Maritime Forum

Maritime Forum Themes


Ocean Energy Forum - Strategic Roadmap 3-page summaries

Published on: Tue, 21/07/2015 - 19:50
Table of Contents
    Following the 4th Ocean Energy Forum event in Bilbao on 01 July 2015, an updated version of the Working Groups’ 3-page summaries is now available

    Due to the limited timeframe for production of the OEF Strategic Roadmap by end of September 2015, it has been agreed with the Steering Committee Chairs and DG MARE to make this document available, to enable stakeholders not present at Bilbao to provide comment. However, please be assured that Bilbao conference comments are also being addressed as part of the Roadmap refinement process. The Bilbao open session report sets out the Roadmap production plan.

    Your input

    • If you would like to comment on the Strategic Roadmap: Collated "Three-Pagers", please do so using the pre-prepared form
    • If you wish your comments to be taken into account for the draft of the Roadmap to be presented in October, please submit them by Thursday 20th August 2015
    • Please return your form to the Secretariat (


    Ocean Energy Forum - Strategic Roadmap: Collated "Three-Pagers"

    Ocean Energy Forum - Strategic Roadmap Collated "Three Pagers" Comments form



    • Andrew Smith's picture

      The assertion on page 10 that "For these early projects, risks cannot be insured and are too high for a single player, calling for government backing" is too stark; I think we should say "For these early projects full insurance cover over all risks is not possible, calling for intervention to fill the gaps"

    • Lucy Greenhill (SG Member - Environment and Consenting)'s picture

      Sorry I haven't much time to further contribute to this 3 pager which we drafted earlier this year (and will be on holiday after today until 1st Sept) but have some brief comments below:

      1. MSP - MSP is potentially of huge benefit in enabling ocean energy - this was put across at the meeting in Brussels, and was captured in our drafting of the highlight points on p.1 around MSP, but this is not then reflected through the actions which come next (as in no more reference to MSP). Rather then emphasis becomes placed on resource planning and 'spatial planning' which is presumably sector specific strategic planning and the emphasis on the actual MSP process is lost. The tasks listed are relevant but there are benefits in considering the ambitions, opportunities, risks, benefits, impacts, etc within the context of MSP itself, as an integrated framework which can support the consideration of these, alongside other sectors, and presents an opportunity for being more cost-efficient in addressing both MSP and RE objectives. The challenge we need to address is how MSP interacts (or will interact) with current sector-specific approaches (i.e. sector planning, zoning, licensing, and the flow of information regarding risk that goes between these levels of governance). Currently they are developing separately and it isn't clear, for example, how allocation of space / sea use done through MSP, will inform / be informed by planning for specific sectors (e.g. MRE) (other than 'have regard to' each other). For me, it would be advantageous to have a task here that does some sort of focussed study on the integration / overlap of the different regulatory approaches (e.g. SEA, CIA, EIA, etc.) and how MSP can facilitate and streamline and reduce costs in development. The approaches to risk-based frameworks etc are highly relevant but would be of even greater value if they were considered in a cross-sector context and within MSP processes. MSP is driving consistency between sectors and member states and there are opportunities through it to rationalise our approaches to managing risk through the various levels (SEA -EIA) and really make a material difference to the hurdles of consenting practice.
      recommend - reconsider p.3 "the preparation of guidance notes to inform more robust and informed techniques for MSP" - does this mean MSP or sectoral planning? Would benefit more from guidelines / recommednations for the integration of sector planning and MSP to identify overlap, redundancies and maximise efficiencies.

      2. Could also look at comparative approaches to EIA, CIA, etc across EU - we are all beholden to the same Directives yet implement them differently, with the consenting hurdles seemingly greater in some countries (e.g. UK) than others (e.g. Germany). If other countries are taking more pragmatic approaches, and still 'legal' in the eyes of EC and the DIrectives then surely we can reflect and adjust? In collaboration with NSea counterparts and through the MERIKA project we are drafting a paper on this which will hopefully be useful at some stage.

      3. Emphasise knowledge on social as well as environmental impacts (p.1)

      4. A3 - include scientific community

      5. Might benefit from a recommendation on community scale renewables / ownership - becoming a greater area of focus as more realistic for some technologies and provides opportunities to 'test' real projects without significant grid connection issues, and then scale up commercially. Can even be about supporting tests in other countries (e.g. SIDS (we are working with Seychelles and Mauritius on MRE) which then provide a basis for growing an industry in Europe (particularly wave).

      6. Also in consenting / licensing we should highlight an action for looking at co-location, also a sub-topic of MSP but cutting through the issues of the planning / regulatory processes for different sectors to clear the way for really 'optimising' resource use in an area would fast track ocean energy projects with dual benefits e.g. aquaculture and wave. "relevant supporitng info" would be EU Tropos and EU MERMAID project and the imminent Horizon 2020 call on multi-use platforms.

      Sorry for the rushed nature of these comments and I'd be happy to clarify further after 1st Sept (and will hopefully be there on the 18th)

      Best wishes

      Lucy Greenhill