Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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