lists over-arching and

Analysis of the consenting processes

Table 3 presents a comparison of the characteristics of the consenting processes across the European countries considered.

In France the main issue is the initial consultation process which starts almost one year before deposit of the official file. The governance structure in France cannot be changed or amended easily as it applies to all maritime sectors not just marine renewables. Three or four consents are required for a marine renewable project depending on its location and thus numerous

Conclusions

The analysis of consenting processes for ocean energy across Europe shows that there is great variation in processes and associated procedures among countries. Dedicated consenting processes for ocean energy projects are available in Scotland and partially in Portugal where a dedicated consenting exists for some licenses (e.g. EIA) although encompassing until 4 different authorities. In Scotland the process is led by an official one-stop shop and in Sweden the process is managed by a regional

Acknowledgements

This paper was developed as part of the SOWFIA Project (www.sowfia.eu), Grant Agreement number: IEE/09/809/SI2.558291, funded by Intelligent Energy Europe. The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission is responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.

The contribution of Anne Marie O’Hagan was enabled through works

Cited by (35)

  • 8.08 - Ocean Renewable Energy Test Centers

    2022, Comprehensive Renewable Energy, Second Edition: Volume 1-9
View all citing articles on Scopus
1

Present address: European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre – Institute for Energy and Transport Energy Systems Evaluation Unit, P.O. Box 2, 1755 ZG, Petten, The Netherlands.

2

Present address: Rue Jeanne d’Arc, 44000 Nantes, France.

View full text