Download Initial Assessment Report

Initial Assessment Report
Co-Financed under European Integrated Maritime Policy
Contents
1.
Introduction and background ......................................................................................................... 4
2. Selection of Pilot Areas....................................................................................................................... 4
2.1
Definition of decision-making criteria ..................................................................................... 5
2.2
Assessment of potential pilot areas ........................................................................................ 6
2.3
Comparison of potential pilot areas and selection of preferred areas ................................... 6
3. Description of the Selected Pilot Areas .............................................................................................. 8
3.1
Northern Context: East Coast – Irish Sea ................................................................................ 8
3.1.1
Terrestrial and Coastal Context ....................................................................................... 8
3.1.2
Bathymetry and Hydrography ......................................................................................... 8
3.1.3
Social-economic Context ................................................................................................ 8
3.1.4
Main Coastal and Marine Activities................................................................................. 9
3.2
Southern Context: Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz .............................................................................. 9
3.2.1
Terrestrial, Coastal and Marine Context ......................................................................... 9
3.2.2
Bathymetry and Hydrography ....................................................................................... 10
3.2.3
Social-economic Context ............................................................................................... 10
3.2.4
Main Coastal and Marine Activities............................................................................... 11
3.2.5
Planning and Management ........................................................................................... 12
4. Stakeholder Perspectives on Pilot Areas .......................................................................................... 12
4.1
Northern Context: East Coast – Irish Sea .............................................................................. 12
4.1.1
Key issues for transboundary MSP in the pilot area ..................................................... 13
4.1.2
Geographical extent of the pilot area ........................................................................... 13
4.1.3
Means of engagement in transboundary MSP.............................................................. 14
4.2
Southern Context: Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz ............................................................................ 14
4.2.1
Key issues for transboundary MSP in the pilot area ..................................................... 15
4.2.2
Geographical extent of the pilot area ........................................................................... 15
4.2.3
Means of engagement in transboundary MSP.............................................................. 16
5.
Key Themes and Geographical Extent of the Pilot Areas .......................................................... 17
5.1
Northern Context: East Coast – Irish Sea .............................................................................. 17
5.1.1
Key themes for transboundary MSP ............................................................................. 17
5.1.2
Proposed geographical extent of the pilot area............................................................ 17
5.1.3
Indicative map of the study area ................................................................................... 17
5.2
Southern Context: Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz ............................................................................ 19
5.2.1
Key themes for transboundary MSP ............................................................................. 19
5.2.2
Proposed geographical extent of the pilot area............................................................ 19
5.2.3
Indicative map of the study area ................................................................................... 19
6. Potential Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 20
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
2
Appendix 1: Pilot Area Selection Table for the Northern Context (Ireland-UK) ................................... 21
Appendix 2: Pilot Area Selection Table for the Southern Context (Portugal-Spain) ............................. 32
Appendix 3: Stakeholder Workshop for the Northern Context (Ireland-UK)........................................ 40
Appendix 4: Stakeholder Workshop for the Southern Context (Portugal-Spain) ................................. 63
Appendix 5: Ministerial Coordination Meeting of National Stakeholders and the Spanish State
Administration (Spain)........................................................................................................................... 68
Appendix 6: Spanish Regional and Local Stakeholder Workshop ......................................................... 71
Appendix 7: Spanish Stakeholder Workshop Regional Coordination Meeting ..................................... 76
Appendix 8: Potential Data Sources for the Northern Context (Ireland-UK) ........................................ 80
Appendix 9: Potential Data Sources for the Southern Context (Portugal-Spain) ................................. 86
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
3
1.
Introduction and background
This work package aims to select appropriate cross-border areas within the project region, and to
make an initial assessment of these areas, as a basis for the more detailed planning activity to be
carried out in WP 1.3.
This activity is based upon the overall premise of TPEA, which is to develop an approach to crossborder MSP in the European Atlantic region as a whole, as demonstrated in two contexts: one in the
northern part of the region, between Ireland and the UK, and the other in the southern part, between
Portugal and Spain. This range of possibilities has been determined by the makeup of the project
consortium, involving partners from these four Atlantic nations.
Working groups were set up to carry out this assessment for each of the contexts, as follows:
-
Northern context: coordinated by DOE, working with UL and UCC
Southern context: coordinated by MAGRAMA, working with DGPM, UAVR, UAI, IEO, CEDEX
and US
2. Selection of Pilot Areas
The choice of pilot areas is limited to the cross-border areas in the two contexts described above.
These are as follows.
1. Northern context: areas extending outwards from the terrestrial borders between Ireland and
UK, described broadly as:
a. East: reaching eastwards into the Irish Sea
b. North: reaching northwards into the North Channel
(There is also a maritime border between the UK and Ireland in the more open sea area down the
middle of the Irish Sea, which could be the focus of cross-border MSP between these two nations.
However, the involvement in the project of the plan-making authority for Northern Ireland, UK (DOE)
favoured the selection of an area directly including its territory, i.e. one of the two above)
2. Southern context: areas extending outwards from the terrestrial borders between Portugal
and Spain, described broadly as:
a. Guadiana: reaching southwards from the Algarve into the Gulf of Cadiz
b. Minho: reaching westwards from the Minho river into the northeast Atlantic
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
4
Geographical contexts
Potential pilot areas
1) PT – SP @ Guadiana
2) SP – PT @ Minho
3) IRL – UK @ North
These four areas all have the potential to benefit from cross-border MSP. They are under pressures of
different kinds, have valuable environmental assets, and hold possibilities for new types of maritime
activity. They are all of interest to national authorities. However, the purpose of TPEA is not to carry
out comprehensive cross-border MSP for the project region, but rather to trial cross-border MSP in
distinct contexts within the region. The project’s resources will therefore be best utilised by
concentrating on exemplar areas representing the broad contexts described above. It was therefore
decided to select one area for the northern context, and one for the southern context.
Each working group carried out an assessment of their two potential areas and selection of one using a
common regional approach, as follows.
2.1
Definition of decision-making criteria
Criteria upon which to base the selection of the most appropriate area for the purposes of the project
were drawn up. These related to key issues for cross-border planning:
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
5
Governance and administrative considerations
1.
2.
3.
Status of international maritime border
National and subnational governance arrangements
Cross-border arrangements
Geographical considerations
4.
5.
6.
Physical features
Other environmental features
Socio-economic issues
Use considerations
7.
8.
9.
10.
Main coastal and marine activities
Spatial designations
Potential uses and synergies
Existing and potential use conflicts
Planning and management considerations
11.
12.
13.
14.
ICZM initiatives
MSP initiatives
Key coastal and marine planning issues
Terrestrial and strategic planning issues
Practical project considerations
15.
16.
17.
Data availability
Stakeholder interest
Consortium expertise
Overall assessment
18.
Suitability as a TPEA pilot planning area
2.2
Assessment of potential pilot areas
For each context, a table was drawn up allowing information on each of the above criteria to be set
out in relation to the potential pilot areas. Information was entered by project partners and expert
advisors on the basis of existing knowledge and available data. Agreement was reached amongst
participants regarding the information entered and the wording used.
Information relating to each potential pilot area was entered in a column for each. Sufficient detail
was given in order to highlight the key issues that would assist in the selection of the preferred pilot
area. (For some categories, it was not possible to make a meaningful distinction between the
potential pilot areas, so information runs across the two columns). The final criterion (18) provides a
summary of the overall suitability of each potential area, taking into account the information as a
whole for the area in question.
Please see Appendices 1 and 2.
2.3
Comparison of potential pilot areas and selection of preferred areas
For each context, a comparison was then made between the potential pilot areas, based on the
information presented in the table. This proceeded by careful discussion between the partners and
expert advisors for each setting. A judgement was reached on the most suitable area to select for the
purposes of the project, taking into account the knowledge represented by the contents of the table.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
6
Although there were reasons in favour of both possibilities in each context, a case emerged for one
over the other in each setting, and a consensus was reached regarding the preferred area for the
subsequent stages of the project:
Northern context (Ireland-UK)
East Coast – Irish Sea
(East coast reaching eastwards into the Irish Sea)
Southern context (Portugal-Spain)
Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz
(Algarve coast reaching southwards into the Gulf of Cadiz)
Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz
This selection was approved by the Management Team (1st February 2013). The European Commission
also supported this choice of areas, with the comment that consideration should be given not just to
coastal issues, but also to marine issues, including beyond the limit of territorial waters where
possible.
Although these general areas were decided upon, the precise geographical extent and boundaries of
the pilot areas were left open at this stage. It was felt that more information needed to be gathered,
and consultation needed to take place with stakeholders, before the precise scope of the pilot areas
could be determined.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
7
3. Description of the Selected Pilot Areas
Drawing on the assessment carried out for the selection of the pilot areas, the following broad
description can be made of the selected areas.
3.1
Northern Context: East Coast – Irish Sea
3.1.1
Terrestrial and Coastal Context
The pilot study area for the northern context has a visually striking and varied landscape resultant
from the underlying geology, glacial processes and agricultural traditions that have sculpted the area
over millennia. The selected transboundary area centres on the scenic Mourne and Carlingford
Mountains with the glacial drumlins and the fertile farmland of Counties Down and Louth providing
the wider coastal context.
The landscape quality of the selected transboundary area is recognised in the designation of Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and it also has several noteworthy coastal and maritime features
which include sea loughs, estuaries, bays and sand dune features. The area also provides important
sites for wintering waterfowl and supports a wide variety of maritime biodiversity which is reflected by
the designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA).
3.1.2
Bathymetry and Hydrography
The Irish Sea pilot study area varies in depth between 20 – 100 metres over much of its extent with a
deeper channel, exceeding 100 metres, running North South between the Irish coast and the Isle of
Man.
A complex oceanography driven by the interaction and mixing of variable water masses with distinct
characteristics. The hydrography of the north-west Irish Sea is stratified which contrasts with the
mixed waters of the south-east Irish Sea. The temperature of the Irish Sea ranges from 6ºC in the
winter to 16ºC in the summer.
3.1.3
Social-economic Context
The East Coast is a strategically important location as an economic channel between the two main
cities of Belfast and Dublin. The area contains a patchwork of large towns and smaller settlements with
important cultural and economic links to the maritime environment. The region has a strong coastal
and cultural heritage and there is a strong historical and present day relationship between the
maritime and the surrounding communities. This inter-relationship is derived from traditional
employment, modern recreational activities and the strong sense of history, place and setting which
communities attach to this coastal and maritime landscape.
The larger settlements of Dundalk, Drogheda and Newry occupy strategic locations between Belfast
and Dublin. These settlements are important regional industrial, retail and service centres for the east
coast region and the surrounding rural hinterlands. Dundalk, Drogheda, Warrenpoint and Greenore
have port facilities with strategic importance due to the proximity of the motorway network to the key
industrial and commercial centres in both ROI and NI.
Tourism plays an important role for the settlements of Newcastle, Warrenpoint and Carlingford
although the settlements also provide important local services for the surrounding rural area. The
pilot study area also supports fishing communities at Kilkeel, Ardglass and Clougherhead with
additional employment provided in the associated fleet maintenance and fish processing industries.
Within the pilot study area there are several sailing, sea bathing, walking and outdoor pursuit clubs
facilitating a social connection to the maritime environment. Beyond these organised networks there
is a strong latent attachment to the coastal and marine environment within the local communities.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
8
3.1.4
Main Coastal and Marine Activities
There is a wide range of activities in the pilot study area which is highlighted in the rapid assessment
table in Appendix 1. These activities include ports and shipping, fishing, oil and gas exploration and
extraction, offshore renewable energy, tourism and recreation, marine dredging and disposal,
undersea telecommunications cabling, aquaculture and environmental interests. All these activities
are very important from an economic, social and environmental aspect and therefore will feature
strongly as we take forward transboundary MSP in the Irish Sea area. Without prejudice to the
exploration of all these activities it was viewed by some participants that some activities may feature
more prominently than others when considered in the context of their influence on other activities
and the benefits which can be derived from transboundary MSP.
As an island Ireland is dependent on the sea and its seaports for trade and the sector is a key element
in driving wider economic development. Within the pilot study area there are four significant ports
and shipping movements are generally high with vessel movements both traversing north-south and
east-west. The importance of this sector and its international transient character in combination with
its intensity is likely to be a key consideration and influence on the project.
The development of renewable energy has the possibility to be one of the most transformational
emerging activities in the transboundary pilot study area over the next few decades. The active
pursuance of offshore wind energy by both jurisdictions shall provide the opportunity to explore the
transboundary influence of this industry and the benefits which transboundary MSP may deliver.
The pilot study area also contains important coastal fishing grounds and fishing communities. The
value attached to this traditional maritime activity and the economic influence in the coastal
communities of both jurisdictions shall most likely feature prominently as the project progresses. The
transient nature of the fish resource and its shared exploitation would indicate that this industry will
have a keen interest in transboundary MSP.
3.2
Southern Context: Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz
3.2.1
Terrestrial, Coastal and Marine Context
The coastline of the Algarve and the Gulf of Cadiz shows a remarkable landscape and environmental
diversity, alternating zones of sea and marsh with extensive beaches, densely humanised, with
stretches of landscape that remains almost unchanged in its natural characteristics.
The area is influenced by important rivers such as the Guadiana, the Tinto-Odiel and the Guadalquivir,
and there are important wetland areas with a wide diversity of habitats, such as coastal dune ridges,
marshes, freshwater flow, and relevant areas for migratory birds.
The mild climate and the terrestrial and maritime conditions fostered the development of tourist
activities along this stretch of coast, determined by intense demand and urban occupancy.
In the Guadiana area the coast is sheltered and the coastal zone is homogeneous with predominance
of coastal beaches. In the Gulf of Cadiz coast is characterised by smooth and uniform topography and
is mainly composed of sandy materials and sandy spits.
The Guadiana and Gulf of Cadiz areas have a wide continental platform. The continental shelf in the
Gulf of Cadiz is limited by the isoline of 100 meters. It is of variable width, which is greater in the
central area (30 km) and narrower close to Portugal (17 km).
The flow of the Atlantic waters affects the oceanographic features of the surface waters in the Gulf of
Cadiz and plays a major role in regulating circulation in the Mediterranean basin.
The waters of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean meet in the Gulf of Cadiz through the Straits of
Gibraltar. The waters have different hydrographical characteristics and produce highly valuable
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
9
ecosystems, the ecological importance of which lies in the existence of a wide variety and spread of
biotopes, with different communities, that further enrich the area.
In this respect and with regard to fishing, due to its geomorphological characteristics and strategic
situation between the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea, the Gulf of Cadiz constitutes a singular
habitat with fisheries quite different from the Atlantic and more related to those of the
Mediterranean, which justifies the specific management measures for this area, at both the national
and EU levels. As for birdlife, the area is an important wetland area with a wide range of habitats and
is an important area for migratory birds. As such, major enclaves can be found along the Gulf of Cadiz
coast that have been declared protected bird areas.
As far as sub-tidal areas are concerned, there are a number of SCIs in the coastal zone which are
natural values and stand out for their dunes, marshlands, forestry masses and beaches. All these SCIs
have been covered by a range of national and regional environmental protection legislation apart from
being designated SCIs by the Habitats Directive.
3.2.2
Bathymetry and Hydrography
The predominant morphological type in the infralittoral domain, in areas that do not correspond to the
mouths of rivers, are the infralittoral prisms arranged parallel to the coast, sedimentary wedgeshaped, with one edge of the depositional break at 20-30 m depth and widths less than 8 km. There
are equally frequent basement outcrops, between 12 and 40 m, either as shallow marine or
submarine, as thresholds related to old shorelines. At some points, these outcrops are partially
covered by mud and sand.
The Gulf of Cadiz is one of the most complex and interesting of the global ocean systems. On the one
hand, it is the exchange and mixing zone between the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean,
producing one of the more decisive intermediate water masses for global ocean circulation, as the
Mediterranean Water Current and Swirl. On the other hand, it is influenced by a northern branch of
the Azores Current.
From an oceanographic point of view, the Azores’s anticyclone influences surface circulation in the
region throughout the year with climate less severe and predominant winds from SW and SE.
3.2.3
Social-economic Context
The coastal zone of the pilot area comprises major urban and industrial centres, most notably Faro and
Portimão, in Portugal, and Huelva and Cadiz in Spain. Also noteworthy are areas of intensive tourism
alternating with natural, rural and fishing areas, thus making it an area with many port capacities
fishing and recreational.
The mild climate, warm and calm waters that bathe its long sandy beaches, natural landscapes and
ecological value, the historic and ethnographic qualities and the Mediterranean cuisine are attributes
that attract millions of tourists from home and abroad, promoting the development of tourism in this
coastal zone.
There is a predominance of the services sector, including tourism and leisure, which have been
recognized as the sector with greater dynamism. Tourism and leisure play a crucial role in creating
wealth and employment by stimulating economic sectors upstream and downstream.
Fisheries are very important in the area. Given the importance of local species in regional cuisine, they
are one of the main anchors of tourism by the provision of a very significant source of high quality
fresh fish. In addition, traditional fishing activities arouse great interest and are a tourist attraction in
some areas. It is important to emphasize the relevance of small scale fisheries with respect to the
provision of income in small fishing communities.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
10
Socio-economically the co-existence of fishing with other activities in the coastal zone should be
noted, such as leisure, services, aquaculture, and also environmental protection.
3.2.4
Main Coastal and Marine Activities
Existing activities in the pilot area are mostly related to and dependent of the sea.
In the Algarve-Gulf of Cadiz area there is strong regional and local development associated with
tourism and strong demographic pressure on coastal area. There is great intensity of use such as
fisheries, shellfish and aquaculture, agriculture, port activity, tourism and recreation, gas activities and
mineral extraction. The main potential uses under development are offshore wind farms, CO2 storage
and cabling (Europa-India gateway). The intensity of uses and potential uses in the Guadiana area is
high, so possible conflicts between them could be of importance in this area.
Given the state of most fish resources, aquaculture is an important alternative to the traditional forms
of fish supply. Aquaculture establishments are located inland in the coastal zones of the pilot area,
outside the areas directly affected by the tides, but close enough to the sea for its supply of water.
These are intensive exploration establishments for species with specific requirements in terms of
salinity and water temperature. The pilot area has natural factors favourable to aquaculture activities
but production is still a relatively small part of the fish produced. The use of technologies in offshore
aquaculture, particularly for the production of bivalve molluscs, is growing and their development is
considered an alternative/complementary method of production which will relieve some of the
pressure on traditional production zones.
Due to the characteristics of the vessels involved, the species targeted, and the dependence of the
populations involved in supplying the domestic and foreign market, it is of the utmost importance to
ensure the continued viability of the fleet by providing it with access to the whole maritime area
closest to the coast up to 6 miles offshore.
Fishing and aquaculture activity affect and influence other sectors, namely the manufacturing industry,
trade and services.
Tourism is one of the main coastal activities and high demand has led to an intense occupation of the
coastal strip. The excellent condition and high demand for the bathing practice, water sports and
nautical leisure activities, allied to socio-cultural conditions, is a major attraction of the entire south
coast of the Iberian Peninsula. The importance of natural values and protected areas, landscape and
cultural has led to a growing demand in this area for leisure activities in contact with nature and the
local values.
Closely associated with tourist activity, the increased demand of nautical leisure activities led to a swift
development and the construction of numerous marinas.
Exploitation of non-living natural marine resources is also present in the pilot area such oil and gas
industry and sand and gravel extraction which is mainly linked to beach nourishment.
As far as port activity is concerned, the large number of ports in the area should be noted. Most of
these are fishing ports, although Huelva State Port stands out for its refinery and its main strength,
bulk solid and liquid traffic.
As stated, the ship building industry is in decline. Although there are some private shipyards, the
historic State shipyard has disappeared. Similarly, although the waters of the Gulf of Cadiz have been
tentatively explored for gas and hydrocarbons, there have been no significant developments in this
activity at the present time.
In other respects, activities that are experiencing sustainable development over time in the waters of
the Gulf of Cadiz are sea traffic and military activities. Major international maritime traffic flows
converge in the Gulf of Cadiz, with the direction of the routes being to and from the Bosporus Straits,
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
11
the Suez Canal, Finisterre and the North Atlantic, the Canary Islands and America. This activity coexists
with restricted areas sectioned off by the Ministry of Defence for naval manoeuvres.
In short, the potential of the Gulf of Cadiz area focuses on developing aquaculture, nautical and
recreational tourism, and the development of offshore wind energy.
3.2.5
Planning and Management
The following types of borders are defined under UNCLOS: Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, Exclusive
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf. There is no agreement between Portugal and Spain covering
territorial waters in this area. Although there is a convention for delimiting the territorial sea and the
continental shelf, signed on February 12, 1976, this has not been implemented. Moreover, there is no
official agreement between both States for the seaward limit of the EEZ which is also affected by
Morocco in Guadiana area.
In Portugal there are several programmes, action plans and strategies in ICZM and MSP. While in Spain
there isn´t any initiative in ICZM and MSP at the moment. At present, there is no continuity between
terrestrial planning and MSP nor integrated environmental planning except for sectoral approaches
(such as marine protected areas).
The Guadiana area has several plans in coastal and marine uses as in terrestrial and strategic uses.
While in the Gulf of Cadiz there is no proposal for marine spatial planning at the regional or national
level, although there is zoning for offshore wind power implementation, developed at national level.
4. Stakeholder Perspectives on Pilot Areas
Following the selection of the preferred area for each geographical context, a stakeholder workshop
was organised for each: one for the north, involving Irish and UK participants, and the other for the
south, involving Portuguese and Spanish participants. This was the first of three pairs of workshop to
be held during the project. They were held simultaneously, on 12th March 2013. Due regard was had
to the stakeholder engagement section of the Conceptual Framework (WP 1.1) when organising and
running these.
The purpose of this first pair of workshops was to gain a greater understanding of the potential
transboundary issues in the selected areas. This was to assist in focusing upon the key issues to be
considered in the subsequent work package. The geographical extent of the study areas was also
explored with the participants, and the most appropriate manner of continuing their engagement with
the project.
Please see Appendices 3 and 4 for reports on these initial workshops. The stakeholder perspectives for
each context can be summarised as follows.
4.1
Northern Context: East Coast – Irish Sea
Newry, on the East Coast, was selected as the venue for the workshop in the northern context due to
its proximity to the project area and therefore convenient for most interested attendees. The
participants represented a cross section of interests from Government (central and local), Agencies,
the Private sector, Industry, Environment and Academia from both jurisdictions with an active interest
in the selected East Coast Irish Sea area.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
12
4.1.1
Key issues for transboundary MSP in the pilot area
The cross section of interests generated a broad range of constructive comments on the key issues for
transboundary Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) which may be summarised as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The need to improve areas of co-operation was one of the key issues raised on the day and the
following emerged as important elements for co-operation: improved data sharing; making the
best use of scientific knowledge / understanding; learning from good practice; building on
existing mechanisms for interaction; synergy in approach to transboundary MSP and the need
for co-operation between the separate terrestrial and marine planning regimes;
The impact of different legislative regimes was viewed as a possible barrier to transboundary
MSP in particular jurisdictional issues which should be addressed with the view to reduce
uncertainty thereby minimising conflict and maximising cross-boundary opportunities;
The development of a clear strategy for implementation and delivery was seen as an
important element;
In addition, sharing experience and learning from other transboundary projects would be
beneficial in transboundary MSP;
The sharing of good practice and learning from experience for example the co-ordinated
approach of implementing the Water Framework Directive through River Basin Management
Plans;
The need for a co-ordinated approach to implementing other EU Directives like MSFD, Birds
and Habitats
The alignment of separate and multiple licensing regimes needs to be explored in a
transboundary context;
The development of Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) between the different regimes
could be further explored in a transboundary context;
The emerging energy projects especially the distribution of costs and benefits of implementing
offshore renewable energy were identified as particular areas for exploration in a
transboundary context;
Co-ordination and management of competing interests;
Broadening the understanding of MSP and transboundary MSP in particular;
Assessment of cumulative impact and pressures of economic development;
The opportunity to bring coherence to sectoral interests; and
The use of simple and easily understood language.
Following on from this initial discussion the participants considered the issues and activities that
transboundary MSP should address and again a wide range of issues emerged. The participants
identified the various activities taking place in the East Coast Irish Sea area and considered the social,
economic and environmental impact of those activities. Whilst clear sectoral interests were identified
amongst the attendees a need for improved co-operation was acknowledged as a central tenet for
transboundary MSP whilst recognising each area’s political and legal responsibilities.
4.1.2
Geographical extent of the pilot area
The issue of spatial scale for the project attracted a wide range of opinion. Discussion focused on both
the geographical extent of the project and how this is defined and can be summarised as follows:
•
•
There was an acknowledgement of the operational constraints of the TPEA project both in
terms of resources and time and the restrictions this may have on the scale of the project;
The discussions ranged from the need to adopt a geographical extent to reflect the actual scale
of oceanographic and ecological processes thereby achieving scientific defensibility to the risk
that an important factor or activity may be excluded as it falls foul of the defined spatial area.
It was presented that the use of a defined study area may skew the results of the project and
present an artificial view of the wider transboundary area;
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
13
•
•
4.1.3
With regard to the geographical extent there was no clear consensus and it was agreed,
therefore, that it should be important to ensure that all the activities that take place along the
East Coast would be included therefore the need for defining a geographical area was to be
considered further; and
In the interim the key activities in the East Coast area would be mapped thereby providing a
visual context which may assist in determining the way forward between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’
boundaries.
Means of engagement in transboundary MSP
The stakeholder feedback regarding the means of engagement in transboundary MSP can be
catagorised into the following topics: the physical method of engagement; and the guiding principles
for that engagement.
The following comments were presented regarding the physical methods of engagement in
transboundary MSP:
•
•
•
•
Early engagement is essential as achieving public involvement can take a considerable amount
of time;
The importance of face to face contacts should not be under estimated. There should not be
an over reliance on websites. Drop in sessions were presented as a good method of
engagement with the wider community in the study location;
Feedback needs to be provided to stakeholders; and
Future stakeholder events could be multipurpose with the stakeholder interests included in
the program.
The following comments were presented as guiding principles of engagement:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.2
Mutual respect and fairness with a transparent process was raised as a key starting point for
any engagement exercise. The process needs to have balance and structure and managed to
ensure that overly vocal parties do not have a disproportionate influence. Transparency also
needs to extend to the purpose, outcomes, roles, expectations and limits of any MSP project;
Engagement should be comparable across the two jurisdictions. This is in terms of
representation and procedures. In addition there should be transboundary representation in
all the maritime sectors;
The need for political input/buy-in was raised as a key element in any future engagement;
Local knowledge should be incorporated and local level (micro) projects should be built upon.
The stakeholders need to be informed what the engagement process is about and why their
involvement is important. It may be necessary to highlight the stakeholders ability to influence
the outcomes of transboundary MSP;
The engagement process needs to avoid the use of second hand explanations and should not
avoid the technical or difficult questions; and
The right (most relevant) contacts need to be identified.
Southern Context: Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz
The southern workshop took place at the Centro Cultural António Aleixo, in a city near the border, Vila
Real de Santo António, in Portugal.
Public entities with jurisdiction in the licensing and inspection of activities and uses of marine space
and the marine and/or coastal zone, and representative organisations from the relevant sectors from
both countries were invited to participate in this first workshop. Partners and advisors were also
invited. The preparation of the workshop took into account the existence of the two distinct
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
14
nationalities of the participants; hence joint plenary sessions and parallel sessions for representatives
of each country were organised.
4.2.1
Key issues for transboundary MSP in the pilot area
In the first plenary session the TPEA project was presented, including MSP objectives and process and
the principles for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Key issues for discussion in the parallel
country sessions included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is the importance of maritime space and coastal zone for the stakeholders’ activities?
What is the importance of the maritime space and coastal zone in the transboundary region of
Guadiana?
What are the main constraints in the pilot area considering the national and transboundary
context?
What are the opportunities of integrated maritime spatial planning in the national and
transboundary context?
In the transboundary context, what are the uses and activities that should be considered as
part of an exercise in MSP?
What is the best way to involve stakeholders in TPEA?
Despite the limited response to the invitation on the Spanish side the stakeholders who attended
showed much interest in the TPEA project and shared a lot of good suggestions. Taking into account
the previous key issues, the main conclusions are:
Opportunities:
•
•
•
Harmonization of procedures.
Platform of common interests and access to information.
The MSP can be used for the integration of cross-border projects such as recreational boating,
aquaculture and others.
 Relevant activities and uses to MSP:
 Fishing;
 Nature conservation;
 Cultural heritage
 Recreational activities.
 Harmonize accessibility issues to the coast.
Constraints:
•
•
•
•
4.2.2
Conflicting interests.
Different administrative organization/governance model.
Different engagement of the Stakeholders in the two countries.
Conflicts in the management and evaluation of uses in the first mile offshore in different laws
as Directive 200/60/CE and Directive 2008/56/CE
Geographical extent of the pilot area
One of the aims of the stakeholder meeting was to select the extent of the pilot area. Stakeholders
were presented with different possibilities.
The Spanish stakeholders agreed that the best solution was to consider a wide area including the
entire Gulf of Cadiz at the beginning. They argued that doing it this way would allow for better
understanding of the different processes involved. This area could then be reduced during the
development of the project.
The main conclusions about the pilot area were:
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
15
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.2.3
Set the limits taking into account the activities and uses.
Portuguese stakeholders mentioned that the pilot area should not exceed the territorial
waters, but in the Spanish session, there was unanimous agreement to extend the pilot are to
24 miles offshore.
There is national and community legislation which must be taken into account by each
member state.
It is important to clarify the MSP concept before engaging in conversation with the
neighbouring state.
Security issues should be addressed in the plan.
In the Spanish session, there was a general agreement about the longitudinal extension of the
project: a first general area from the mouth of the Guadiana river to the mouth of the
Guadalquivir river, about 120 km from the border from Portugal. The main reason was to
consider a complete unit according to dynamic and ecosystem processes. Special mention was
made of the Doñana Protected Area, which stakeholders considered very important to include
in the project despite its complexity and own management system.
Means of engagement in transboundary MSP
Stakeholder involvement is easier to organise in the case of a national project. Constraints at the
transboundary level can magnify problems experienced at the national level as there are different
languages, different planning traditions, as well as potentially competing economics interest to
consider (one example is potentially competing ports). In this sense, we can highlight the different
involvement of Portuguese and Spanish stakeholders. Both groups of stakeholders were invited at the
same time, the letters sent were very similar, but the response was very different.
From the workshop analysis we can conclude that the way to engage stakeholders in Spain must be
changed. Portugal has a recent development on MSP. Portuguese stakeholders are used to
participating in this kind of processes and are aware of the concepts while Spanish stakeholders are
not. We therefore have to take advantage of these results and change the way we engage the Spanish
stakeholders.
Also, we can mention that Spanish stakeholders do not have much knowledge about Maritime Spatial
Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
To have a better response in the future and to involve the Spanish stakeholders, Spain thinks that
stakeholder involvement must be undertaken first at a national level to explain the project, its
objectives and the new initiative of the Framework Directive about Maritime Spatial Planning and
Integrated Coastal Management from the European Commission. Three different levels should be
considered: i) Central Government; ii) Regional Government authorities; and iii) Fisheries Stakeholders
and other relevant sectors. With this methodology the constraints related to travel, economic
difficulties to attend and the time schedule should be lessened, all of which proved an issue for the
Spanish stakeholders in this first workshop. The development of these different meetings can
contribute to achieving better results in future TPEA workshops and to establishing a better
connection between stakeholders from both sides of the border. (Note: Separate stakeholder
workshops have since been organised to achieve better communication and stakeholder involvement,
see Appendix 5-7).
Also in the future it will be necessary to have a discussion among the Portuguese and the Spanish
stakeholders to get the involvement of the both sides at the same time and share the problems.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
16
5.
Key Themes and Geographical Extent of the Pilot Areas
Drawing on the above assessment, and taking into account the stakeholder workshop for each area,
certain key transboundary themes arise for the selected areas which suggest an indicative are for the
project.
5.1
Northern Context: East Coast – Irish Sea
5.1.1
Key themes for transboundary MSP
Recurring themes are emerging from the work to date on the project including transparency to users,
encouraging co-existence of use and how cumulative impact should be considered. The need to
establish and communicate clear objectives on what transboundary MSP is trying to achieve is also
emerging as a prominent element. There is also a recognition and acknowledgement amongst the
project partners and the stakeholders of the need to co-operate in planning and managing shared
areas. In addition, the opportunity to share data, experience and good practice is emerging as central
to achieving effective and efficient transboundary MSP. The themes will continue to evolve as the
project advances and will be explored in more detail in the next component of the project.
5.1.2
Proposed geographical extent of the pilot area
As outlined above there was no clear consensus from stakeholders on defining a geographical extent
of the pilot study area at this stage of the project. However, it was agreed that in the interim the key
activities in the East Coast area would be mapped thereby providing a visual context which may assist
in determining the way forward between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ boundaries as the project progresses. The
following key points provide the basis for further consideration in defining the geographical extent:
•
•
•
•
5.1.3
Using ‘soft’ boundaries provides the flexibility to include uses, activities, ecological and
oceanographic processes which may lie outside the actual study area but influence it;
When looking at the boundaries the operational reality and natural processes of the
transboundary area needs to be balanced against the availability of resources of the TPEA
project;
Rather than defining a single geographical extent a multi-scale approach could be used which
is defined by an activity or process. The multi-scale approach could define broad geographic
areas of each activity. The multi-scale approach could also be applied to the detail of analysis
of activities and processes with the spatial plotting and analysis defined by its importance and
interaction with other activities in the transboundary area; and
The geographical extent of the project should remain flexible throughout the project to allow
for a more informed outcome.
Indicative map of the study area
The map below is presented as a visual aid to discussion only and is not intended to define the exact
boundaries of the pilot study area; nor is it intended to limit the consideration of activities within the
wider geographical context which are considered to have an influence on the transboundary area.
The map uses a graduated approach with the area of darkest shading showing the immediate
transboundary area. It is bounded to the East by the edge of Northern Ireland’s and Republic of
Ireland’s Jurisdictional Limits and stretches North and South by 60 nautical miles to include the capital
cities of Belfast and Dublin. No border is shown between Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland
territorial waters as there is no legally recognised border. The landward boundary is the coastline,
whilst the seaward boundary is the outer limits of Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland waters
(maximum distance of about 25 – 30 nm).
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
17
Key influences including oceanic and ecological processes, economic activities and population centres
are identified as external features which merit further exploration as to their impact on the pilot study
area.
In conjunction with further stakeholder input it is anticipated that as the project evolves and the
activities in the area are mapped in greater detail, an Area of Common Interest and an Area of Wider
Influence will be developed.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
18
5.2
Southern Context: Algarve – Gulf of Cadiz
5.2.1
Key themes for transboundary MSP
According to the information available and taking into account the main conclusions from the
workshop we can identify the following key themes in the context of transboundary MSP:
•
•
•
•
•
5.2.2
Platform of common interests and access to information;
Development and integration of cross-border projects such as recreational boating,
aquaculture and mineral extraction;
Harmonisation of procedures and identification of the main criteria to be used in the
environmental impact assessment processes in cross-border context;
Harmonisation of procedures related to natural risk (climate change) and technologic risk
(pollution control);
Integrated approach on the common cross-border uses and activity, such as recreational
boating activity and exploitation of living and non-living marine resources.
Proposed geographical extent of the pilot area
At this stage of the project the geographical extent of the pilot area is not yet defined. However there
some main concepts that emerged from the discussion, and must be clarified, considering the
objectives that will be established for the exercise:
•
•
•
5.2.3
Set the limits taking into account the activities and uses;
Set the limits taking into account the national legislation and jurisdictional aspects from each
member state;
Taking into account the physical and ecological features of the pilot area.
Indicative map of the study area
As in the case of the northern case study area, the map below is presented as a visual aid to discussion
only and is not intended to define the exact boundaries of the pilot study area; nor is it intended to
limit the consideration of activities within the wider geographical context which are considered to
have an influence on the transboundary area.
Lengthwise the indicative study area extends 60 nm from the border region in each direction. No
border is shown between Spain and Portugal territorial waters as there is no legally recognised border.
The landward boundary is the coastline, whilst the seaward boundary is the outer limits of Spain and
Portugal waters (maximum distance of about 40– 60 nm). The area is graded, indicating decreasing
levels of interaction away from the centre of the border region. Arrows indicate wider influences at
work. At this stage, the map is indicative only; more specific areas of common interest and wider
influence can be differentiated at a later stage.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
19
Map is for illustrative purposes only
6. Potential Data Sources
An initial survey was carried out of potential sources of data for each pilot area.
Appendices 6 and 7.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Please see
20
Appendix 1: Pilot Area Selection Table for the Northern Context (Ireland-UK)
Selection Criteria
East Coast – Irish Sea
North Coast – Atlantic
GOVERNANCE AND ADMINSTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
There is no agreement on the delimitation of territorial sea between the
United Kingdom and Ireland; however, respective marine authorities cooperate wherever possible on marine activities.
1.
Status of international
maritime border
As an illustration of the on-going co-operation in our shared waters a
Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the two governments in
late 2011, supported by the Northern Ireland (NI) Executive,
establishing agreed lines solely to facilitate the development of offshore
renewable energy. In addition, an agreement establishing a single
maritime boundary between the Exclusive Economic Zones of the two
countries and parts of their continental shelves was signed in March
2013 although it is not yet in force. The agreement will provides greater
opportunity for commercial investment from natural resources. It will
bring legal certainty to boundary issues and is designed to improve
protection of fisheries, the marine environment and marine
biodiversity. A further demonstration of coordination between the two
jurisdictions is the sharing of three international river basin districts
under the Water Framework Directive. In addition the arrangements
arrived at to implement the Marine Strategy Framework Directive will
also be helpful and these arrangements will be useful guides for the
governance of both the coastal and seaward areas specific to this
project.
Within ROI the governance of marine related functions is currently
shared among five different government departments in accordance
with the marine competencies of those Departments. The key national
legislation governing the majority of coastal and marine developments
is the Foreshore Acts 1933- 2011.
2.
National and sub-national
governance arrangements
Following the establishment of the Inter-Departmental Marine
Coordination Group (MCG) in 2009, a shared vision of the marine is set
out in ‘Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth – An Integrated Marine Plan for
1
Ireland’ which sets high level policy objectives and goals for the ROI’s
marine area. The goals and key actions set out in this national strategy
are in line with the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy. The MCG has
recently launched two Task Forces that are ‘enabler’ and ‘development’
focused. Implementation of the plan will be a dynamic process and will
evolve over the period to 2020 in light of evolving circumstances
nationally and internationally
The Department of the Environment (DOE) is the Marine Plan Authority
for the NI marine area covering both the inshore and offshore areas and
is the primary licensing and managing authority (land planning,
environmental protection, marine licensing, etc.). The UK Government
retains control for certain functions, including defence and
exploration/extraction of oil and gas in both the inshore and offshore
areas.
1
Government of Ireland, 2012. Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth – An Integrated Marine Plan for Ireland [online] (Published
2012) Available at: http://www.ouroceanwealth.ie/Pages/default.aspx [Accessed 11 January 2013].
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
21
Marine responsibilities for the NI marine area are spread across five
Government Departments reflecting the competencies of those
Departments.
There are established methods for consultation, co-operation on
matters of mutual interest and development of relationships between
UK-Ireland through the North/South Ministerial Council and the British
and Irish Council.
The Memorandum of Understanding as mentioned in section 1 is an
illustration of the on-going co-operation between both Governments
and their associated Departments wherever possible on marine
activities. Existing cross-border arrangements also include: Tourism
Ireland, an all-island marketing body; and the Sail West and Seaside
Towns projects, which are strategic transnational marine tourism
initiatives co-funded through the INTERREG IVA programme.
2
The UK Marine Policy Statement establishes the policy context within
which marine plans will be developed. The Statement recognises the
benefits of cross-border co-operation and co-ordination including
sharing of data and consultation in order to fully realise the potential
effects of any marine spatial plan.
3.
Cross-border arrangements
The ROI recognises in Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth that International
co-operation is an essential element of integrated marine policy and
planning. The document also acknowledges that co-operation between
the jurisdictions is traditionally strong, especially in areas of common
interest such as shipping, energy, tourism, aquaculture and research.
The ROI’s Strategy for Renewable Energy (2012-2020) also identifies the
need for co-operative working relationships to deliver an
intergovernmental agreement under the EU framework, which will
support the mutual economic benefit and cross border trade in
renewable energy.
The Loughs Agency is a cross-border body under the auspices of the
Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission (FCLIC). This has a
statutory remit for promoting the conservation, management,
protection and development of Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough and
their respective catchments for commercial and recreational purposes
in respect of marine, fishery, aquaculture, and the sustainable
development of marine tourism.
GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.
Physical features
The ROI and NI are separated by two large bays: Lough Foyle in the
northwest between Co. Donegal (ROI) and Co. Derry/Londonderry (NI)
and Carlingford Lough in the east between Co. Louth (ROI) and Co.
Down (NI). The eastern area is within the Irish Sea. The north west area
is exposed to the Atlantic Ocean.
The potential east coast study area
is within the Irish Sea, which forms
part of the North East Atlantic
Ocean and falls within the Celtic
Seas/Bay of Biscay Shelf Large
The potential north coast study
area is exposed to the open
Atlantic. The area is frequently
exposed to high wind and wave
energy. In the transboundary
HM
Government,
2011.
UK
Marine
Policy
Statement.
[Online].
Available
at
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/interim2/marine-policy-statement.pdf [Accessed 11 January
2013].
2
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
22
Marine Ecosystem (LME) identified
under the UNEP Regional Seas
Programme and the strategy for
the OSPAR Convention for the
protection of the marine
environment of the North-East
Atlantic. It is an intensively used
marine space separating the island
of Ireland from Great Britain. In
the transboundary area the
seabed substrate is identified as
being primarily sands and muddy
sediments (EMODnet).
From the coastal margin the
seabed descends to an
approximate depth of 60 metres
within the study area
There are no significant subsurface
marine physical features identified
although detailed bathymetry
mapping currently being
undertaken will provide more data
in this area.
Notable coastal features include
Dundrum Bay, Dundalk Bay both
shallow intertidal bays. Strangford
Lough is noteworthy for its tidal
currents and rich natural bays.
In the coastal zone, there are
several distinct landscape
characters, ranging from the
Mountains of Mourne and the
Carlingford Mountains to the
glacial drumlin lowlands. There is
significant physical variety with
hard and soft coastlines. The area
is noted for its high scenic quality
and is designated on this basis.
area the seabed substrate is
identified as primarily sands and
muddy sands (EMODnet).
From the coastal margin the
seabed descends to an
approximate depth of 50 metres
within the study area.
Notable coastal marine features
include Lough Swilly, Milligan spit
(an internationally important grey
dune system), Ramore Head
(geological feature). Several
significant rivers and associated
estuarine environments are
within the potential study area
including the Foyle, Bann and
Swilly.
In the coastal zone, there are
several distinct landscape
characters including sea cliffs,
prominent hills and mountains
and river and estuarine planes.
Within NI the coast is primarily a
soft (mobile sand beaches)
interspaced with hard features.
In ROI there is a greater variety of
steep hard coast interspaced with
sand beaches. The area is noted
for its high scenic quality and is
designated on this basis.
Both areas support a wide range of habitats and species of nature
conservation interest, many of which are designated for their national
or international importance. The sea, seashore and seabed contain a
wide range of natural resources and support many different economic
development activities.
5.
Other environmental features
The sea Loughs have diverse and
highly significant marine
environments all of which have
several environmental
designations. Strangford Lough is
of particular note for its physical
features and marine ecology.
The intertidal environments of the
potential Eastern study area
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
The sea Loughs and estuarine
environments provide
internationally important feeding
areas for wintering birds
supporting a good range of
species as is reflected in the
international and European
designations.
The coastal environment is
23
provide internationally important
feeding areas for wintering birds
supporting a good range of species
as is reflected in the international
and European designations.
The marine environment supports
populations of common seals and
other priority species. Herring
spawning grounds are located in
the inshore of the potential study
area. The area also supports
diverse fishing activity.
The potential study area has rich
maritime culture and archaeology.
The DOE NI continues to promote
and protect NI’s marine
archaeological heritage.
In the ROI, there are 302 recorded
ship wrecks located off the Louth
3
and Meath coast.
Environmental designations include:
3 Ramsar sites
6 Special Protection Areas
7 Special Areas of Conservation (3
Marine Protected Areas)
12 Areas of Special Scientific
Interest.(UK designation)
4 Nature Reserves
2 Natural Nature Reserves
The area contains several sizable
coastal settlements including
Newry, Drogheda and Dundalk.
6.
Socio-economic issues
The principle NI fishing fleet is
located in the potential study area
(Kilkeel/Ardglass) providing
employment and traditional value
to the local communities. There
are also several smaller fishing
ports in the coastal communities.
The potential for offshore
renewable energy development
(particularly wind) is a significant
factor in the economic
advancement of this potential
study area.
internationally recognised for its
geological and geomorphic
features.
The marine environment has
notable seabed sand dune and
plateau features. The area has
ecological priority species
including harbour porpoises and
basking sharks.
The potential study area has rich
maritime culture and
archaeology. The DOE NI
continues to promote and protect
NI’s marine archaeological
heritage.
In the ROI, there are 923
recorded ship wrecks located off
iii
the Donegal coast .
Environmental designations
include:
1 Ramsar site
1 Special Protection Area
5 Special Areas of Conservation
1 (Marine) Special Area of
Conservation (proposed)
5 Areas of Special Scientific
Interest (UK designation)
3 Nature Reserves
The area contains several sizable
coastal settlements including
Derry/Londonderry and regionally
important towns including
Letterkenny, Donegal Town and
Coleraine.
The principle ROI fishing fleet is
harboured at Killybegs, the
largest Fisheries Harbour Centre
on the island of Ireland. In recent
years the port has diversified and
has become a key Irish port for
the importation of wind turbines
and as a service port for the
offshore gas/oil drilling rigs.
The potential study area also
contains smaller fishing ports
3
Integrated Mapping for the Sustainable Development of Ireland’s Marine Resource (INFOMAR). Shipwrecks information.
http://www.infomar.ie/data/ShipwrecksMap.php [Accessed 25 January 2013].
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
24
including Greencastle (ROI),
Moville (ROI), Lisahally (NI),
Carrickarory (ROI) and Portrush
(NI).
USE CONSIDERATIONS
7.
Main coastal
activities
and
marine
A relatively significant amount of
commercial shipping traffic occurs
in the area with in excess of 700
vi.
ships per year recorded in 2011
Within the potential study area
there are four significant ports.
Warrenpoint Harbour (NI) handled
2.4million tonnes of goods in 2011.
They main destinations from this
port include Heysham (22 per
week) and Cardiff (2 per week).
Drogheda Port (ROI) handled
512,281 tonnes of cargo in 2011,
Dundalk Port (ROI) handled
140,747 in 20120 and Greenore
Port handled 401,946 tonnes in
4
2011 . In terms of North-South
routes in the Irish Sea, Belfast Port
(which is outside the proposed
study area) has three sailings to
both Dublin and Cork each week.
The principle NI fishing fleet is
located in the potential study area
and with supporting fleet
maintenance and fish processing
facilities.
In total, there are currently 67 ROI
registered fishing vessels (ranging
in overall length from 5- 44m)
from County Louth on the Irish
Fishing Boat Register (DAFM,
5
2013 ). Sea angling is prevalent
along the Louth coastline from
Ballaghan point near Carlingford
Lough to Clogherhead. The main
fishing stations are Carlingford,
Greenore, Ballaghan, Templetown,
Cooley, Gyles Quay, Blackrock,
Annagassan, Dunany and Port
Oriel.
The inshore area supports
significant fishing activity.
The significant harbours in NI at
Londonderry (Lisahally) &
Coleraine (Londonderry harbour
handled 1.7m tonnes of goods in
2011).
Over 45% of the total fish landed
by ROI vessels at Irish ports is
administered through Killybegs
and its supporting maintenance
and fish processing facilities. This
fleet is located on the western
fringes of the potential study
area; there are currently 457 (out
of national total of 2215)
registered vessels from County
Donegal on the Irish Fishing Boat
Register (DAFM, 2013).
There are small locally important
fishing harbours primary located
within Lough Foyle. Greencastle
(ROI) lands pelagic, demersal,
salmon and shellfish. Other ports
including Moville (ROI), Lisahally
(NI) and Carrickarory (ROI) pier
have landings of mainly shellfish.
Lough Foyle supports aquaculture
and commercial fisheries
including the native European flat
oyster, mussel (in the region of
4000 tonnes per annum) and
Atlantic salmon. More recently,
green and velvet crab, pacific
oyster, lobster, clam, whelk,
periwinkle and cockle fisheries
have developed.
The inshore transboundary area
supports moderate levels of
fishing activity.
Local ferry ports are located at
Burton Point, Greencastle and a
number along the coast of Rosses
4
Irish Maritime Development Office (IMDO), 2012. Irish Maritime Transport Economist Volume 9 2012.
http://www.droghedaport.ie/cms/uploads/imdo_-_irish_maritime_transport_economist_volume_9_2012.pdf [Accessed 25
January 2013].
5
Department
of
Agriculture,
Food
and
the
Marine
(DAFM),
2013.
Irish
Fleet
Register.
http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/fisheries/seafisheries/seafisheriesadministration/registerreport220113.xls
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
25
The area also has several small
harbours and marinas (NI & ROI)
which are used for leisure and
small scale commercial activities
(charter fishing).
The Loughs and in particular
Carlingford Lough supports fishing,
aquaculture and shell-fishing. The
main species cultivated are oysters
and mussels. Production of pacific
oysters is in the region of 600
tonnes per annum and production
of mussels is in the region of 6000
tonnes per annum. Some culture
of manila clams and scallops has in
the past also taken place, together
with extensive crab and lobster
potting. Dundalk Bay hosts oyster
sites to the south and cockle sites
to the north and south.
Carlingford Lough is used for a
variety of water sports,
recreational fishing and
bird/nature watching.
The wider area is a regionally
important tourist destination with
landscape quality, natural heritage
(terrestrial and marine) and
geological history viewed as key
assets for this industry. County
Louth’s tourism sector benefits
from three Blue Flag beaches.
The proposed study location is
identified as an area of potential
6
for wind energy development
(NI). Significant wind energy
developments are actively being
explored in both jurisdictions (ROIOriel 320MW/ NI- First Flight
600MW). A tidal generator is
located at the mouth of Strangford
Lough.
bay and Tory Sound
A small car and passenger ferry
operates in Lough Foyle linking
ROI and NI from Greencastle to
Magilligan. Shipping intensity is
moderate to low with a moderate
7
amount of cargo vessels
The area is regionally important
for leisure and tourism with
landscape quality and natural
heritage (terrestrial and marine)
viewed as key assets for this
industry. County Donegal’s 12
Blue Flag beaches are integral to
the tourism sector in the area.
The area is identified as having
potential for wind, wave and tidal
iii
industries . Wind energy has
previously been explored (Tunes
Plateau) but there is no active
investigation for developments at
present.
A trans-Atlantic telecoms cable is
located at the eastern edge of the
potential study area.
There is some heavy industry
located at Derry/Londonderry
with general and light industry
located at the other large coastal
settlements with limited industry
located in the smaller
settlements.
There is a restricted military zone
(firing practice area) located near
Ben Head on the southern fringes
Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment (NI), 2011. Regional Locational Guidance (RLG) for Offshore Renewable
Energy
Developments
in
NI
Waters
[online]
(Published
September
2011)
Available
at:
http://www.detini.gov.uk/regional_locational_guidance__rlg__for_offshore_renewable_energy_developments_in_ni_waters
[Accessed 11 January 2013].
6
7
Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, 2010.Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Offshore Renewable Energy
Development
Plan
(OREDP)
in
the
Republic
of
Ireland,
http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Ocean_Energy/Strategic_Environmental_Assessment_of_the_OREDP/Environmental_Report
/SEA_ER_Final.pdf [Accessed 25 January 2013].
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
26
of the study area. There is also an
area noted on the Admiralty chart
as a Submarine Exercise Area
located to the north-east of this
site
In addition, the potential study
area contains a gas pipeline and
telecommunications links between
Ireland and the UK.
The inshore Irish Sea is also the
main navigational route for goods
between the two jurisdictions.
There is general and light industry
primarily located in the larger
settlements of Newry, Drogheda,
Kilkeel and Dundalk, with limited
industry located in the smaller
settlements.
8.
9.
Spatial designations
Potential uses and synergies
Marine Renewable Energy
Resource Zones have also been
identified for wind and tidal
energy. The Crown Estate has
awarded development rights for
offshore wind in October 2012 to
be operational by 2020.
Marine Renewable Energy
Resource Zones have also been
identified for; wave, wind and
tidal with the potential for future
development. The Crown Estate
does not have any active leases in
the area.
The development of offshore renewable energy in both the northern
and eastern areas could benefit from trans-boundary co-operation.
However, the proximity of the Oriel (ROI) and First Flight (NI)
developments which are actively being pursued in the eastern study
area could provide an investigation topic for the study.
Cross-jurisdictional feasibility study for an offshore transmission
network (for marine energy generation) undertaken under the ISLES
8
Project . Transmission lines and platform facilities identified as feasible
within both potential study areas.
10. Existing and potential use
conflicts
The inshore of the potential
eastern study area is intensively
used by a wide range of marine
users including traditional
industries such as fishing and
shipping and the emerging
renewable energy sector. Spatial
competition for existing and
emerging industries and the
environment could benefit from
transboundary MSP.
The inshore of the northern area
does not display the same
intensity and competition for
space as the eastern region with
lower intensities of fishing and
shipping. However, the zoning of
renewable energy resource zones
and the potential impacts on the
existing industries and the
environment could benefit from
MSP.
The Scottish Government, Northern Ireland Executive and the Government of Ireland, 2012. Irish-Scottish Links on Energy
Study (ISLES) [Online] Available at: http://www.islesproject.eu [Accessed 11 January 2013].
8
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
27
In recognition of the potential pressures and conflicts a transboundary
approach may provide new synergies and mitigation measures to help
manage our shared waters.
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Within both ROI and NI there is no statutory basis for Integrated
Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) with differing approaches to
developing ICZM being taken in both jurisdictions.
In the ROI, ICZM initiatives have principally focused on sectoral
interests such as aquaculture, environment, fisheries, renewable
energy, waste management and tourism. A number of relevant local
authorities have experience with research-based ICZM initiatives
through INTERREG and LIFE+ funding programmes.
11. ICZM initiatives
In NI, a regional strategic approach has been taken. The ICZM Strategy
2006-2026 has been developed to promote sustainable levels of
economic and social activity while protecting the coastal environment.
Since 2006, the Loughs Agency has hosted an Advisory Forum
comprising almost 50 representatives from both Lough areas and
others who are involved in a stakeholder interest group. Current
interests represented include shellfish, draft netsmen, anglers, fishery
owners, tourism, Council/Government, Port/Harbour, industry and
environmental interest groups.
ROI’s Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth identifies marine spatial planning as
an essential component of delivering ROI’s strategic goals. It recognises
the importance of an integrated approach across Departments to
achieve the goals set out in the document.
12. MSP initiatives
13. Key coastal and marine
planning issues
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
The Marine Policy Statement will facilitate and support the formulation
of UK Marine Plans ensuring that marine resources are used in a
sustainable way in line with the high level marine objectives. The NI
Marine Plan is in the initial stages of preparation. A Statement of Public
Participation has been published and initial stakeholder engagement
has commenced. A Sustainability Appraisal is currently being
undertaken in tandem with the Plan.
Within the potential eastern study
area the Oriel and First Flight offshore windfarm developments are
significant marine planning and
licensing proposals being
considered in both jurisdictions.
There are no significant marine
planning or licensing applications
under consideration in the
potential northern study area at
present.
Facilitating development for a
Greencastle to Greenore car and
passenger ferry at the entrance to
Carlingford Lough is under
consideration.
28
14. Terrestrial
and
planning issues
Within the potential Eastern
region the landfall and siting of
supportive infrastructure (cabling
and sub-stations) for the Oriel and
First Flight wind energy
developments may be a future
strategic terrestrial planning
consideration. Potential cable
routes from the offshore
substation to shore for Oriel
strategic include Castlebellingham and
Bremore.
In the potential Northern study
area the landfall and supportive
infrastructure from renewable
energy developments may be a
future strategic terrestrial
planning consideration.
There are no other significant
terrestrial planning applications
which would impact upon the
coastal zone or the marine at
present.
There are presently no significant
terrestrial planning applications
which would impact upon the
coastal zone or the marine at
present.
The ports and harbours within the potential study areas will continue to
promote economic growth in the potential study areas in particular
through exploring the opportunities provided by the offshore
renewable energy industry.
PRACTICAL PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Within the ROI data availability is generally good however, the
accessibility to data is an area that will require further consideration
between relevant stakeholders and government representatives.
The Northern Ireland State of the Seas Report provides a
comprehensive report on the state of the seas around Northern Ireland
(including study areas). Data is also held by the Departments with
marine responsibilities including the Department of Enterprise Trade
and Investment’s Regional Locational Guidance (RLG) for Offshore
Renewable Energy Developments in NI Waters.
While some datasets are already available for the trans-boundary
UK/ROI region, other comparable cross-border datasets remain to be
sourced.
15. Data availability
Within the potential eastern study
area bathymetric mapping is
currently being undertaken under
9
the INIS Hydro Project bringing
together partners from ROI and UK
to generate high-resolution
bathymetric charts of key coastal
seabed areas.
Limited marine ecological survey
data is available although this
could benefit from additional and
updated research.
Spatial data and information on
human activities and uses is
Bathymetric mapping undertaken
in the JIBS and INFOMAR projects
is available.
Limited marine ecological survey
data is available although this
could benefit from additional and
updated research.
Spatial data and information on
human activities and uses is
available from the Marine Irish
Digital Atlas (MIDA).
Fishing data is also held.
9
Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland Hydrographic Survey (INIS Hydro). Available at: http://www.inis-hydro.eu/ [Accessed 11
January 2013].
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
29
available from the Marine Irish
Digital Atlas (MIDA).
Fishing data is also held.
Numerous stakeholders (fishing, renewable, NGOs, nature conservation
and community groups) are active in both study areas. Previous DOE
stakeholder engagement in NI would indicate that stakeholders are
more engaged in the potential eastern study area.
The Loughs Agency could contribute and facilitate stakeholder and local
community participation. The project could capitalise on the experience
of the Loughs Agency in managing our shared waters.
16. Stakeholder interest
In the potential eastern study area
the Irish Sea Maritime Forum is an
existing platform for engagement
with many UK/ROI stakeholders.
The Forum provides a basis and
vehicle for all Irish Sea users to
facilitate knowledge exchange and
capacity building across all
administrative areas and sectors. It
also encourages and facilitates a
more co-ordinated and efficient
planning process for tansnational
issues/projects with the aim of
promoting sustainable
development in the Irish Sea
region.
Donegal County Council has been
actively engaged in a number of
INTERREG projects involving
transnational co-operation in the
coastal and marine domain.
Oriel and First Flight wind energy
developers are also involved in
community engagement for their
development proposals.
17. Consortium expertise
The knowledge and expertise of the working group and its expert
advisors would not indicate any preference for either location.
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Both study locations have a high environmental quality both in terms of
natural heritage and landscape quality. Both areas could benefit from
trans-boundary MSP which looks at the environment, the continued
sustainable development of existing uses and the encouragement of
new activities or technologies (including marine renewables).
18. Suitability as a TPEA pilot
planning area
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Within the inshore of the
potential eastern study area the
wide range of activities and the
associated spatial demands could
significantly benefit from
transboundary MSP thereby
contributing to the achievement of
both the UK and ROI’s separate
strategic policy objectives
including the promotion of
sustainable economic
development and adopting an
ecosystem approach. The active
investigation of wind energy within
Within the inshore of the
potential northern area there is a
wide range of activities however,
it does not present the same
intensity of use or spatial
competition. The designation of
renewable energy resource zones
in NI could provide a key element
of the study although unlike the
eastern region these are not
being actively pursued by
industry interests currently.
Overall the range of activities, but
lack of intensive use, gives the
30
both ROI and NI in the area could
provide a strong rationale for the
study. The potential conflicts
between the existing marine and
coastal users and emerging
technologies could give the
potential eastern area a high
suitability for the project.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
northern region a medium
suitability for the project.
31
Appendix 2: Pilot Area Selection Table for the Southern Context (Portugal-Spain)
Selection Criteria
Algarve- Gulf of Cadiz
Minho / Miño
GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS
Extension of 200 nautical miles for EEZ in Atlantic waters is regulated by the
Spanish and Portuguese laws.
Status of international maritime
border
There is not agreement between Portugal and Spain for territorial waters in
both areas. There is not an official agreement between both States for the
seaward limit of the EEZ which is also affected by Morocco in Guadiana area.
Types of borders: Territorial Sea, Contiguous Zone, Economic Exclusive Zone
and Continental Shelf.
Rivers Basin Plan
SP: Adopted at a national and subnational level
PT: Adopted at a national level
Coastal and Marine legislation
National and subnational
governance arrangements
SP: National and Regional level
PT: National level
Fisheries and aquaculture
SP: Competencies are established according to the Spanish Constitution,
being regional governments responsible for fisheries within interior waters,
shellfish, aquaculture and continental fisheries, and central Government
responsible for maritime fisheries and international relations.
PT: Competencies established with national coordination.
Albufeira Convention
Commission for the Application and Development of Cooperation for the
protection and sustainable water management in Spanish-Portuguese River
Basins (CADC)
Cross-border arrangements
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Boundaries Convention for river border
Fisheries: there is a bilateral Agreement between Spain and Portugal since
January 2004, that establishes management measures and fishing
possibilities for both countries as for continental waters (12-200 NM), and
specific ones for Guadiana and Minho cross-borders
32
Cross-border cartography: coast
physiographic map
For fisheries within the International
Stretch in Minho river, there is a
cross-border regulation and a crossborder management plan for
European Eel (Anguilla anguilla),
approved by the European
Commission in May 2012
GEOGRAPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Physical features
Wide continental platform.
Continental platform more limited.
South coast (more sheltered than
west coast) with distinct climate
and less severe (SW; SE).
West / north coast, with greater
severity, with a decrease in intensity
from north to south (WNW; NNW).
Coastal zone with relatively
homogeneous features, with
predominance of coastal beaches.
Coastal zone heterogeneous, with
predominance of rocky areas.
Important wet land area, wide
diversity of habitats (coastal dune
ridges, marshes, freshwater flow).
Other environmental features
Regarding fisheries, the Gulf of
Cádiz, due to its geomorphologic
characteristics and strategic
situation between Atlantic Ocean
and Mediterranean Sea,
represents a singular habitat with
fisheries quite different from the
Atlantic and more related to those
from Mediterranean waters, which
justify the specific management
measures for this area, both at
national and EU level. (SP)
Coastal dune system, reefs and
sandbanks with significant diversity of
marine algae and psammophilic
species.
International river as border.
Relevant area for migratory birds
(PT)
International river as border.
Greater regional and local
development associated with
tourism
Importance of fishing to the
development of local communities
Socio-economic issues
Great demographic pressure on
coastal area
This region needs more
improvement of the
socioeconomic sector because of a
higher ratio of unemployment
SP:
432 boats in Huelva with an
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Greater importance of fishing to the
development of local communities
Great demographic pressure on
coastal area
SP:
2432 boats with an average length of
9m
Shellfish activities
Tourism Sector
Navigation
Environmental protection
33
average length of 12 m.
It is easier to obtain the
information of boats in this region
due to the regional VMS system
Fishing and shellfish activities
Water regulation
Tourism Sector
Navigation
Oil and gas extraction and
transformation
Potential Sources of energy:
offshore wind farms
Environmental protection
USE CONSIDERATIONS
1) Fisheries and Aquaculture
Main coastal and marine activities
1) Fisheries and Aquaculture
- Fisheries mainly< 6 mil).
- Fisheries (mainly< 6 mil)
- Bottom trawling fishing: high/
higher than Miño
- Bottom trawling fishing: lower than
Guadiana
- Purse seine fishing: similar
- Purse seine fishing: similar
- Other gauges: similar
- Other gauges: similar
- Farming of fish: high/ higher
than Miño. (SP)
- Farming of fish: lower than
Guadiana. (SP)
- Farming of shellfish: high/
lower than Miño. (SP)
- Farming of shellfish: higher than
Guadiana. (SP)
- Farming of mussels: low.
- Farming of mussels: high (SP)
- Artificial reefs: present
- Artificial reefs: non-existent
2) Port activity
2) Port activity
- Marine traffic: high.
- Marine traffic: high.
- Anchoring: high.
- Anchoring: low (SP).
- Dredging: high (SP).
- Dredging: low (SP).
- Dumping of dredged material:
high (SP).
- Dumping of dredged material: low
(SP).
- Ballast waters discharges:
unknown (SP).
- Ballast waters discharges: unknown
(SP).
- Hazardous substances cargo:
high (SP).
- Hazardous substances cargo: low
(SP).
3) Maritime transport: > 12 NM.
3) Maritime transport: > 12 NM.
4) Tourism and recreation
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
34
- Bathing: high.
4) Tourism and recreation
- Recreational navigation/marinas,
anchoring: high.
- Bathing: medium.
- Diving: unknown (SP).
- Recreational navigation/ marinas,
anchoring: high.
- Recreational fishing.
- Diving: unknown (SP).
- Other nautical activities: races
(PT).
- Recreational fishing.
5) Renewable energies: none
present.
6) Oil and gas:
- Gas wells: present (SP).
- Single buoy mooring: present
- Oil refinery: present (SP)
- Gas & oil surveys: present (SP);
assigned area (PT).
7) Mineral extraction
- Sand and gravel (beach
nourishment): high.
8) Cabling and pipelines: high (SP);
> 12 NM (PT).
9) Discharges:
- Waste water treatment plants:
medium (SP)
- Industry: high (SP)
- Other nautical activities: surf (PT).
5) Renewable energies: present. wind
energy - pilot project (PT).
6) Oil and gas:
- Gas wells: non-existent.
- Single buoy mooring: non-existent
- Oil refinery: present (PT).
- Gas & oil surveys: present (PT).
7) Mineral extraction
- Sand and gravel (beach
nourishment): low (SP); nonexistent (PT).
8) Cabling and pipelines: high (SP); >
12 NM (PT).
9) Discharges:
- Waste water treatment plants:
medium (SP)
- Industry: low (SP)
10) Coastal defence:
10) Coastal defence:
- Coast in erosion: high.
- Coast in erosion: low (SP); high (PT).
- Beach nourishment: high
- Beach nourishment: very low (SP).
- Groins, walls: present
- Groins, jetties: Almost non-existent
(SP).
11) Scientific works:
- Field surveys: Unknown (SP).
11) Scientific works:
- Seismic surveys: Higher (SP).
- Field surveys: unknown (SP).
- Seismic surveys: unknown (SP).
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
35
12) Other activities and uses:
12) Other activities and uses:
- River regulation: High (SP).
- River regulation: low (SP).
- Agriculture: High (SP).
- Agriculture: low (SP).
- Building of touristic facilities:
High.
- Building of touristic facilities:
medium.
PT: Marine and Terrestrial
Protected Area (Ria Formosa
Natural Park; ZPE Ria Formosa).
SP: Future designation Spatial designations
Marine protected areas: Frente de
Doñana y Chimenas de Cádiz
Birds marina protected área (Isla
Cristina-Rota; Frente ríos
Tinto/Odiel).
PT: Marine and Terrestrial Protected
Area (North Coast SIC/Natural Park).
SP: Future designation of marine
protected areas: Ria de Arousa.
PT:
- Fisheries and aquaculture
- Tourism and recreation
- Mineral extraction: sand &
gravel; oil & gas (assigned area)
Potential uses and synergies
PT:
- Fisheries and aquaculture
- MPA
- Tourism and recreation
SP:
- Mineral extraction: sand&gravel;
oil&gas
- Offshore wind farms: Two
permits required
- CO2 storage: one area defined
- Renewables: wind&wave energy
- MPA
- Cabling: Europa-India Gateway is
possible
PT:
Existing and potential use conflicts
- Fisheries and aquaculture
PT:
- Tourism and recreation
- Fisheries and aquaculture
- Mineral extraction: sand &
gravel; oil & gas.
- Tourism and recreation
- Pollution
- Mineral extraction: sand & gravel;
oil & gas.
- Marine traffic
- Renewables: wind energy
- MPA
- Pollution.
SP:
- Marine traffic
- Fishing: control of fishing effort
and minimum sizes among
others
- MPA
- Chemical and organic
contamination in local areas
- Littoral urban planning
- Maritime transport and
hazardous substances cargo
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
SP:
- Fishing: control of fishing effort and
minimum sizes among others
- Organic contamination in local
areas
36
including oil spill risks
- Littoral urban planning
- Offshore windfarms (potential)
- Maritime transport. Oil spill risks
Transboundary:
Transboundary:
Fishing: catching distribution
between Spain and Portugal
Fishing: catching distribution is
unknown
Environmental freshwater flows in
Guadiana river
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
PT
- CZMPlan: Vilamoura-V.R.S.
António
- National Strategy ICZM
ICZM initiatives
- Action Plan for the Coast
2012/15
SP: There are no ICZM initiatives
PT
- CZMPlan: Caminha-Espinho.
- National Strategy ICZM
- Action Plan for the Coast 2012/15
SP: There are no ICZM initiatives
PT
MSP initiatives
Portuguese MSP/ZEE (Proposal)
SP:
There are no MSP initiatives.
PT
PT
- Aquaculture
- Renewables: wind energy
- Tourism and recreation
- MSFD and WFD
- Mineral extraction (oil & gas)
- Natura 2000 & MPA
- MSFD and WFD
- Climate change
- Natura 2000 & MPA
Key coastal and marine planning
- Climate change
issues
- Environmental impact
assessment
- Pollution control
- Blue economy support
SP
- Overfishing activity
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
- Environmental impact assessment
- Pollution control
- Blue economy support
SP:
- Littoral urban planning
- Ria (Vigo/Pontevedra) uses planning
- Shellfish activity
- Maritime and coastal infrastructures
37
- Offshore winds
and ports
- Littoral urban planning
- River basin management
- Maritime and coastal
infrastructures even ports
- Planning Scoping
- Overexploits biological resources
- Competition among fishery Communities
- Nautical Sports
- Sea level rise
- Marine Protected Areas
UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
OSPAR: Commission for the protection of the sea.
ESPOO: Agreement for impact assessment in transboundary context
OMI/MEPC: ZMES for Atlantic waters
PT
- WFD
- Planning process
- Climate change
Terrestrial and strategic
issues
planning
- Erosion and flood hazard
- Environmental impact
assessment
PT
- WFD
- Planning process
- Climate change
- Erosion and flood hazard
- Environmental impact assessment
SP
SP
- Strategies for the protection of
the coast
- Strategies for the protection of the
coast
- In this area there are more
problems of coastal erosion
- Adaptation measures to climate
change
- Terrestrial overall planning:
regional and municipal plans.
- Terrestrial overall planning: regional
and municipal plans.
- Marine Planning (EU Roadmap)
- Marine Planning (EU Roadmap)
- Impacts from land
- Impacts from land
- Adaptation measures to climate
change
PRACTICAL PROJECT CONSIDERATIONS
Data availability
Stakeholder interest
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Greater availability of data
Reduced availability of data
PT
PT
38
- Potential greater interest in view
of the higher expression of the
activities
- Easer engagement.
Stakeholders:
-
Fisheries
Aquaculture
Tourism and recreation
Industries
Government, regional, local
authorities
Potential less interest in view of the
lower expression of the activities
Stakeholders:
-
Fisheries
Aquaculture
Tourism and recreation
Industries
Government, regional, local
authorities
PT
Greater consortium expertise
SP
Consortium expertise
CEDEX expertise: Guadiana area
has been extensively evaluated
and studied due to the problems in
coastal dynamics and also for
impact assessment of Alqueva dam
(upstream Guadiana river)
PT
Less consortium expertise
SP: CEDEX expertise: local studies
have been done related to ports and
hydrodynamic issues
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Guadiana Pilot Area
Large and biologically rich Continental Shelf in Guadiana area
Suitability as a TPEA pilot planning
area
Coastal and marine activities are more diverse in Guadiana area than in
Minho/Miño area and a substantial number of these activities have a higher
intensity in Guadiana
Greater availability of data and consortium expertise in Guadiana area
Easier engagement of stakeholders
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
39
Appendix 3: Stakeholder Workshop for the Northern Context (Ireland-UK)
Date
12th March 2013
Location
Canal Court Hotel, Newry City, Co Down Northern
Ireland
Number of participants (indicating
number from each jurisdiction)
29 (16 RoI and 13 UK)
Number of project team members
8
Agenda
10:00 Registration Tea/Coffee
Stephen Jay: An introduction to the Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic
(TPEA) project.
10:30 Gerard McClarey: An introduction of current developments in maritime spatial planning
/ coastal management and an overview of the Irish Sea Transboundary Area
Opportunity for questions
Tea/coffee.
11:15
Workshop session 1—
¨Exploring Maritime Spatial Planning in the pilot study area
¨Activities and geographical extent in the pilot study area in a transboundary context.
12:30 Lunch
1:15
2:15
Breakout session 2 with introduction from Sue Kidd¨Exploring potential vision and objectives for TPEA.
Cathal O’Mahony: The role of stakeholder involvement in Marine Spatial Planning and
TPEA.
Tea / Coffee
2:30
Breakout session 3 ¨Exploring stakeholder engagement and co-operation in a transboundary marine spatial
planning context.
3:15
Sue Kidd: Closing statements and way forward.
3:30
Finish
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
40
Exploring Transboundary Maritime Planning
TPEA Workshop Report
March 12, 2013
Newry, Co Down, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom
Co-Financed under European Integrated Maritime Policy
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
41
CONTENTS
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 42
2.
PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................................................ 43
3.
WORKSHOP DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................................................ 43
4.
WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 43
5.
WORKSHOP ANALYSIS.................................................................................................................................. 49
6.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 52
Appendix 1: Delegate list ................................................................................................................................. 53
Appendix 2: Invitation and Attendance Summary ........................................................................................... 54
Appendix 3: Flyer and Workshop Materials ..................................................................................................... 56
Appendix 4: Delegate feedback ....................................................................................................................... 59
Appendix 5: Stakeholder Reply Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 61
1. INTRODUCTION
Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic (TPEA) is a co-funded DG MARE project; the
objective of TPEA is to explore approaches to cross-border maritime spatial planning (MSP) in the
European Atlantic region, as demonstrated in two geographical and political contexts: one in the
northern part of the European Atlantic region, between Ireland and the UK; and, the other in the
southern part, between Portugal and Spain. The involvement of those with an interest in the
maritime environment is a critical element of TPEA and the project consortium is committed to
broadening the engagement process over the course of the project including a series of workshops.
Three workshops (in each geographical context) will be organised during the project and this report
documents the first workshop for the northern project region held in Newry, Northern Ireland on
12th March 2013. A similar workshop was held in the southern project region on the same date.
The workshop sought participants’ views and opinions on issues relevant to transboundary MSP and
was designed to provide an opportunity for those with an interest in the marine area to comment on
the implications of transboundary MSP for their region and/or sector and on the most effective
methods of involving those with an interest in the transboundary area. Specifically, the purpose of
the workshop was to:
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
42
•
•
•
•
Introduce the TPEA project and explain the objectives of the initiative;
Discuss stakeholder understanding of MSP;
Obtain input on the geographical focus and extent of MSP (in the context of the TPEA
project); and,
Examine the optimum methods and value of stakeholder engagement.
2. PARTICIPATION
Prior to the workshop, the project team developed a profile of the key marine activities and coastal
sectors within the selected transboundary area and issued invitations (invitation included an
explanatory note on the aims of the workshop) to a wide range of interests. The workshop audience
comprised representatives from Local / Central Government and State Agencies / organisations,
Non-governmental organisations, the Private sector, Academia, and specific interest groups (e.g.
tourism, conservation) from across the transboundary area. A total of 29 participants accepted the
invitation to be involved in the workshop; a participant list with affiliations is provided in Appendix 1:
Delegate list. Appendix 2: Invitation and Attendance Summary provides a graphical representation of
the invitations issued and attendance at the workshop.
3. WORKSHOP DEVELOPMENT
As an introduction the project team gave presentations to provide: 1) background to the TPEA
project and MSP; and, 2) a description of the current status of MSP in both Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland. This was followed by a Q and A session.
On completion of the Q and A session, group work was facilitated which focused on: 1) exploring
participants’ understanding of transboundary MSP and how it might unfold within the region; 2) a
SWOT analysis of transboundary MSP; and, 3) stakeholder engagement – methods, value and
expected benefits. Discussions during the group work were captured on flip charts and with the
assistance of a rapporteur assigned to each group.
The final part of the workshop programme contained a brief recap of the day outlining the options
for the way forward.
4. WORKSHOP DISCUSSIONS
The three areas outlined above were discussed in detail by each group and the following outlines the
main areas of interest as articulated by the groups. These comments are not recorded in any
priority and serve as a summary only. It is the intention that the issues raised on the day will be
explored further as the project progresses and in particular at the next workshop session.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
43
Stakeholder Understanding of MSP and the Key Issues for Transboundary MSP.
The cross section of interests generated a broad range of views and comments on the understanding
of the key issues for transboundary Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) which may be summarised as
follows:
• The need to improve areas of co-operation - important elements for co-operation included:
improved data sharing; making the best use of scientific knowledge / understanding; learning
from good practice; building on existing mechanisms for interaction; synergy in approach to
transboundary MSP and the need for co-operation between the separate terrestrial and marine
planning regimes;
• The impact of different legislative regimes was viewed as a possible barrier to transboundary
MSP in particular, jurisdictional issues which should be addressed with the view to reduce
uncertainty thereby minimising the potential for conflict and maximising cross-boundary
opportunities;
• The development of strong objectives with a clear strategy for implementation and delivery was
seen as an important element to ensure a transboundary project provided meaningful
outcomes;
• Sharing experience and learning from other transboundary projects was also seen as beneficial
in transboundary MSP as it had the potential to minimise the duplication of effort across the
transboundary area;
• The sharing of good practice and learning from experience for example through the co-ordinated
approach of implementing the Water Framework Directive via River Basin Management Plans
was also put forward;
• The need for a co-ordinated approach to implementing other EU Directives like MSFD, Birds and
Habitats may be helpful;
• The view was expressed that transboundary MSP needs to be aware of hurdles to overcome and
previous failures at cooperation;
• The alignment of separate and multiple licensing regimes was an issue raised for further
exploration in a transboundary context;
• The development of Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) between the different regimes could
also be further explored in a transboundary context;
• The emerging energy projects especially the distribution of costs and benefits of implementing
offshore renewable energy were identified as particular areas for exploration in a transboundary
context;
• The need to co-ordinate and manage competing interests;
• The need to consider the neighbouring jurisdictions in the transboundary area including the Isle
of Man and Scotland, (this issue was discussed in greater depth when the attendees explored
the potential scale for transboundary MSP);
• A general broadening of the understanding of MSP and transboundary MSP in particular is
required;
• Assessment of cumulative impacts and pressures of economic development;
• The opportunity to bring coherence to sectoral interests;
• The need for simple and easily understood language so that any planning documents are
accessible to all was seen as a strong starting point;
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
44
•
Transboundary MSP needs to be undertaken at a macro-planning level, with institutional
commonality across different planning environments; and also needs to consider cross-border
impacts, including social impacts;
• Offshore wind energy projects are key, with visual, ecological and possibly infrastructural
implications: distribution of costs and benefits across a border;
• Sites of marine heritage will need to be considered from a transboundary point of view; and,
• Views were expressed that at a transboundary level there needs to be an exploration of the
inter-connectors which include: heritage; shipping; new and innovative technologies; tourism;
ecologically coherent MPAs; invasive species; Special Areas of Conservation (SACs); cross-border
licensing; emergency planning; energy; social services; pollution; security; disease control; mismatching legislation; consultation processes; environmental protection; and, pollution control /
prevention.
Following on from this initial discussion the participants considered the activities that take place in
the transboundary area. The participants identified the main activities in the East Coast Irish Sea
Region, which included fishing, tourism, conservation and renewable energy and considered the
social, economic and environmental impact of those activities. It was found however that further
discussion on the activities would benefit from their visual representation, possibly using mapping.
This would be taken forward during the next component of the project. Whilst clear sectoral
interests were identified amongst the participants a need for improved co-operation was
acknowledged as a central tenet for transboundary MSP whilst recognising each area’s political and
legal competency.
Geographic Scale for Transboundary MSP Initiative
The issue at what spatial scale the project should operate attracted a wide range of opinion.
Discussion focused on both the geographical extent of the project and how this is defined. The
following is a summary of the primary points of discussion:
•
•
•
•
There was an acknowledgement of the operational constraints of the TPEA project both in terms
of resourcing and time. For this reason a limited focus between Counties Louth and Down was
suggested. It was also put forward that too large a study area would make meaningful analysis
difficult and could dilute the outcomes of the project;
Balancing this argument was the need to adopt a geographical extent to reflect the actual scale
of oceanographic and ecological processes thereby achieving scientific defensibility (e.g. Malin
Head to Meath). It is suggested that oceanographic or ecological activities which operate at large
scales could be factored into the project through desk-top analysis;
The inclusion within the project of the offshore area received mixed responses. It was proposed
that by including this area it would create a more interesting study and would be more akin to
the realities of maritime spatial planning. However, the operational constraints of the TPEA
project and the need to involve additional parties and jurisdictions were raised as a potential
barrier to the timely delivery of the project;
It was presented that if the geographical extent of the project was restricted to the coastal and
maritime area of Counties Louth and Down that the major economic centres of Belfast and
Dublin should be factored into the project as the influence of these maritime centres would be
significant on the transboundary area and could not be ignored;
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
45
•
Relying on a defined spatial scale could result in the exclusion of important ecological and
physical processes which partly or entirely lay outside the transboundary area but impact upon
it. Drawing lines on maps risked an important factor not being considered as it just falls outside
of the defined spatial area. The use of a limited study area may also skew the results of the
project and may present an artificial view of the wider transboundary area;
• A recurring theme was the need to include the coastal waters within the study. This would
reflect natural and human processes and would also reflect the transitional nature of the Marine
Strategy Framework Directive and the Water Framework Directive. Transboundary
considerations should extend inland as well as seawards, e.g. including river catchment area;
• Carlingford Lough provided a microcosm of the activities within the wider maritime environment
and should therefore be included; and,
• The use of existing administrative boundaries or the scales used in Appropriate Assessments
conducted under the Habitats Directive could form the basis in selecting the spatial scale of the
project.
All the groups expressed the view that without having knowledge of the location and spatial range of
the activities within the study area it would be very hard at this stage to comment on the scale
within which the project should operate. A view was also expressed that a continuous study area
may not be necessary and the spatial extent could be broken down into sections relating to specific
issues or spatial areas.
SWOT Analysis of Transboundary MSP
To facilitate further discussion on the previous presentations and workshop sessions a SWOT
analysis was used to analyse the perceived Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of
transboundary MSP in the East Coast – Irish Sea Region. This exercise provided an opportunity for
the participants to listen and discuss the perceptions of transboundary MSP within the working
groups. A summary of the responses is recorded below:
Strengths of transboundary maritime spatial planning were identified as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Both jurisdictions have a common planning heritage and a wealth of experience in land use
planning which provides a basis for exchange of practice and cooperation;
An existing willingness for stakeholders to engage in both jurisdictions. There is also existing
knowledge of who needs to be involved and in what capacity;
There is a history of cross-border dialogue in the region;
The requirements under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive to achieve Good
Environmental Status provides the basis for transboundary working;
A transboundary approach provides the opportunity to assess the cumulative impacts across
jurisdictions and assess the impact on systems which do not adhere to borders (i.e. fisheries);
There is a good existing knowledge of the environment; and,
Transboundary MSP could provide better outcomes and give both jurisdictions more knowledge
of the maritime area.
Weaknesses of transboundary maritime spatial planning were identified as:
•
The volume of information becomes problematic to allow it to be utilised in a coherent way;
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
46
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There is a complex regulatory framework in both jurisdictions. This may make joint decision
making slow, inflexible and impractical;
Despite the wealth of scientific knowledge which already exists there are gaps which could be a
barrier to achieving ecosystem-based management objectives of MSP. Within this lack of
scientific knowledge is an absence in the full understanding of the ecosystem services within the
transboundary region and the social benefits accruing from them;
Exclusion of the sea loughs was put forward as a weakness in the project. The loughs provide a
microcosm of wider maritime and environmental challenges and provide a full range of activities
on both land and sea;
There is considerable ambiguity surrounding terminology, definitions and goals of many key
tenets of MSP in both jurisdictions;
Opposing interests and agendas between jurisdictions is likely to be problematic to manage; as
many such conflicts are already unmanageable within each jurisdiction;
There is a reluctance to do anything in the maritime environment unless forced to do so; and,
Too many regulatory bodies exist in both jurisdictions.
Opportunities of transboundary maritime spatial planning were identified as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The creation of a joint maritime spatial plan;
The development of closer and more meaningful cooperation across the border which will
increase the effectiveness and allow the pooling of resources;
Greater potential for stakeholder participation in transboundary decision making;
A transboundary approach can provide clarity around investment, providing a competitive
advantage over regions where transboundary planning is yet to be developed;
The ability to develop and facilitate data sharing;
A consistency of approach can be developed with consistent policy statements, licensing and
decision making procedures;
Greater scope for management in favour of ecological considerations through cross-border
coherence in maritime planning; similarly there may be economic/social gains to be realised
through greater harmonisation;
Economies of scale are also likely to be available to exploit as a result of a transboundary plan
coming into force;
A joint plan will offer greater scope to influence the drafting of legislation at national level; there
may also be the potential to have a greater say in the preparation of EU level policy and
legislation if an effective case study can be developed in the region; and,
The development of Blue Growth.
Threats of transboundary maritime spatial planning were identified as:
•
•
•
The scale issues to overcome in developing the plan might be problematic given the resource
constraints of the current economic climate;
Multiple competing interest groups have varying degrees of influence, leading to the likelihood
of bias in the development of a maritime spatial plan;
The different jurisdictional interpretations of policy might result in the watering-down or
circumvention of the plan aims and objectives;
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
47
•
•
The cumulative impacts from all activities are not understood;
Too many regulators have a role in formulating the plan resulting in a significant administrative
burden and bureaucracy;
• Experience with some voluntary ICZM initiatives has shown the need for consensus may drive
the plan to such an abstract/high level that it becomes banal and has little influence in the dayto-day operational management of the transboundary study area; and,
• Political barriers and lack of buy-in may result in uncertainty.
The SWOT exercise revealed what one sector or individual may view as strength or opportunity
another party may view as a weakness or a threat. Blue Growth is an example of this, whilst it was
acknowledged the real economic opportunity of developing the maritime economy some
stakeholders also reflected on the threats that Blue Growth could have on traditional industries and
the natural environment.
Means of Engagement
At the third workshop session participants in each group were asked to comment on their preferred
means of stakeholder engagement and which methods they felt would be appropriate to TPEA and
transboundary MSP in general. A variety of methods were proposed – representing the opinions of
participants – but also indicating that when embarking on a stakeholder engagement process,
planning teams will have to be mindful of the need to tailor messages (their content and how they
are communicated) according to the requirements of different interested parties – either individuals
or groups (organisations). Table 1 - Methods of lists the methods proposed by the workshop
participants and details the justifications offered for their use in an engagement process.
Table 1 - Methods of engagement suggested during workshop discussions and reasons for their consideration.
Method
Justification
Identify Organisational
Champions
Committed individuals with access to extensive networks can support
engagement efforts of planning team
Involve Politicians
Ensures multi-lateral support
Face to Face
Builds trust and allows for in-depth discussion
Use of ‘New’ Media –
Twitter, LinkedIn
Media of choice for many people
Stakeholder Forum
Potential to cater for numerous interest groups
Public Campaign to Raise
Awareness
Means of raising awareness and encouraging involvement
Public Meeting
Provides participants with a voice and an opportunity to contribute, and for
planning team to cover any technical aspects of plan
Use Visualisation
Can be a good tool to facilitate discussion
Online Forum
A means of communicating FAQs and preferred media for many
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
48
Prepare a Roadmap for
Engagement
Sets out where, when, and how different stakeholders can get involved
Participants also offered some advice on aspects that should be considered throughout the
engagement process, irrespective of the specific method(s) employed:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ensure all parties understand the purpose of the engagement process – provide clear terms of
reference;
Ensure engagement process is well-facilitated;
Give consideration to stakeholder interests when designing the engagement process – consider
use of survey to identify primary interests and opinions in advance;
Do not shy away from asking / answering difficult questions;
Ensure the engagement process is appropriately resourced;
Process is designed to meet legal requirements established for public consultation; and,
Ensure any data or information used as part of engagement process is clearly explained and
materials used, e.g. technical descriptions, are fit for purpose.
5. WORKSHOP ANALYSIS
Attendance and Feedback from Event.
There was a total of 29 delegates with an equal representation from both jurisdictions (11 ROI, 12
UK and 6 Cross Border or International). The attendees represented a wide range of maritime
interests including government, industry and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Individual
interests and umbrella organisations representing multiple stakeholders in their sector also attended
the event.
Prior to concluding the workshop, each participant was provided with an evaluation sheet (see
Appendix 4) to complete; 17 evaluation sheets were returned to the project team. Overall, feedback
was very positive with ‘opportunity to network’ and ‘information and learning’ in the context of MSP
being cited as the reasons for the workshop being useful and worthwhile. Participants reported high
levels of satisfaction with the venue, format and delivery / facilitation of the workshop.
Additional representation will be encouraged as the project progresses to ensure as wide a range of
interests as possible are involved and informed about the project including for example industry,
local community interests and sporting and recreation.
Key Themes for Transboundary MSP
Recurring themes are emerging from the work to date on the project including transparency to
users, encouraging co-existence of use and how cumulative impact(s) should be considered. The
need to establish and communicate clear objectives on what transboundary MSP is trying to achieve
is also emerging as a prominent element. There is also a recognition and acknowledgement amongst
the participants of the need to co-operate in managing shared areas. In addition, the opportunity to
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
49
share data, experience and good practice is emerging as central to achieving effective and efficient
transboundary MSP. The themes will continue to evolve as the project advances and will be explored
in more detail in the next component of the project.
Proposed Geographical Extent of the Pilot Area
As outlined above there was no clear consensus on defining a geographical extent of the pilot study
area at this stage of the project. However, it was agreed that in the interim the key activities in the
East Coast area would be mapped, thereby providing a visual context to assist in determining the
way forward between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ boundaries. The following comments provide the basis for
further consideration in defining the geographical extent:
•
•
•
•
Using ‘soft’ boundaries provides the flexibility to include uses, activities, ecological and
oceanographic processes which may lie outside the actual study area but influence it;
When looking at the boundaries the natural processes of the transboundary area needs to be
balanced against the operational reality and the availability of resources to the TPEA project;
It emerged that the delineation of a precise boundary, which is commonplace in Terrestrial
Planning, would be unlikely to be a useful tool in the case of Maritime Spatial Planning. Analyses
could be carried out along a continuum of varying scales, ranging from the examination of a
localised activity, to the assessment of an environmental process, such as currents, whose
influence are far-reaching way beyond the scope of the study area; and
The geographical extent of the project should remain flexible throughout the project to allow for
a more informed outcome.
Indicative Map of Pilot Study Area
The map below was created by taking into account the comments presented by stakeholders at the
workshop. It is presented as a visual aid to discussion only and is not intended to define the exact
boundaries of the pilot study area; nor is it intended to limit the consideration of activities within the
wider geographical context which are considered to have an influence on the transboundary area.
Key influences including oceanic and ecological processes, economic activities and population centres
are identified as external features which merit further exploration as to their impact on the pilot study
area.
The map uses a graduated approach with the area of darkest shading showing the immediate
transboundary area. It is bounded to the East by the edge of Northern Ireland’s and Republic of Ireland’s
Territorial Limits and stretches North and South by 60 nautical miles to include the capital cities of
Belfast and Dublin.
In conjunction with further stakeholder input it is anticipated that as the project evolves and the
activities in the area are mapped in greater detail an Area of Common Interest and an Area of Wider
Influence will be developed.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
50
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
51
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project team would like to thank all those who attended the workshop and provided their
insight into the East Coast – Irish Sea transboundary maritime area. The responses are invaluable in
the development of transboundary maritime spatial planning and the investigation of how
transboundary MSP may introduce social, economic and physical changes in our maritime
environment.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
52
Delegate list
Attendee
Boylan, Patrick
Representing
Loughs Agency
Brady, Karl
Underwater Archaeology Unit (Department of
Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht)
Mourne Heritage Trust
Bushby, Matthew
Companys, Berta
Conlon, Steve
Coastwatch Europe
Irish Marine Federation/ Irish Marina Operators
Association
Donovan, Archie
Geological Survey of Ireland
Doyle, Jane
Irish Planning Institute/ Doyle Kent Planning
Partnership
Queens University Belfast
Loughs Agency
Flannery, Wesley
Fox, Barry
Hamilton, Karen
Hamilton, Nigel
Kent, Karl
Kirk, Helen
Lane, Deirdre
McBride, Ronnie
McCabe, William
McCoy, Colm
McSorley, Deirdre
Nixon, Eugene
Nuttall, Geoff
O’Connor,
Brendan
O’Donnell,
Francis
O’Donoghue,
Lorraine
Planning Unit- Louth County Council
Marine Conservation Northern Ireland
Irish Planning Institute/ Doyle Kent Planning
Partnership
National Trust
Commissioners of Irish Lights
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Rural
Development (NI)
Department of Regional Development (NI)
Dublin Regional Authority
Department of the Environment (NI) Land
Planning
Marine Institute
WWF Northern Ireland
NOW Ireland- National Offshore Wind Energy
Association
Irish Fish Producers Organisation
Sector
Central Government /
Agency
Central Government /
Agency
Multi partner Heritage
Trust
Environmental NGO
Industry
(Recreational,
Industry, Marinas and
Marine Users)
Central Government /
Agency
Professional Body
Academia / Research
Central Government
Agency
Local Government
Environmental NGO
Professional Body
Environmental NGO
Central Government /
Agency
Central Government /
Agency
Central Government /
Agency
Local Government
Central Government /
Agency
Central Government /
Agency
Environmental NGO
Industry
(Renewable
Consortium)
Industry (Fisheries)
Quigley, Declan
Marine Planning and Foreshore Section
(Department of Environment, Community and
Local Government)
Sea Fisheries Protection Agency
Quinn, Margaret
Ritchie, Heather
Ryan, Críona
Down District Council
University of Ulster
Providence Resources
Central Government
Agency
Local Government
Others (Academia)
Industry (Oil)
Tarzia,
Marguerite
Warnock, Mike
Northern Ireland Marine Task Force
Environmental NGO
Department of Regional Development (NI)
Central
Agency
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
/
Central
Agency
Jurisdiction
All
Island/International
ROI
UK
ROI
ROI
ROI
All
Island/International
UK
All
Island/International
ROI
UK
All
Island/International
UK
All
Island/International
UK
UK
ROI
UK
ROI
UK
ROI
ROI
Government
/
ROI
/
ROI
Government
UK
UK
All
Island/International
UK
/
UK
53
Invitation and Attendance Summary
Date
12th March 2013
Location
Canal Court Hotel, Newry City, Co Down
Northern Ireland
Number of participants (indicating
29 (12 UK, 11 RoI and 6 cross-border)
number from each jurisdiction)
Number of project team members
8
The invitation of participants to the workshop event was coordinated to ensure an even
representation of attendees from both jurisdictions and from a wide range of sectors. Invitations
were sent by e-mail to specific individuals and organisations with an interest in the selected
transboundary maritime area. The invitations were open to be circulated by the invitees to other
interested parties within their network and the event was open to all expressions of interest with
places allocated on the basis of first come, first served for each sector.
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Invited
Attended
Unsolicited attendance
Figure 1- Invitations to workshop and attendance (Total UK, ROI and All Island International)
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
54
UK
ROI
All Island/International
Figure 2 - Attendance by jurisdiction
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Central
Government /
Agency
3
Local
Government
Environmental
NGO
Industry
Others
0
0
1
2
ROI
5
1
1
3
0
UK
4
1
4
0
3
All Island / International
Figure 3 - Attendance by jurisdiction and sector
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
55
Flyer and Workshop Materials
Figure 4 - Workshop Information Flyer
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
56
Figure 5 - Workshop Handout (front cover)
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
57
Figure 6 - Workshop Handout (back cover)
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
58
Delegate feedback
Figure 7 - Stakeholder feedback form
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
59
Table 2 - Feedback Responses
Name
Q1 a)
b)
c)
Q2 a)
b)
c)
Q3 a)
b)
c)
Q4 a)
b)
c)
Respondent 1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Respondent 2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Respondent 3
Respondent 4
Respondent 5
Respondent 6
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Respondent 7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
Respondent 8
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
Respondent 9
Respondent 10
Respondent 11
Respondent 12
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
3
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
Respondent 13
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
Respondent 14
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Q5 - What did you like best about this
workshop
Facilitators listened and the workshop was well
managed
Workshop setting(?) - informative and
interesting speakers
Interactive and small groups
Range of participant
No comments
Interaction
Ability to meet a range of people and
organisations in the marine space
Gave a comprehensive background to maritime
spatial awareness
Engagement and discussion
No comments
Good mix of participants
Meeting people and stakeholders
Making connections and getting a better
understanding of MSP
Mix of delegates
Respondent 15
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
4
4
Diverse mix of people and very informative
Respondent 16
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
I thought it was well organised and I liked the
use of maps to facilitate the small workshop
tables
Respondent 17
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
3
It was very interesting - a lot of ideas coming up
and a willingness to make things work
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Q6 - What did you like least about this
workshop
No comments
No comments
No comments
Parking
No comments
Segmented Tables
No comments
No comments
No comments
I could only attend the PM
No comments
No comments
No comments
Better explanation (in plain English) of
what MSP is and where it's at in Ireland
/ NI and UK
Would have liked more background on
the project, the scope and how it fits in
with other work and EU policies
Maybe was a little bit closed - the
facilitators should listen to the opinion
instead of trying to re-conduct the
session to the initial point
60
Stakeholder Reply Questionnaire
Figure 8 - Workshop Follow-up Questionnaire (Pg 1)
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
61
Figure 9 - Workshop Follow-up Questionnaire (Pg 2)
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
62
Appendix 4: Stakeholder Workshop for the Southern Context (Portugal-Spain)
Date
12th March 2013
Location
Centro Cultural António Aleixo, Vila Real de Santo António,
Portugal
Number of participants
Portugal – 18
Spain – 10
Number of project team
members
Portugal – 7
Spain - 6
Introduction
TPEA (Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic) considers the involvement of stakeholders
from the early stages of the planning process, and has planned the organization of three workshops
along its development.
The first workshop was to be developed within the Initial Assessment leading to a summary and
analysis of stakeholder perceptions of needs and opportunities and suitable locations for cross-border
MSP (Maritime Spatial Planning).
The southern workshop took place in March 12, 2013, at the Centro Cultural António Aleixo, in Vila
Real de Santo António, Portugal, with Spanish and Portuguese stakeholders.
Stakeholder participation
A total of 91 stakeholders (66 from Spain and 25 from Portugal) were invited to this first workshop.
They included public entities with jurisdiction in the licensing and inspection of activities and uses of
marine space and the marine and/or coastal zone, and representative organisations from the relevant
sectors from both countries. Partners and advisors were also invited.
Preparation of the workshop took into account the existence of the two distinct nationalities of the
participants; hence joint plenary sessions and parallel sessions for representatives of each country
were organised.
The invitation was sent by e-mail and post to all stakeholders and explained the main objectives and
general information about TPEA. The Portuguese invitation presented a set of key questions to be
discussed at the event and the Spanish invitation was accompanied by a questionnaire related to TPEA
and its geographical context.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
63
73
N.º Entities
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5
5
4
17
22
4
2
Entities invited
Entities present
Figure 1 – Stakeholder participation in the workshop
73
N.º Entities
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
17
5
5
4
22
4
2
Entities invited
Entities present
Figure 2 – Portuguese Stakeholders participation
58
60
N.º Entities
50
40
30
20
10
17
2
2
2
1
7
2
0
Entities invited
Entities present
Figure 3-Spanish Stakeholders participation
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
64
From the chart analysis it can be concluded that the participation of the Portuguese stakeholders was
higher than the Spanish stakeholders.
During the first week after the invitation there was no response from Spanish stakeholders. In the
second week there were some answers, some referring to the late invitation, others referring the
economic difficulties to attend and another criticizing the agenda chosen.
Also, we can mention that there may not be great knowledge about Maritime Spatial Planning and
Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
Workshop development
Preparation of the workshop considered the existence of two distinct nationalities. Plenary sessions
were planned and parallel sessions for the representatives of each country.
Despite of the lack of answered from the Spanish side, it was decided to hold the meeting because the
response from the Portuguese Stakeholder had been very good, and some Spanish stakeholders had
shown their interest in attending the meeting. Also it would have been very unfortunate to cancel the
meeting.
The first plenary session presented the TPEA project, the MSP objectives and process, and the
principles for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Key issues for discussion in the parallel country
sessions included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
What is the importance of maritime space and coastal zone for the stakeholders’ activities?
What is the importance of the maritime space and coastal zone in the transboundary region of
Guadiana?
What are the main constraints in the pilot area considering the national and transboundary
context?
What are the opportunities of integrated maritime spatial planning in the national and
transboundary context?
In the transboundary context, what are the uses and activities that should be considered as
part of an exercise in MSP?
What is the best way to involve stakeholders in TPEA?
The Spanish Stakeholders had also a questionnaire to fill in and to discuss in the parallel session.
The objective of the final plenary session was to promote the discussion between stakeholders from
both countries. However due to the extent of the parallel sessions, were only presented the
conclusions from each session.
Workshop Conclusions
The parallel sessions were very enlightening and lively and allowed discussion of the main issues that
were presented to stakeholders.
Despite of the lack of answers on the Spanish side, the stakeholders who attended showed strong
interest in the TPEA project and shared with the partners a lot of good proposals.
The main conclusions are presented below:
Opportunities:
•
•
Harmonization of procedures.
Platform of common interests and access to information.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
65
•
The MSP can be used for the integration of cross-border projects such as recreational boating,
aquaculture and others.
o Relevant activities and uses to MSP:
o Fishing;
o Nature conservation;
o Cultural heritage
o Recreational activities.
o Harmonize accessibility issues to the coast.
Constraints:
•
•
•
•
Conflicting interests.
Different administrative organization/governance model.
Different engagement of the Stakeholders in the two countries.
Conflicts in the management and evaluation of uses in the first mile offshore in different laws
as Directive 200/60/CE and Directive 2008/56/CE
About the pilot area:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Set the limits taking into account the activities and uses.
Portuguese stakeholders mentioned that the pilot area should not exceed the territorial
waters, but in the Spanish session, there was unanimous agreement to extend the pilot are to
24 miles offshore.
There is national and community legislation which must be taken into account by each
member state.
It is important to clarify the MSP concept before engaging in conversation with the
neighbouring state.
Security issues should be addressed in the plan.
In the Spanish session, there was a general agreement about the longitudinal extension of the
project: a first general area from the mouth of the Guadiana river to the mouth of the
Guadalquivir river, about 120 km from the border from Portugal. The main reason was to
consider a complete unit according to dynamic and ecosystem processes. Special mention was
made of the Doñana Protected Area, which stakeholders considered very important to include
in the project despite its complexity and own management system.
The participants were satisfied with the initiative and considered the workshop to be very interesting.
Although the final plenary session did not allow discussion between the stakeholders from each
country, was noted this as a subject to explore at the next workshops.
Finally was asked the stakeholders to fill in the questionnaire to contribute to its improvement.
Workshop Analysis
We would like to remark that stakeholder involvement is easier to organize in the case of a national
project. Constraints at the transboundary level can magnify problems experienced at the national level
as there are different languages, different planning traditions, as well as potentially competing
economics interest to consider (one example is potentially competing ports). In this sense, we can
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
66
highlight the different involvement of the Portuguese and Spanish stakeholders. Both stakeholders
were written at the same time, the letters sent were very similar, but the response was very different.
From the workshop analysis we can conclude that the way to engage stakeholders in Spain must be
changed. Portugal has a recent development on MSP. Portuguese stakeholders are used to
participating in this kind of processes and are aware of the concepts while Spanish stakeholders are
not. We therefore have to take advantage of these results and change the way we engage the Spanish
stakeholders.
Also, we can mention that Spanish stakeholders do not have much knowledge about Maritime Spatial
Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
To have a better response in the future and to involve the Spanish stakeholders, Spain thinks that
stakeholder involvement must be undertaken first at a national level to explain the project, its
objectives and the new initiative of the MSP/ICZM EU Framework Directive. Three levels should be
considered:
•
•
•
A meeting for Central Government entities, involving all the Ministries related to the project,
in Madrid;
A meeting for Regional Government authorities, in Seville;
A meeting for Fisheries Stakeholders and other relevant sectors, in Huelva.
With this methodology the constraints related to travel, economic difficulties to attend and the time
schedule should be lessened, all of which proved an issue for the Spanish stakeholders in this first
workshop.
The development of these different meetings can contribute to achieving better results in future TPEA
workshops and to establishing a better connection between stakeholders from both sides of the
border.
Also in the future it will be necessary to have a discussion among the Portuguese and the Spanish
stakeholders to get the involvement of the both sides at the same time and share the problems.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
67
Appendix 5: Ministerial Coordination Meeting of National Stakeholders and the
Spanish State Administration (Spain)
Date
18 April 2013
Location
Madrid, Spain
Organised by
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA)
Number of participants
(national stakeholders and
Spanish State Administration)
23
(of which project team
members)
9
Agenda:
1. Introduction and presentation of the proposed new Framework Directive on Integrated Coastal
Management and Marine Spatial Planning (MAGRAMA)
2. Project "Transboundary Planning in European Atlantic":
2.1 TPEA Project presentation. (MAGRAMA)
2.2 Initial assessment and selection of the pilot area. (MAGRAMA)
2.3 Stakeholders´ involvement (MAGRAMA)
2.4 Geographical scope of the project (U.Sevilla)
2.5 GIS developed by the IEO for the project
2.6 Activities considered in the project (CEDEX)
3. Debate on the stakeholder involvement in the development of the project.
Organisations invited:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA)
Ministry of Public Works,
Testing Center Public Works (CEDEX),
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Foreign Affairs and Coopertion (Ministry of Foreign Affairs),
Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports,
Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism,
National Research Center (CSIC),
Ports of General Interest to the State,
Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO),
Spanish Maritime Cluster,
INNOVAMAR
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
68
Participants:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Maria Dolores Ortiz Sanchez (MAGRAMA)
Maria Eugenia Martinez Donaire (MAGRAMA)
Pedro J. Fernández López (MAGRAMA)
Monica Martinez Castañeda (MAGRAMA)
Ainhoa Perez Punyol (MAGRAMA)
Inmaculada González (MAGRAMA)
Jose Navarro (MAGRAMA - Fisheries
Manuel Menéndez Prieto (MAGRAMA - DGCyEA)
Demetrio De Armas (IEO)
Maria Gomez (IEO)
Olvido Tello (IEO)
Juan Luis Suárez de Vivero (U. Sevilla)
Ana Lloret (CEDEX)
Isabel Moreno (CEDEX)
Teresa Molina (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Lorena Gorostiaga (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
Obdulio Serrano Hidalgo (Public Entity Ports of the State - Innovation)
Sergio Rodriguez Carbonell. (SASEMAR)
Almudena Aguero (MINECO)
Joaquín Hernández Brito (Canary Islands Oceanic Platform (PLOCAN))
Antonio Notario Ezquerra (Ministry of Defense)
Margarita Del Pozo Garcia (Ministry of Public Works)
Angel Rodriguez (Ministry of Public Works - General Secretariat for Infrastructure)
Objective and development of the meeting
After the first joint Spain-Portugal stakeholder meeting held on 5th February in Vilar de Sto. Antonio
and as a result of the low attendance obtained it was decided to organize three meetings just for
Spanish stakeholders for three different areas of stakeholders: central, regional and local levels.
For this purpose this meeting was convened in Madrid to facilitate the attendance of personnel in the
Central Services Administration as it is essential to know the opinion and expose the project to all the
Ministries involved.
The main objective was to expose and seek details about the project and collect the ideas or business
plans that exist in the pilot area (Guadiana estuary) in which we are working.
First we presented the draft of the new Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal
Zone Management under discussion within the group of Friends of the Chair and the implications that
there will be if in the future it enters into force.
Also we presented the project "Transboundary Planning in the European Atlantic" (TPEA) and the
relationships with the new draft Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone.
We emphasized the importance of creating a network of stakeholders not only for the project but for
the future implementation of the Directive.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
69
During the presentation of TPEA we explained the way the pilot area of the mouth of the Guadiana
was selected and the importance of considering the points of view of stakeholders from the start of
the project and the difficulty we had had to involve actors in the project.
The IEO presented the SIG work. The University of Seville presented an analysis of the zone of study
and CEDEX presented activities detected in the area as well as future possibilities for development.
There was a discussion on the geographical scope of the project area, including the extent inland and
out to sea and the length of the project area. It was proposed not to include the Doñana protected
area, taking into account its complex sensitivity and its own management system.
On the other hand, the agents present at the meeting pointed out that in Spain, even without papers
on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management, we have already experience
in some ambitious projects such as River Basin plans. Specifically in the pilot area the Hydrological Plan
of the Guadiana River Basin has recently been approved.
Some attendees made their first contributions in their areas of competence regarding the activities
taking place in the region. The Marine Environment Division pointed to future Special Protection Areas
to be declared as part of the Marine Strategies that are developing and which will impact on our pilot
area.
To move forward in this direction and enable staff contribution it was agreed to send a table with
layers of GIS information and activities currently being prepared by the IEO so that each agent can
analyze the information we have at the moment and contribute their ideas and interests in the various
activities.
Finally we emphasized the importance of stakeholder involvement for project development, so we
asked the attendees to help us identify more potential stakeholders in the project and obtain the
necessary contacts.
Conclusions
The consensus of the stakeholders is that the Madrid meeting was very fruitful for the project, for
meeting other stakeholders and as a first starting point for collaboration in the project and even in the
implementation of the future Directive.
They also considered the project a great opportunity to:
•
•
Improve the coordination between administrations,
Improve the participation of all stakeholders in marine use planning and management of
coastal areas.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
70
Appendix 6: Spanish Regional and Local Stakeholder Workshop
Minutes of the coordination meeting of regional and local stakeholders within the framework of the
Spatial Maritime Planning and Integrated Coastal Zones Management project in the European Atlantic
and the Baltic Sea. Organised by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment
(MAGRAMA).
The meeting took place alongside the Local Social Agents Seminar of the project LIFE+ INDEMARES for
the designation of a Marine Natura 2000 network, Marine Area of Cádiz and Marine IBA of Gulf of
Cadiz.
Date
14-15 June 2013
Location
Huelva, Spain
Organised by
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA)
Number of participants:
49
(of which project team
members)
Agenda:
1. Introduction and presentation of the proposed new Framework Directive on Integrated
Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
2. Presentation of the TPEA Project
3. Initial evaluation and selection of the pilot area
4. Participation of stakeholders in the TPEA project
5. Discussion of proposals and participation of attendees and interested agents
Organisations invited:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAGRAMA); subdelegación del
Gobierno en Cádiz;
Autoridad Portuaria de Huelva;
Capitanía Marítima de Huelva;
Junta de Andalucía;
Ayuntamientos de Isla Cristina, Ayamonte, Lepe, Cartaya, Punta Umbría, Huelva, Sanlucar de
Barrameda:
Estación Biológica de Doñana – CSIC;
Universidad de Huelva;
Universidad de Cádiz;
Instituto Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera Huelva;
Geo-Biodiversidad – Huelva;
OCEANA;
CIRCE;
Federación Andaluza de Pesca Deportiva;
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
71
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Estación Naútica de Isla Cristina;
Estación Naútica Bahía de Cadiz;
Marinas de Andalucía;
Federación Española de Asociaciones de Puertos Deportivos y Turísticos Gabriel de Sandoval;
Asociación Impulso de Empresas Náuticas de Andalucía;
Cairn energy plc – Capricorn Spain ltd;
Urs España;
Instituto de Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera (IFAPA);
Instituto de Ciencias Marinas de Andalucía (ICMAN);
Fundación centro tecnológico del sector pesquero (CT GARUM);
Campus de excelencia internacional del mar (CEI-MAR);
Plataforma tecnológica española de la pesca y la agricultura;
Asociación pesca responsable al-Andalus;
WWF españa;
Ecologistas en Acción Huelva;
Ecologistas en Acción Cádiz;
Fundación migres;
Grupo Ibérico de aves marinas – SEO/BirdLife;
Asociación ornitológica ardea; trabajos y técnicas submarinas;
Cofradía de pescadores de Algeciras;
Cofradía de pescadores de Barbate;
Cofradía de pescadores de Sanlucar;
Cofradia de pescadores nta Sra de la Bella;
Cofradía de pescadores de Ayamonte;
Nueva asociación de Armadores de el Puerto de Santa Maria;
Asociación suratlántica de Armadores de Buques de Cerco;
Apromar op-30 Asociación Empresarial de Productores de Cultivos Marinos
Participants:
Participants in the first meeting on June 14, 2013 with administrations, research centres and social
agents:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ainhoa Pérez Puyol (MAGRAMA - División para la Protección del Mar)
Javier Pantoja Trigueros (MAGRAMA - División para la Protección del Mar)
Gabriel Jesús Cuena López (MAGRAMA – Costas Huelva)
Pedro J. Fernández López (MAGRAMA – D. G. Sostenibilidad de la Costa)
David Peña Uceda (Fundacion Biodiversidad)
Carmen M. de los Reyes (Area Agricultura y Pesca – Subdelegación Cadiz)
Rocío López Picón (Autoridad Portuaria de Huelva)
Carlos Corrales García (Autoridad Portuaria de Huelva)
Ángel Fernández Corral (Capitanía Marítima Huelva)
Óscar Moreno (Junta de Andalucía)
Daniel Acosta (Junta de Andalucía)
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
72
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Eduardo Fernández Tabales (D.G. Medio Natural – Junta de Andalucía)
Rafael silva López (D.G. Espacios Naturales – Junta de Andalucía)
Alberto Ruiz de Larramendi (D.G. Espacios Naturales – Junta de Andalucía)
Marta Isabel Gonzáles Cabrera (Ayuntamiento de Isla Cristina)
Pedro Pablo Vega Cabello (Asociación Pesca Responsable Al-Andalus)
José Antonio Villa Gonzáles (Asociación Pesca Responsable Al-Andalus)
Renaud de Stephan (Estación Biológica de Doñana CSIC)
Joan Gimenez (Estación Biológica de Doñana CSIC)
Carlos Javier Luque Palomo (Universidad de Huelva)
Jesús Morales (Instituto Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera Huelva)
Laura Refojo Seronero (Geo-Biodiversidad – Huelva)
María José Cornax (OCEANA)
Philippe Verborgh (CIRCE)
Pauline Gauffier (CIRCE)
Ruth Esteban (CIRCE)
Alonso Bobo Masso (Trabajos y Técnicas Submarinas)
Participants at the second meeting on June 15 with social agents and fisheries:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ainhoa Pérez Puyol (MAGRAMA - División para la Protección del Mar)
Javier Pantoja Trigueros (MAGRAMA - División para la Protección del Mar)
Luis María Borrachero (Dependencia Agricultura y Pesca Huelva – MAGRAMA)
Pedro J. Fernández López (MAGRAMA – D. G. Sostenibilidad de la Costa)
David Peña Uceda (Fundacion Biodiversidad)
Carmen M. de los Reyes (Area Agricultura y Pesca – Subdelegación Cadiz)
Jesús Morales (Instituto Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera Huelva)
Marta Isabel Gonzáles Cabrera (Ayuntamiento de Isla Cristina)
Estefanía Sánchez-Escribano Bailón (Federación Nacional de Cofradías de Pescadores)
Manuel Peinado Fuentes (Federación Andaluza de Cofradías de Pescadores)
Mariano Ferció (Federación Andaluza de Cofradías de Pescadores)
Mariano García García (Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Huelva)
Ángel Mendoza Silgado (Cofradía de Pescadores de Punta Umbría)
Jose María Delsgado (Grupo de desarrollo pesquero “Costaluz”)
Antonio Carro Camacho (Asociación Armadores de Buques de Pesca de Lepe)
Agustín Rodriguez García (Asociación Armadores de Buques de Pesca de Lepe)
Jose Miguel Alonso Evangelista (Asociación de Armadores de Punta del Moral)
Alonso Abreu Lozano (Asociación Armadores de Buques de Punta del Moral)
Francisco Martinez F. (Asociación de Armadores Isleños)
Joaquín Díaz Cárdenas (Asociación de Armadores Isleños)
Eusebio Reyes Jimenez (Asociación de Armadores Isleños)
Carlos Davila (SEO/BirdLife Andalucía)
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
73
Objective and development of the meeting
After the first Spain-Portugal Stakeholders meeting held on February 5, 2013 in Vilar de Sto. Antonio
(Portugal) and as a result of low attendance analysis obtained, it was decided to organize three
Spanish meetings of stakeholders for three different areas of stakeholders: central, regional and local
levels.
For this purpose local stakeholders were called to attend this meeting in Huelva to facilitate the
attendance of personnel in the Peripherals Services and Regional State Administration in Huelva and
local entities that might be interested. It is essential to know the opinion and expose the project to all
stakeholders.
The main objective was to expose and seek details about the project and collect the ideas or business
plans that exist in the pilot area (Guadiana estuary) on which we are working.
In the first part of the local meeting presentations were made about the “Life+ INDEMARES” project:
Inventory and designation of the Natura 2000 network in marine areas of Spain. These presentations
are essential for the understanding by stakeholders of future special protection areas to be declared,
under the Marine Strategy being developed as they affect our pilot area.
Later introductions were made on the ecological values of the habitats and species in the Gulf of Cadiz
and the proposed marine SPAs in the marine LIC and the “Chimeneas de Cádiz” (chimneys of Cadiz):
Dolomite chimneys associated with hydrocarbon-rich fluid venting, discovered in September 2000.
They are a suite of more than 60 individual structures of chimneys with distinct pipe-like morphologies
that vary from 1 to 0.40 m long
In the second part of the meeting the draft of the new Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and
Integrated Coastal Zone Management was presented, along with the implications if it becomes a
Directive. Nowadays it is being developed.
The "Planning in the European Transbounday Atlantic" project (TPEA) was also presented and the
relationships with the new draft Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone
Management explained. The importance of creating a network of stakeholders, not only for the
project but also for the future implementation of the Directive was emphasized.
During the presentation of TPEA, it was explained how and why the Guadiana estuary had been
selected as a pilot area. Emphasis was on the importance of considering the views of stakeholders
from the start of the project. The difficulties for the Spanish organisation to involve actors in the
project were also highlighted, which was the reason for developing this local meeting with
presentations and discussion in Huelva. A questionnaire was distributed to the participants.
Stakeholders asked several questions about the project and the role of Spain in the project, deadlines;
there were also doubts about the concrete development of the project.
There was discussion of the impact the project would have on the local and regional administrations
and especially on fishing activities, which is a sensitive issue in many municipalities in Huelva. There
was also discussion on including the Doñana protected area in the TPEA project, taking into account
the sensitivity and complexity of its management system.
Representatives of fishermen's associations questioned whether this project will help them to clarify
the border line of Spanish and Portuguese waters. It was explained that this is not the initial intention
for the project, but they were invited to bring this out in the questionnaire that was distributed.
The importance of stakeholder participation in the project was highlighted, as was the role of
attendees in identifying more potential stakeholders in the project and helping to obtain other
necessary contacts.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
74
Conclusions
The consensus of stakeholders is that the Huelva meeting was very fruitful for the project, for meeting
other stakeholders and as a first starting point for collaboration in the project, even the
implementation of the future Directive.
The project was seen as a great opportunity to:
•
•
Improve coordination between administrations.
Improve the participation of all stakeholders in the marine use planning and management of
coastal areas.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
75
Appendix 7: Spanish Stakeholder Workshop Regional Coordination Meeting
Minutes of the coordination meeting of regional stakeholders and regional Autonomous
Administration of Andalusia (Junta de Andalucía) in the framework of the Special Maritime Joint
Planning and Integrated Coastal Zones in the European Atlantic and the Baltic Sea. Organised by the
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA).
Date
25 June 2013
Location
Seville, Spain
Organised by
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment (MAGRAMA)
Number of participants:
18
(of which project team
members)
5
Agenda:
1. Welcome and Introduction
2. Proposed new Framework Directive on Integrated Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning
3. "Transboundary Planning in European Atlantic" Project:
3.1. TPEA Project presentation.
3.2. Initial evaluation and selection of the pilot area.
3.3. Participation of stakeholders.
3.4. Geographical scope of the project (U.S.)
3.5. GIS developed by the IEO for the project
3.6. Activities considered in the project (CEDEX)
4. Debate on the participation of stakeholders in project development
5. Conclusions
Organisations invited:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MINISTERIO DE AGRICULTURA, ALIMENTACIÓN Y MEDIO AMBIENTE (MAGRAMA);
MINISTERIO DE FOMENTO;
CENTRO DE EXPERIMENTACIÓN DE OBRAS PÚBLICAS (CEDEX);
CENTRO SUPERIOR DE INVESTIGACIONES CIENTÍFICAS (CSIC);
JUNTA DE ANDALUCÍA – CONSEJERÍA DE AGRICULTURA, PESCA Y MEDIO AMBIENTE;
INSTITUTO ESPAÑOL DE OCEANOGRAFÍA (IEO);
CLUSTER MARÍTIMO ESPAÑOL;
INNOVAMAR;
OMICRON AMEPRO, S.A;
REPSOL;
CEPSA
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
76
Participants:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Carmen Izquierdo Pelaéz (Omicron Amepro, S.A.)
Francisco Sempere (Junta de Andalucía - Consejería Agricultura, Pesca y Medio Ambiente)
Juan José García Rodriguez (Junta de Andalucía - Consejería Agricultura, Pesca y Medio
Ambiente – D.G. Pesca)
Mª Olvido Tello Antón (IEO)
Ignacio Sobrino Yraola (I.E.O. Centro de Cádiz)
Luis Silva Caparro (I.E.O Centro Oc. Cádiz)
Gabriel Jesús Cuena López (MAGRAMA - Servicio Costas Huelva)
Ignacio Barceló Cabeza (Repsol)
Juan A. Pérez Gragera (IFAPA - Junta de Andalucía - Huelva)
Francisco Vidal Almero (FOMENTO - D.G.Marina Mercante - C.M.Sevilla)
Jesús Morales Cañabate (Junta de Andalucía - FAPA - agua pino)
Ana Lloret Capote (CEDEX)
Estrella Cruzado Rodriguez (CEPSA)
Antonio Alfonso Domínguez Olivares (CEPSA)
José Miguel Chinchilla Mata ((Junta de Andalucía - C.Agricultura, Pesca y Medio Ambiente D.G. Urbanismo)
Mónica Martínez Castañeda (MAGRAMA - D.G. Rec. Pesqueros y Acuicultura)
Mª Dolores Ortiz Sánchez (MAGRAMA – Costas)
Pedro Javier Fernández (MAGRAMA – Costas)
Objective and development of the meeting
After the first Spain-Portugal Stakeholders meeting held on February 5, 2013 in Vilar de Sto. Antonio
(Portugal) and as a result of low attendance analysis obtained, it was decided to organize three
Spanish meetings of stakeholders for three different areas of stakeholders: central, regional and local
levels.
For this purpose regional stakeholders were called to attend this meeting in Seville to facilitate the
attendance of personnel in the Peripherals Services and Regional State Administration in Andalusia
and regional entities and administration that might be interested. It is essential to know the opinion
and expose the project to all stakeholders.
The main objective was to expose and seek details about the project and collect the ideas or business
plans that exist in the pilot area (Guadiana estuary) on which we are working.
First we presented the draft of the New Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal
Zone Management which is being developed in the European Commission and the implications it will
have if it enters into force in the future.
"Planning in the European Transbounday Atlantic" project (TPEA) was presented with the relationships
to the new draft Directive on Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Zone Management. The
importance of creating a network of stakeholders, not only for the project but for the future
implementation of the Directive, was emphasized.
During the presentation of TPEA, how and why the Guadiana estuary had been selected as the pilot
area was analyzed. The importance of considering the views of stakeholders from the start of the
project was emphasized. The difficulty for the Spanish organisation to involve actors in the project was
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
77
also highlighted, so this was the reason to develop this regional meeting with presentations and
discussion held in the city of Seville.
Later, University of Seville and CEDEX presented an analysis of the field of study and the activities
detected in the area, as well as future possibilities for development. The IEO presented extensive GIS
work and all geographic information available for the area.
The audience was told that there are two ways you could define the pilot area. A first proposal had
been made from southern countries, where a an area was defined with borders including the Bay of
Cadiz and the Algarve and divided into two areas, where it plans to develop the Maritime Spatial
Planning. The other representation, by UK and Ireland, consists of a gradation of colours depending on
the distance to the border area and aims to highlight this aspect.
Several of the attendees were interested in the area to be considered in the project: the extension
inland and out to sea and along the coast. It was explained that there is no closed area to consider as
yet so this is to be considered at future meetings of TPEA. Some participants disagreed over the
opportunity to include or exclude the protected area of Doñana National Park, considering its
complexity for their sensitivity and management system with that account.
It was emphasized that the definition of the proposed pilot area for the southern countries took into
account the findings and opinions of the stakeholders of the first meeting held in Vilar de Sant
Antonio, Portugal.
Representatives of the Government of Andalusia proposed that the two representations of the pilot
area are complementary. The pilot area could be considered as a double matrix considering both
possibilities.
Some attendees insisted that the study should be conducted within one physiographic unit. In this
regard, it was emphasized that in order to consider all physical phenomena, currents, waves, and
biological area ‘0 zone’ had been considered including the Bay. Then the plan would cover a smaller
area. It was also highlighted that ecosystem processes in planning should be considered and that there
should be a clear distinction between the field of study and the planning field.
Andalusian Government representatives told that a diagnosis of Coastal Management Plan of
Andalusia it will be presented in the month of July.
Some participants expressed their concern about the extent of the studies that have been available for
the area. It was noted by the members of the project that for TPEA as a project, MAGRAMA neither
requires nor implies anything more for the moment. Despite the above, it was stressed how important
is taking into account all the observations.
It was stated that the GIS submitted would be available in September when the next Steering Group
meeting is held also in Spain.
Improvements were suggested for the GIS to add in metadata:
A. - If the activity is fixed, not moving
B. - if the activity is dynamic
It was noted that at European level conflicts are resolved by considering the resources based on the
agents. For this, the possibility was suggested for solving conflicts through resolution numerical
descriptors which are used to objectify the resolution of this kind of problems.
The importance of communication and disclosure was also commented. All information could be
requested through the mailbox created for this project:
[email protected]
Some representatives stated there is an INTERREG program with Portugal that could be used.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
78
To move forward in this direction and to enable the contribution of the agents, it was agreed to send
out some layers of GIS information and activities currently being prepared by IEO so that each agent
can analyse the information we have at the moment and contribute their ideas and interests in the
various activities.
Finally the importance of the participation of the stakeholders for the project was highlighted. Their
assistance to identify more potential stakeholders in the project and their help to obtain other
necessary contacts was pointed out.
Finally, a questionnaire was distributed to be filled out by the participants. Several questions were
asked about the project about the role of Spain in the project, deadlines, and doubts about the
concrete development of the project.
Conclusions
The consensus of stakeholders is that the meeting was very fruitful in Seville for the project, to meet
other stakeholders and a first starting point for collaboration in the project and even the
implementation of the future Directive.
In opinion on the project it was also a great opportunity to:
•
•
Improve coordination between administrations.
Improve the participation of all stakeholders in the marine use planning and management of
coastal areas.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
79
Appendix 8: Potential Data Sources for the Northern Context (Ireland-UK)
UK / ROI
Data
Type
Data
Source
Both
Report
Spain
Both
Map
Viewer
EU
Both
Map
Viewer
UK / EU
Habitat Maps
Both
Map
Viewer
EU
Can Liverpool as lead partner in this project
provide some additional detail
Both
Report
EU
Renewables overview
Both
Report and
Map
Viewer
EU
Ecosystem and Fisheries Overview
Both
Report
EU
Source
University of Seville - An Atlas of Maritime
Spatial Planning
Data Type
MSP context and guidance document
Names and Limits of Oceans and Seas
Status of fish stocks in European Fishing
Regions
Sea level rise
Natura 2000 sites
European Commission - European Atlas of
the Seas
Coastal bathing areas and bathing water quality
Coastal geology
Coastal erosion
Coastal defence works
Marine accident density
Distribution of the fishing fleet by coastal region
Substrate (modelled)
EUSea Map // EMODnet
Modelled seabed habitats
MESHAtlantic
European Seas and Territorial
Development, Opportunities and Risks
Off-shore Renewable Energy Conversion
platforms – Coordination Action
(ORECCA)
Making the European Fisheries Ecosystem
Plan Operational
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
80
Marine Archaeology
Both
Map
Viewer
ROI
Bathymetry
Both
Map
Viewer
ROI
Oil and gas data
Both
Map
Viewer
UK
Map
Viewer
UK
Map
Viewer
ROI
Infomar
Bathymetry
Infomar JIBS
DEAL
MMO
Environmental Protection Areas
UK only
Nation Defence and Security / Military Practice
Areas
UK only
Oil and gas Pipelines
Both
Oil and gas subsurface infrastructure
Both
Oil and gas surface infrastructure
Both
Wells
Both
Ports
UK only
Permitted ship to ship transfer sites.
Both
Anchoring Areas
Both
Aggregate extraction areas
UK only
Subsea cables
Both
Fishing landings (mobile gears) from Vessel
Monitoring System
Both
Fishing landings (static gears) from Vessel
Monitoring System
Both
Aquaculture
Both
Sailing
Both
Seaweed distribution
Both
Marine mammal sightings (Cetacean & seals)
Both
MIDA
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Shell fishing areas
ROI only
Blue flag beaches
Both
81
Surf schools / spots / clubs
Both
Irish Sailing Association (ISA) Clubs
Both
Sub-aqua clubs
ROI only
Recreational sea fishing spots
ROI only
Marinas and pontoons
Visitor moorings
Both
ROI only
Bathing water quality
Both
Coastal erosion trends Erosion project
Both
Coastal geology
Both
Terrestrial soils and geology
Both
Coastal defence works
Both
Ports and harbours (Commercial and fishing)
Both
RNLI Lifeboat stations
Both
Navigation aids
Both
Submarine Telecommunications cables
Both
Landscape Character Areas
UK only
Map
Viewer
AONB
UK only
Map
Viewer
Natural Heritage - RAMSAR / SAC / SPA / ASSI
UK only
Map
Viewer
Built Heritage - Listed buildings / Monuments /
Historic Maps
UK only
Map
Viewer
Marine licence applications - approved and
pending
UK only
Reports
Both
Reports
DOE NIEA
Water framework directive
Salt marsh Monitoring Project
National Parks and Wildlife Service
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Reports
ROI only
Natural Heritage - SAC / SPA
UK
ROI
Map
82
Viewer
Marine Natural Heritage Reports
Reports
Marine Strategy Framework
Department of Environment, Community
and Local Government
Water framework directive
ROI only
Reports
ROI
Both
Map viewer
ROI
Both
Paper
charts
UK
Map
Viewer
UK
Report map (PDF)
UK
Report map (PDF)
ROI
Marine(foreshore) licence applications
Terrestrial Geology
Geological Survey of Ireland
Marine Archaeology
United Kingdom Hydrographical Office
(UKHO)
Bathymetry (Admiralty Charts)
Atlas of UK Marine Renewable Energy
Resources
Marine Renewable Energy Resources
UK only
Wind energy resource
UK only
Seabed sediments
Water quality
DETI - Northern Ireland Offshore Wind and
Marine Renewables SEA Report
SEAI - Strategic Environmental
Assessment of Wind, Tidal and Offshore
Wind Development in Irish Waters
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Both
UK only
Cultural heritage
Both
Key Fishing Areas
Both
Fisheries Restricted Zones
Both
Mariculture
Both
Shipping
UK only
Recreation and tourism
UK only
Possible Aviation Constraints
UK only
Military Practice Areas
UK only
Marine Renewable Energy Resource Zones
UK only
Wind/Wave/Tidal resource
ROI only
Offshore Geology
Both
Fish Spawning and Nursery Areas
ROI only
Basking shark sightings
ROI only
83
Irish Whale and Dolphin Group
Department of Energy and Climate
Change UK (DECC)
Seabird colonies
ROI only
Shipping density
Both
Military Practice Areas
ROI only
Cables and pipelines
ROI only
Dredging and Disposal Areas
ROI only
Existing Renewable Infrastructure
ROI only
Seascape types
Both
Marine Mammal sightings
Both
Map
Viewer /
Data tables
ROI
UK only
Map
Viewer
UK
ROI only
Report
ROI
Shipping data
Areas of Especially High Scenic Amenity
Donegal County Council
Development Plan (Spatial Planning)
Landscape Character Areas
Louth County Council
Landscape Designations
Report
ROI only
Development Plan (Spatial Planning)
DoE Planning and Local Government
Development Plans (Spatial Planning)
UK only
Department of Communications, Energy
and Natural Resources
Kingfisher Information Service - Cable
Awareness
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Report
UK
Map
Viewer
UK only
Census data
Central Statistics Office (ROI)
ROI
Report
Multiple deprivation measure (Census data)
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research
Agency
Report
Map
Viewer /
Data tables
UK
Census data
ROI only
Map
Viewer /
Data tables
ROI
Hydrocarbon Information
ROI only
Map
Viewer
ROI
Both
Report map (PDF)
UK
Cables
84
Oriel Windfarm Ltd
Proposed Windfarm
ROI only
Website Map
ROI
First Flight Wind
Proposed Windfarm
UK only
Website Map
UK
Both
Website Map
EU
Isles Project
Potential
network
offshore
renewable
transmission
Carlingford Lough Status Report
Loughs Agency
Lough Foyle Status Report
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Report
Both
ROI / UK
Report
85
GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES
I
Appendix 9: Potential Data Sources for the Southern Context (Portugal-Spain)
TOPIC
DESCRIPTION
PR / SP
DATA SOURCE
DATA TYPE
Maritime space
Base line, territorial sea and EEZ.
Both
IH / IHM, US
SHP
Coastal zone
Coast Zone Management Plans
Both
APA, IP, ICNF / IHM,
MAGRAMA
SHP
Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Both
EMEPC / CEDEX
Bathing Water Directive
Bathing waters designated by MS under Directive 2006/7
Both
APA, IP / US
Shellfish Waters Directive
Shellfish waters designated by MS under Directive 2006/113
Both
APA, IP / CEDEX
Urban Wastewater Directive
Sensitive areas (eutrophic/potentially eutrophic) designated by MS
under Directive 91/271
River basin districts and coastal and transitional water bodies
designated under River Basin Plans
Both
APA, IP / CEDEX
Both
APA, IP / US
Both
DGRM / US
Boundaries related to Directives
PHYSICO-CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS
MARITIME SPACE
II
Water Framework Directive
Common Fisheries Policies and national
provision
Boundaries established in the management measures concerning
fisheries should be consider.
Meteorology
All the relevant networks, stations and forecasting models should be
identified.
Weather stations information should be collected including location,
measured variables and statistic values.
Both
IH / CEDEX
Wind
Statistic values for the available locations.
Both
IH / CEDEX, IEO
Rainfall
Statistic values for the available locations.
Both
IPMA, IP / CEDEX
Atmospheric pressure
Statistic values for the available locations.
Both
IPMA, IP / CEDEX
Weather station
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
SHP
MAP
86
Both
EMEPC, IH / IHM,
IEO
Tectonic elements of the region: faults, diapirs, folds, structures
associated with fluid escape, etc.
Both
IH / IEO
Geomorphological types: undulations, channels, mounds,
depressions, crests, moats, pockmarks, ridges, scarps, outcrops, etc.
Both
IH / IEO
Seabed Characterization
Sedimentological and geochemical features: Grain size, geochemical
data, backscatter data, sediment samples and cores, geohabitats,
etc.
Both
IH / IEO
Oceanography
All oceanography data available related to physical processes.
Physical water properties
Temperature and salinity data along the water column. Dissolved
nutrients along the water column. Currents maps.
Both
IH / IEO
Surface temperature
Seawater temperature from satellite imagines. Altimetry data.
Both
IH / IEO
Primary productivity
Satellite-derived estimates of sea-surface chlorophyll.
Both
IH / IEO
Tidal data
Tide gauge data.
Both
IH / CEDEX
Waves
Intensity and direction data of waves from buoys.
Both
IH / CEDEX
Eutrophication
Information about massive contribution of inorganic nutrients in an
aquatic ecosystem.
Input
Estimated riverine input loads, direct discharges and atmospheric
deposition of nutrients.
Both
IPMA, IP / CEDEX
State
Measurements from data samples and observation taken during
research campaigns.
Both
Bathymetry
Bathymetric data and derivate data (slope, aspect, etc.) from the
study area from different database sources.
Geology
Information from the geological context.
Tectonic
Geomorphology
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
SHP
SHP
SHP
MAP
SHP
MAP
87
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Both
Zones
Available mapping of affected water bodies.
Contaminants
All available information about harmful alteration of the natural
state of the seawater as a consequence of the introduction of a
foreign agent either by natural or human activity.
Input
Estimated riverine input loads, direct discharges and atmospheric
deposition of hazardous substances.
Both
IPMA, IP / IEO
State
Measurements from data samples and observation taken during
research campaigns.
Both
IPMA, IP / IEO
Zones
Available mapping of affected water bodies.
Both
IPMA, IP / CEDEX,
IEO
Species
Compilation of all the information about the biodiversity including
communities/species within the study area.
Fish
Communities description, including distribution, abundance trends,
demographic structure of representative species.
IPMA, IP
Both
FIG
IPMA, IP / IEO
TAB
SHP
Both
Algae and marine plants
Information compilation about these species, including seagrass
populations.
Both
IPMA, IP / IEO
Marine mammals
Relevant data from Monitoring and Watching Programmes.
Both
IPMA, IP / IEO
Seals
Relevant data from Monitoring and Watching Programmes.
SP only
IEO
Birds
Relevant data from Monitoring and Watching Programmes.
Both
IPMA / IEO
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
TAB
SHP
Communities description, including distribution, abundance trends,
demographic structure of representative species.
Shellfish
SHP
FIG
IPMA, IP / IEO
TAB
SHP
SHP
TAB
SHP
TAB
88
UNDERWATER
ARCHAEOLOGY
COASTAL ZONE
INFRASTRUCTURES
III
IV
SP only
IEO
Updated information from Monitoring Programmes.
Both
IPMA, IP / IEO
TAB
Spawning grounds and nursery
Compilation of all the information about the spawning grounds and
nursery areas.
Both
UAlg / IEO, ONG´S
SHP
Habitats
Compilation of all the information about the habitats of the study
area.
Benthonic habitats
Habitat characterization from available information.
Both
IPMA, IP / IEO
SHP
Pelagic habitats
Habitat characterization from available information.
Both
IPMA, IP / IEO
SHP
Both
DGPC / IEO, JA
SHP
SP only
IEO, JA
SHP
SHP
Turtles
Relevant data from Monitoring and Watching Programmes.
Invasive species
Shipwreck inventory
Underwater archaeological sites
Submerged archaeological heritage existing in the study area
classified as underwater archaeological sites or archaeological
easements.
Coastal Geo-Morphology
Relevant coastal features like estuaries, marshes, sedimentary
coasts, including beaches, should be identified. Information about
coasts in erosion should also be gathered.
Both
APA, IP / CEDEX, JA
Coastal Development/Population
Relevant information about coastal territorial planning should be
collected such as land uses, urban areas locations and their
estimated population.
Both
INE, CCDRAlg /
CEDEX, JA, US
Ports
Ports, including commercial, fishing and leisure harbours should be
identified, taking into account terrestrial and sea areas like harbour
basins, access channels and anchoring areas. Dimension like surfaces
and perimeters should be computed. Typology of the infrastructures
should be also known.
Both
IH, DGRM,
DOCAPESCA /
CEDEX
Coastal Defence
Locations and types of structures or other human interventions for
coastal defence should be considered.
Both
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
SHP
TAB
SHP
SHP
APA, IP / CEDEX,
89
NATURES CONSERVATION FEATURES
(Current status and
trends)
USES AND ACTIVITIES
VI
V
IHM
Artificial Reefs
Approx. locations and functions (protection, production, etc.) should
be identified.
Platforms
Locations and uses of platforms should be taken into account.
Cables and Pipelines
Locations, dimensions and uses of cables and pipelines should be
taken into account.
Both
IH, APA, IP / IHM
SHP
Others
Location and dimensions of other infrastructures like, for example,
wind farm piles, single buoy mooring, buoys, etc.
SP only
IHM
SHP
Areas
All cataloged areas designated or planned as protected area by
European and National Directives, must be identified and
documented.
Both
ICNF, IP / CEDEX,
MAGRAMA
SHP
All cataloged and predicting habitats designated or planned as
protected habitat by European and National Directives, must be
identified and documented.
Both
ICNF, IP, Ualg, LNEG,
IDL / IEO
SHP
Both
ICNF, IP / IEO
TAB
Habitats
Both
N.A.
Species
All cataloged species designated as protected species by European
and National Directives, must be identified and documented.
Maritime transport
All data about maritime transport.
Shipping Lanes/Traffic
Shipping lanes and traffic separation schemes as well as their
intensity of use should be identified. Compulsory pilotage areas.
ZMPS
Both
DGRM / CEDEX
Cross-border Ferries
The identification of routes, the frequency of the ferries and the
number of users should be accomplished.
SP only
US
Shipbuilding
Information related to the importance of this activity and the
SP only
US
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
SHP
IPMA / CEDEX
SHP
90
location of the facilities should be compiled.
Fisheries
Compilation of all the available information about this topic.
Fisheries
Main pelagic and demersal fisheries description. Metiers and target
species identification. Landings, CPUEs and length distribution trend
analysis of the main species.
Both
DGRM , IPMA / IEO
Fishing Grounds
Use of georreferenced information: Blue and green boxes analysis of
the main ports operating fishing fleet to get fishing ground
description.
Both
DGRM, IPMA, JA,
UAlg (?) / IEO
Information related to the importance of this activity should be
compiled.
Both
Aquaculture
Compilation of the available information (zones, species, stocks).
Both
Marine Biotechnology
Compilation of the available information (zones, species, stocks).
Both
Algae
Information on biological industries applied for pharmaceutical,
food, agriculture, environment and medicine uses.
Both
Biotechnology
Information on technological industries applied for pharmaceutical,
food, agriculture, environment and medicine uses.
Both
DGRM / US
Exploitation of non-living natural marine
resources
Compilation of the available information about oil and gas
Oil and gas industry
The development of the offshore oil and gas industry requires of
several stages (research, exploration and exploitation), all of them
comprising of several activities. Information on their spatial and
temporal extent and their intensity should be characterised.
Both
DGEG / CEDEX
Sand and Gravel extraction and mining
The areas where this activity takes place, the frequency of the
extractions, the volumes and typology of the extracted natural
resources (minerals, sand, gravel, etc.) should be compiled.
PR only
Dumping
All data about duping.
SP only
Transformation
products
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
Industry
of
fishery
SHP
DGRM / US
SHP
DGRM / MAGRAMA
DGRM / US
SHP
SHP
DGEG
SHP
APA, IP
SHP
IHM
91
Military Activities
Military practice areas or other military areas.
Both
DGAM
SHP
Carbon Capture Storage (CCS)
Areas and storage capacity should be considered.
SP only
US
SHP
Recreational Activities
All data about recreational activities.
Bathing sites
The location, the extent of the bathing sites and the quality of their
waters according to the Bathing Water Directive or other laws
should be documented. Blue flag could also be identified.
Both
APA, IP, ABAE /
CEDEX
Nautical activities
An inventory of all nautical activities and sports should be made,
collecting information regarding the intensity and areas of interest
of activities such as yachting, diving, surfing, whales and other
cetaceans watching, leisure fishing, sailing schools, etc. Information
on their related infrastructures (marinas, anchoring areas, etc.)
should also be gathered. Surf
Both
Tourism infrastructures
Spatial and temporal indicators on the relevance of the tourism in
the planning area should be considered like the number of
hotels/apartments/ beds/overnight stays, the existence of
promenades, the spending per tourist, etc.
Both
INE / US
Power generation
Information on renewable energy facilities as well as on their spatial
distribution, development over time and intensity should be
collected.
SP only
CEDEX
SHP
Ports and Places of Refuge
Different indicators of the intensity of this activity like number of
vessels, weight of different goods (including dangerous goods)
loaded and discharged, number of passengers, etc. should be
considered. Other activities related to the management of ports like
dredging and dumping of dredged material should also be included.
Both
IH, DGRM,
DOCAPESCA / IHM
SHP
Marine Scientific Research
All data about marine scientific research.
Both
UAlg / IEO
SHP
Wrecks and other historic features
All data related to wrecks and other historic features.
Both
DGPC / IHM
SHP
Other uses
Data about other uses.
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
IPDJ, IP, FPG, IH,
SHP
DGRM / US, CEDEX
92
Seawater abstraction
Areas of seawater abstraction should be identified and the taken
volumes quantified: Aquaculture, Turism, Zoo
Both
DGRM, DGAM / US
SHP
Water rejection
Several facilities discharge water in the coastal area such us waste
water treatment plants, desalinization plants, industries, etc.
Information on the location of the outfalls, the discharged volumes
and its composition should be taken into account.
Both
APA, IP / CEDEX
SHP
Salt pans
The location and spatial extent of salt pans should be computed if
present.
Both
APA, IP / US, IEO
SHP
Noise
Level of underwater noise.
Both
UAlg / CEDEX
Marine litter
Properties and quantities of marine litter.
Both
UAlg / IEO
TPEA Initial Assessment Report
93