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

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

Picture copyright Richard Hill ©2013.

Richard Hill (OCT) & Katerina Kring (INTERACT)

FINAL, September 2013

Disclaimer: The purpose of this document is to serve as inspiration to maritime cross-border programmes and their programming committees in the process of preparing the Operational Programmes 2014-2020 and in their discussions concerning the integration of the maritime dimension in the programmes’ structure. It should be noted that this document does not reflect or stem from an official requirement of the regulatory package for 2014-2020 period.

www.oceancoast.co.uk Email: [email protected]

Published by INTERACT

OCT 5 Luxfield Rd, Warminster, Wiltshire, United Kingdom, BA12 8HH

INTERACT European Territorial Cooperation Maritime Cross-Border Programmes: The Maritime Dimension

3

Contents SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 5 1.1 Objectives of Paper 5 1.2 Conceptual Logic Model 6 1.3 Introducing the Marine and Maritime Dimension 7 1.4 Defining Marine & Maritime Terminology 8 1.5 EU Marine & Maritime Policy 8 1.6 Macro Regions & Sea Basins in Europe 10 SECTION 2: INTEGRATING THE MARITIME DIMENSION INTO THE 2014-2020 PROGRAMMES 14 2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 Existing and Potential Areas of Intervention 14 2.3 Horizontal Integration within Cross-Border Programmes 16 2.4 Impact of Sea-Basin Strategies & Macro Regional Strategies 17 2.5 Overview of the Marine & Maritime Aspects of European Seas 19 2.6 Fisheries 20 2.7 Maritime Transport 22 2.8 Renewable Energy 24 2.9 Coastal & Marine Tourism 26 2.10 Natura 2000 Network (Marine Protected Areas) 28 2.11 Marine Pollution 29 SECTION 3 KEY MARINE & MARITIME ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS 31 3.1 Introduction 31 3.2 Maritime Jurisdiction 31 3.3 Sectoral Stakeholders 33 3.4 Marine Resource Specific Stakeholders 34 3.5 Stakeholders identified by the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes 35 SECTION 4: FACTORS FOR PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIALLY SUCCESSFUL MARINE & MARITIME PROJECTS 38 4.1 Introduction 38 4.2 Factors for Programme Development & Horizontal Integration 38 4.3 Assessment of Proposed Projects 38 4.4 Eligibility Check 39 4.5 Strategic Assessment 39 4.6 Operational Assessment 42 SECTION 5: CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 43 5.1 Introduction 43 5.2 The context of Macro-Regional & Sea Basin Strategies 43 5.3 Main Factors that support the development of marine and maritime projects 44 5.4 Next Steps 45 ANNEX A: EU MARINE & MARITIME POLICY 46 ANNEX B: METHODS OF STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT AND INVOLVEMENT 51 ANNEX C: HORIZONTAL INTEGRATION: EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE MARINE & MARITIME PROJECTS 53 ANNEX D: EXAMPLES OF MARINE AND MARITIME PROJECTS FROM THE 2007-2013 CROSS-BORDER CO-OPERATION PROGRAMMES 60 Abbreviations 66 Bibliography 67


4

Figures Figure 1.2.2 Marine & Maritime Conceptual Logic Model .................................................................7

Figure 1.5.4 European Commission, Directorate Generals marine and maritime policy areas ................... 10 Figure 1.6.2 EUSBSR Objectives and Horizontal Actions ................................................................ 11

Figure 2.2.2a Maritime Areas of Intervention (2007-2013), based on responses from five responding

programmes .................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.2.2b Possible Maritime Areas of Intervention (2014-2020), Number of Responding Programmes....... 15

Figure 2.4.1 Proposed Thematic Objectives 2014-2020, Number of Programmes .................................. 17 Figure 2.5.2 Coastal regions in the EU, by sea and by NUTS3 Region................................................. 20

Figure 2.7.3 Total gross weight of maritime goods handled in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, 2010.. 23

Figure 2.7.4 Maritime passengers in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, 2010 ................................. 24 Figure 2.9.2 Density of tourist accommodation in hotels, campsites and other tourist accommodation in EU

coastal regions, by NUTS 3 Regions, 2010 ................................................................. 27 Figure 2.9.5 Percentage (%) Cruise Ship Passengers by Sea Basin..................................................... 28

Figure 2.11.1 World Sources of Marine Pollution .......................................................................... 29 Figure 3.2.2 Maritime Sovereignty under UNCLOS ....................................................................... 32

Figure 3.2.4 UK Legislation- Marine Jurisdiction ......................................................................... 32

Figure 3.4.2 Marine Protected Area (MPA) Stakeholder Groups 35 Figure 3.5.1 Numbers of different types of Maritime Stakeholders identified by the Maritime CBC Programmes

2013.............................................................................................................. 36 Figure 3.5.2 Maritime CBC Stakeholders (2007-2013). Number indicates total number of programmes which

had this type of stakeholder. ................................................................................ 36 Figure 4.5.6 The “degrees of co-operation”.............................................................................. 41


5

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Objectives of Paper

1.1.1 European Territorial Co-operation (ETC) maritime cross-border programmes represent a specific cluster of ETC programmes characterised by the presence of the sea in the geography of their

programme areas. These stretches of sea separate entirely at least one of the countries from the rest of the programme area. In comparison to the “traditional” cross-border programmes, where

participating regions share a land border and where cooperation is based on proximity of the regions, maritime programmes may involve several member states and regions of the EU along

maritime borders separated by a maximum of 150 km.

1.1.2 According to the draft ETC Regulation, cross-border programmes are established to tackle common

challenges in the border region, exploit the potentials of the border area and enhance the co-operation process in the cross-border region for the overall harmonious development of the EU1.

For maritime cross-border programmes all regions supported along the maritime borders should be on NUTS 3 level2. The challenge these programmes face is promoting integration in spite of the

maritime border; this challenge also presents specific opportunities for these programmes in terms

of presenting natural fields for co-operation and involvement of maritime actors in ETC projects.

1.1.3 The requirement for thematic concentration and result-oriented approach during programming and implementation is ensured through the definition of Thematic Objectives (TOs) (Article 9, CPR).

The challenge for the maritime programmes is that maritime issues are not the subject of a

specific TO but rather should be seen as a horizontal matter when interpreting the TOs. This brings about the challenge of interpretation, prioritising and integrating the maritime dimension in the

choice of TOs for these programmes.

1.1.4 The purpose of this paper is to provide support to the maritime cross-border (CB) programmes in interpreting and integrating the maritime dimension in their 2014-2020 Operational Programmes

(OPs) by:

• Highlighting the opportunities presented by international and European maritime policy

priorities as well as by maritime agreements and strategies, and governance frameworks with maritime relevance;

• Providing overview of how the maritime dimension links to selected TOs, what could be the

scope of maritime aspects under selected TOs;

• Providing inspiration of how maritime CB programmes could support the governance (including

the framework provided by macro-regional and sea-basin strategies) of the sea as a common resource in the programme area, address the joint needs/ challenges and assets provided by

the sea, and how to overcome the obstacles presented by the sea for co-operation, and;

• Elaborating on the range of maritime actors and stakeholders to be considered by programmes

during programming, and providing an overview of what their competences are.

1 Draft ETC Regulation, preamble, point (5) 2 Draft ETC Regulation, Article 3 (1)


6

It should be noted that the information contained within this document is aimed as inspiration towards the maritime cross-border programmes and their programming committees during the

process of preparing the 2014-2020 Operational Programmes. The contents of this document do not stem from a legal requirement.

1.2 Conceptual Logic Model

1.2.1 This document sets out marine and maritime issues that should be considered as a source of

potential projects for the next programme (2014-2020). The incorporation of marine and maritime

issues into programme considerations can take place during:

• Programme Development;

• Programme Implementation;

• Project Development, and;

• Project Implementation.

1.2.2 The process can be illustrated in a Marine & Maritime Conceptual Logic Model (Figure 1.2.2).

1.2.3 The processes illustrated in the model are documented throughout this report:

• Policy Drivers originate from the International level, European Union (Section 1.5 and Annex A) and Cross-Border States (member state/ participating country) of the CBC programmes;

• Key Actors & Stakeholder Drivers are primarily derived from the aspirations of the sea users of the programme area, together with the views of decision-makers who regulate this activity

(Section 3);

• EU & Programme Area Information Drivers includes current information in trends in maritime activities and issues (Section 2) and the Situation Analysis undertaken by the CBC Programmes

as part of Programme Development;

• Regional Policy & Objectives Drivers are those derived from the development of Sea Basin &

Macro-regional strategies (Sections 1.5.6, 1.6, 2.4 and 5.3);

• The Situation Analysis produced for the programme areas will be the primary input of marine and maritime information to programme development;

• Programme Communication and Engagement with stakeholders and decision-makers should inform the Situation Analysis and Programme Development (Section 3 and 4.2) it should also

be used as a method to feedback and inform stakeholders and decision-makers of the

outcomes of Programme Development;

• Project Development will be informed by a similar Communication and Feedback process,

primarily with the lead partner/ beneficiary.


7

Figure 1.2.2 Marine & Maritime Conceptual Logic Model Figur 1

OCT, Richard Hill

• The Thematic Objectives (TOs) and Investment priorities selected for a programme will inform

and shape the project development process. Section 4.5 demonstrates how marine and

maritime projects can be integrated across a range of TOs, and;

• Assessment of projects will be the primary driving force for ensuring the quality of marine and

maritime projects supported by a CBC programme and how the CBC can contribute to policy and regional strategies to ensure there is a practical impact which promotes the marine and

maritime dimension (Sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6).

1.3 Introducing the Marine and Maritime Dimension 1.3.1 The marine areas of the EU are characterised by the geographical and environmental conditions

which have shaped them: together with the present day human socio-economic activities the sea area supports. Some areas are enclosed, almost inland seas, such as the Baltic or Southern North

Sea/ Channel; where there is competition between different uses (shipping, fishery, renewable

energy generation, mineral extraction, etc.) for limited space.

1.3.2 The socio-economic activities of a maritime area can bring challenges. The Black Sea, Ionian Sea, Brittany and Normandy are popular tourist destinations, however the swelling coastal population

and agricultural activity has led to high levels of nutrients from fertilisers and sewage. Such conditions can cause oxygen depleting algal blooms which kill marine organisms and undermine the

Drivers

Programme≅ Stakeholders≅ Decision Makers

Regional≅ Macro-regional≅ Sea Basin

Policy≅ International≅ European Union≅ Member States

CBC Programme

Operational Programme

Programme Development

CBC Programme

Operational Project

Project Development

Programme Communication &

Engagement

Situation Analysis

Programme Communication &

Feedback

Application

Thematic Objectives

Reporting


8

biodiversity of ecosystems. Increasing urbanisation of the Mediterranean coasts, together with a

seasonal influx of tourist visitors, places strain on natural resources and the infrastructure of these regions. Rising populations and intensification of agriculture with industrial development has led to

pollution problems in the Mediterranean and Baltic. Expanding human populations can also lead to higher demand for resources, leading to the decline of fish stocks. In addition, to the knock-on

effects of coastal population growth, new challenges such as Climate Change, are likely to impact upon the ecosystems of a sea area and the activities it supports.

1.3.3 However, Europe’s sea and ocean areas also provide enormous untapped economic potential, particularly in respect to energy generation, natural resources, seabed mining, marine

biotechnology, etc. Development of these sectors, together with the revitalisation of traditional activities such as fisheries, aquaculture and tourism, could provide a sustainable source of jobs and

economic growth in a so-called “Blue Economy”.

1.3.4 Within the maritime cross-border programmes, the sea is considered an important programme

feature. However, the programmes also consider that a balance needs to be struck with other terrestrial priorities. As a result there was agreement among all responding programmes to this

document that the sea should be considered as “one of several features of the programme geography and only requires some co-operation activities to be related to it.” This consensus

has important implications to how maritime priorities and areas of intervention are structured

within programme development.

1.3.5 The following paper has been developed from a literature review of information concerning the marine areas surrounding the EU. In addition, it was augmented with responses to a questionnaire

provided by INTERACT to participating maritime cross-border programmes.

1.4 Defining Marine & Maritime Terminology 1.4.1 For the purposes of this document, the marine and maritime dimension are defined as follows:

• “marine” relates to the natural features and resources of the sea within a programme area. For example: habitats and ecosystems, biodiversity (wildlife and marine species), estuaries,

reefs, the seabed, mineral deposits, etc.

• “maritime” is defined as human activities which take place in or on the sea area of a

programme, take place on the coastlines and are influenced by the sea area of the programme or use/ depend upon the natural resources found within the sea area of a programme. For

example: shipping, coastal tourism, shoreline and sea recreation, fishing, etc.

1.5 EU Marine & Maritime Policy

1.5.1 During the 2007 to 2013 period, the cross- border cooperation programmes developed and

implemented funding priorities related to: Entrepreneurship; Natural Resources; Urban & Rural Areas; Transport & Communication Networks; Infrastructure, and; Employment and Equal Opportunities. By the beginning of 2007, EU marine policy was limited primarily to a

communication on Integrated Coastal Zone Management, one framework Directive to improve water quality and maritime safety directives following the losses of the Erika and Prestige. The

publication, however, of the Maritime Policy Green Paper in 2006 meant that the 2007-2013 programme period corresponded with a “step change” in the development of EU marine and


9

maritime policy; policies which did not exist when the original maritime cross-border programmes

(and associated priorities) were originally established. Maritime policy was therefore not fully elaborated at the time 2007-2013 Operational Programmes were developed. As a result, it has

been difficult to link programme activities to a comprehensive framework of maritime priorities.

1.5.2 By 2013 a marine and maritime policy framework has come into being at European level, together with an opportunity for programmes to investigate, as part of their situation analysis, how they can

link to this framework. It is however important that in doing so programmes contribute to the

overall cohesion of their respective areas by:

• Identification of the relevant challenges/needs/ assets of the territory to focus co-operation

activities on, and where territorial co-operation and working together will bring added value (AV) – these might include issues of maritime relevance, and;

• Identify on what level cross-border co-operation provides added value in the respective

territories – i.e. by mobilising what competences, how to engage the actors in the design of the programmes, and what governance structures already exist to support this.

1.5.3 Annex A provides an overview of the main marine and maritime policy developments to be

considered by the maritime programmes. It is not a complete picture. Figure 1.5.4 provides a

summary of all EU policies with a marine or maritime dimension, together with identifying the parent DGs that are responsible for them. The principle policy areas which may be potential

sources of projects are:

• Integrated Maritime Policy;

• Marine Strategy Framework Directive;

• Common Fisheries Policy;

• Integrated Coastal Zone Management;

• Maritime Transport;

• Ports;

• e-Maritime;

• Maritime Safety;

• Water Framework Directive, and;

• NATURA 2000 and associated Birds and Habitats Directives;

1.5.4 Annex A provides more in depth information about these policies. A principle concern is the

Integrated Maritime Policy, which introduces Sea Basin Strategies, Maritime Spatial Planning and the concept of Blue Growth. It is likely that these policies will shape or influence the marine and

maritime context of the Cross-Border Co-operation Programmes when taken up and implemented

at regional level. Sea Basin Strategies are likely to interlink with the policies identified in Section 1.5.4 and detailed in Annex A.


10

Figure 1.5.4: European Commission, Directorate Generals marine and maritime policy areas Figur 2

Source: K. Ounanian, et al: Marine Policy - Volume 36, Issue 3, May 2012, Pages 658–666

1.6 Macro Regions & Sea Basins in Europe 1.6.1 The following section provides case studies of where EU Policy is being cascaded to the Macro-

Regional and Sea Basin level, whilst being advised and shaped by the regional situation. Initiatives

such as the EU Strategy for the Baltic Sea and the Baltic Sea Plan then take the next step by developing more local/ regional initiatives. Sea Basin initiatives, such as the Adriatic-Ionian, may

also provide practical examples. As part of the questionnaire this document is based upon, an

analysis of the current stage of CBC programme development was undertaken. All responding programmes indicated that they had a clear understanding of the geographical strategy areas they

were within and the need to consider how these strategies may impact upon the CBC. Some programmes are within the areas of strategies which are yet to be agreed and finalised

(particularly with regards to sea basin strategies). The contribution of the CBC programmes to the priorities of the proposed strategies is therefore, still under discussion. In these circumstances the

role of the CBC programme ranges from being one of the main tools for strategy implementation to

treat this aspect rather “soft”, i.e. be in line with one another EU strategy. In some areas, the CBC programme does not lie within a strategy, this simplifies the decision making process as to how

marine and maritime projects should be developed and relies more heavily on national and regional authorities in the decision-making process, albeit with reference to policies at EU level.

Given programmes and strategies are developing within similar time schedules, it is possible that a

CBC addresses the issues as part of programme development, with the programmes undertaking awareness raising and providing information about the macro-regional and/ or sea basin strategy.

1.6.2 The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea: The European Union Strategy for the Baltic Sea

Region (EUSBSR) is the first macro-regional strategy in Europe. It aims at reinforcing co-operation within this large region in order to face several challenges by working together as well as

promoting a more balanced development in the area. The Strategy also contributes to major EU

policies and reinforces the integration within the area. The strategy aims to bring together


11

initiatives in different sectors and promote co-operation between stakeholders in the region. In

doing so, the strategy promotes “Flagship Projects”. The strategy is built around three objectives and a series of horizontal actions (Figure 1.6.2).

Figur 3

Figure 1.6.2: EUSBSR Objectives and Horizontal Actions

Source: EUSBSR

1.6.3 Marine and maritime issues are addressed directly by the Save the Sea objective. However, the

marine and maritime dimension, is also contained within the priorities which connect the region

(e.g. ports and maritime transport) and increase prosperity (e.g. coastal and maritime tourism, innovation, SMEs, etc). For further information: http://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/

1.6.4 Baltic Sea Plan: The plan was established to support the EU Integrated Maritime Policy by assisting the introduction of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) for the region and preparation of national

Maritime Strategies. The Plan was also designed to contribute toward the recommendation of HELCOM concerning broad scale MSP. The Baltic Sea Plan was based upon activities to:

• Improve the joint information base

• Include spatial planning in National Maritime Strategies

• Develop a Common Spatial Vision for the Baltic Sea

• Demonstrate MSP in 8 pilot area

• Lobby and capacity building for MSP.

1.6.5 MSP pilots were undertaken in the Danish Straits, Pomeranian Bight, Western Gulf of Gdansk,

Middle Bank, Lithuanian Coast, Western Coast of Latvia, Pärnu Bay, Hiiumaa and Saaremaa Islands. These pilot projects may be a source of best practice for the Cross-Border programmes given their

similar geographical scale and numbers of beneficiaries/ actors/ stakeholders.

For more information: http://www.baltseaplan.eu


12

1.6.6 Atlantic Strategy: Brings together five countries with Atlantic coastlines (France, Ireland,

Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom) at regional, local authority, business and stakeholder levels. The Strategy addresses 5 key areas of challenges and opportunities for the Atlantic Ocean:

• Implementing the ecosystem approach, particularly in respect to fisheries, aquaculture,

marine spatial planning and coastal zone management and observation systems;

• Reducing Europe’s Carbon Foot Print through offshore renewable energy and associated energy grid; reduction of green house gas emissions from shipping, shifting freight from road

to sea (Motorways of the Sea and Short Sea Shipping);

• Sustainable exploitation of the Atlantic seafloor’s natural resources, with respect to

mineral extraction, use of biodiversity for food, fuel and pharmaceuticals; access to research

data.

• Responding to threats and emergencies with respect to maritime safety, natural events, risk

assessment, prevention and preparedness, maritime security and surveillance;

• Socially Inclusive Growth with respect to high added value jobs in coastal areas, training for

maritime professionals, working conditions for fishermen and seafarers, regional clustering of

maritime industries and educational establishments, regeneration via use of tourism.

The Atlantic Strategy is well advanced, and on 13th May 2013, an Action Plan was approved to build on the Commission’s Atlantic Strategy, to “drive the “blue economy” in the area”, and “to

help create sustainable and inclusive growth in coastal areas.” The priorities of the Action Plan are:

• Priority 1: Promote entrepreneurship and innovation;

• Priority 2: Protect, secure and develop the potential of the Atlantic marine and coastal environment;

• Priority 3: Improve accessibility and connectivity, and;

• Priority 4: Create a socially inclusive and sustainable model of regional development

It should be further noted that the Action Plan makes a link between the funding of these priorities and the European Structural and Investment funds (ESIF). Give the advanced schedule of

the Atlantic Strategy, it is possible that it may form a ‘blue print’, which advises developing sea

basin strategies in other areas. For further information see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2013:0279:FIN:EN:PDF

1.6.7 While the strategic scale of the Atlantic Strategy, and the associated Action Plan, is far greater

than that of a single cross-border programme, it does provide a useful source of information concerning priorities and areas to focus upon where CBC Programmes lie within a Sea Basin

Strategy. This is with particular respect to the interaction between the ecosystem approach and

coastal zone management, renewable energy, cross-border shipping routes, threats and emergencies and socially inclusive growth; together with the priorities of associated Action Plans.

The potential for a cross-border region to provide land-based support services to offshore renewable energy and sustainable exploitation of natural resources could also be considered.

For more information:

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/atlantic_ocean/index_en.htm

1.6.8 Mediterranean Sea Policy: Bordered by 22 EU and non-EU countries the Mediterranean is a

complex web of maritime governance. The central policy framework is still provided by the


13

international Barcelona Convention and associated Mediterranean Action Plan. EU implementation

of the Integrated Maritime Policy is via three principle routes:

• Working Group for the Integrated Maritime Policy in the Mediterranean;

• Projects via European Neighbourhood Policy South programme (notably IMP-MED), and;

• Tripartite co-operation between the European Commission, European Investment Bank and

IMO.

For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/mediterranean_sea/index_en.htm

1.6.9 Adriatic- Ionian Seas: Alongside the Mediterranean initiatives is the separate sea basin strategy for the Adriatic- Ionian Basins. This strategy is based around 4 pillars:

• Maximising the potential of the Blue Economy

• Healthier Marine Environment

• A Safer More Secure Maritime Space

• Sustainable & Responsible Fishing Activities

For Further information, go to:

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/adriatic_ionian/index_en.htm

1.6.10 Arctic Ocean: The EU is currently developing a policy for the Arctic Ocean based upon a series of

studies. Areas of interest include: climate change, Arctic research, investing in sustainable development, reducing uncertainties and monitoring change, shipping and maritime safety. It

should be noted that the 2012 European Commission Joint Communication3 makes a link to funding

actions in these areas with the European Regional Development (ERDF) and other funds. For further information:

http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/arctic_ocean/index_en.htm

1.6.11 Black Sea: The Black Sea is bordered by 6 countries – including EU members Bulgaria and Romania. It is a popular tourist destination, important transport route and victim of extensive pollution. For

example, high levels of nutrients from fertilisers and sewage cause algae blooms, which deplete

oxygen in the water, killing marine organisms. The countries concerned have set up a commission to protect the Black Sea against pollution. Development of governance for the sea basin is

currently under discussion. For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/black_sea/index_en.htm

1.6.12 North Sea: Policy for the North Sea Basin has yet to emerge at member and neighbouring state

level. There are, however, developments at the regional level via the North Sea Commission. For

further information: http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/policy/sea_basins/north_sea/index_en.htm

http://www.northseacommission.info

3 JOINT COMMUNICATION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL; Developing a European Union Policy towards the Arctic Region: progress since 2008 and next steps {SWD(2012) 182 final} & {SWD(2012) 183 final}


14

Section 2: Integrating the Maritime Dimension into the 2014-2020 Programmes 2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 The following section provides an overview of areas of marine and maritime intervention included

in the existing programmes, and under discussion for the next period (2014-2020)- together with

the need for horizontal integration of marine and maritime priorities with traditional terrestrial ones. The Section has been developed, using the questionnaire responses of the programmes, to

focus upon possible marine and maritime areas of intervention which could be included in

programmes. The section then describes the importance of marine and maritime activity in the EU. Links to the macro-regional and sea basin strategies are then identified.

2.2 Existing and Potential Areas of Intervention

2.2.1 Potential Areas of Intervention: Given the policy areas identified in Section 1 of this report, the

Maritime Cross-Border Programmes were asked firstly to identify areas of maritime intervention

included in the 2007 to 2013 programme; and secondly to identify possible areas of intervention where the programmes could have a potential impact.

2.2.2 During the 2007 to 2013 period, eleven maritime areas of intervention were identified by the

maritime cross-border programmes (Figure 2.2.2 a). Figure 2.2.2b represents the possible areas of

marine and maritime intervention considered by the programmes for the 2014-2020 period. It is important to keep in mind that, according to the responses provided in the questionnaire,

programmes are still at an early stage of discussing and deciding on TOs for co-operation and deciding the focus/ concentration of activities within the TOs. Concerning maritime heritage,

there has been no EU policy development in this area, with the remit primarily being at national and local levels. Aquaculture may need some further consideration, given its potential as a growth

area to replace elements of wild fisheries and the added value of the products.

Figur 4

Figure 2.2.2a. Maritime Areas of Intervention (2007-2013), based on responses from six responding programmes.

B iotechnology; 2F is heries ; 2

Maritime Heritage; 2

Ocean renewable energy; 3

S hip building; 3

Maritime Governance; 4

Maritime & C oas tal Tourism; 6

Maritime Trans port; 6

Marine P ollution; 6

Marine C ons ervation; 6

Aquaculture; 4

OCT, Richard Hill


15

5

Figure 2.2.2b Possible Maritime Areas of Intervention (2014-2020), based on six responding programmes

Ocean renewable energy; 1

B iotechnology; 2; ; S hip building; 1

;

E nergy P roduc tion; 1

Maritime Transport; 5

Maritime Governance; 4

Aquaculture; 1

Marine C ons ervation; 6

F is heries ; 1

Marine P ollution; 6

Maritime & C oas tal Tourism;

5

OCT, Richard Hill

2.2.3 In the 2007 to 2013 programme period the principle areas of maritime intervention were marine

conservation, marine pollution, maritime transport, maritime & coastal tourism and maritime

governance. This remains the case for possible maritime areas of intervention in the 2014 to 2020 period. Provisionally, ocean renewables, energy production, biotechnology and ship building

remain as areas of intervention- but only in respect to single programmes. It should be noted, that in addition to the specific features of each programme area, it is important that identification of

priorities for co-operation take into consideration the specific policy priorities in the field – in the

case of renewables and biotechnology, the EU Integrated Maritime Policy encourages development, as has been seen with the growth in offshore wind energy. Potential conflicts between existing and

developing maritime uses, together with resolution, could also be considered; as part of Maritime Spatial Planning under Maritime Governance.

2.2.4 Notable policy areas that are not included, but could be considered as potential opportunities to be considered in a programme are marine mineral resources and aggregate extraction. Neither of

these areas was included in the 2007-2013 programme or preparation for the 2014-2020 programme; probably as mineral extraction is a deep sea enterprise. Although consideration of

aggregates could take place; as this is normally a coastal waters/ continental shelf activity which contributes to economic development in building and infrastructure construction. However, the

industry is successful, so as such there may not be a need for a direct intervention. That said, it

does have impacts to marine resources and conservation, so could be included in Maritime Spatial Planning activities.

2.2.5 Fisheries interventions do also not figure highly, the exception being two cross-border programme

for 2007 to 2013, and one indicating that this could be a topic in the future 2014-2020 programme. This may have links to the emerging framework under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), where

regional management is now being promoted. Although it could be considered, in relation to

changes in the workforce and associated social-economic structure of coastal areas as fisheries decline. There may also be some requirement for intervention as fisheries management devolves to

the regional level, or there is a need for added value projects linked to marketing, target species, value added initiatives.


16

2.2.6 Traditional marine energy production involving oil and/or natural gas did not figure in the 2007-2013 programmes, although it is being considered by one of the programmes responding to the

questionnaire as an area of intervention in the new period.

2.3 Horizontal Integration within Cross-Border Programmes

2.3.1 Although EU Maritime Policy has developed further since the original maritime cross-border

programmes were initially developed for the 2007-2013 period; the existing programme priorities do show a great deal of integration of potential marine and maritime areas of intervention and

potential project ideas. Horizontal integration of marine, maritime and coastal based priorities with more traditional terrestrial or freshwater should be seen as best practice in fostering an

integrated approach to programme delivery.

2.3.2 An example of horizontal integration is provided by existing 2 Seas Programme4, although the rest

of the responding programmes also demonstrate integration of marine and maritime issues in the current period. The current 2 Seas Programme has two relevant priorities, where maritime or

marine projects could be undertaken. Within these, the programme identified a number of possible marine or maritime related areas of intervention:

Priority 1: Creating an economically competitive, attractive and accessible area.

• Joint activities in the maritime economy (e.g. port development, logistics co-operation,

fisheries, etc.)

• Coastal and maritime tourism;

• Transport related pressure on infrastructure, environment and communities (driving force for

Short Sea Shipping and Motorways of the Sea), and;

• Eco-innovations.

Priority 2: Promoting and enhancing a safe and healthy environment

• Protecting and improving environment of Channel and North Sea;

• Environmental state of the seas;

• Risk of conflict of interest (waste disposal, fishing, tourism and transportation);

• Eutrophication and hazardous substances;

• Environmental risk prevention;

• Coastal defence;

• Environmental best practice;

• Maritime and port safety;

• Marine resources;

• Links to EU Marine Strategy Directive and Water Framework Directive and Natura

2000(demonstrates policy link);

• Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM), Maritime Resources and estuaries, and;

• Renewable energy and energy efficiency.

2.3.3 In addition, the 2Seas and adjacent Channel programme developed a common priority specifically dedicated to maritime issues. Such a system could be developed as a way of achieving economies

4 The example is based on review of the programme’s OP.


17

of scale so that programmes could share expertise for programme development and operational

review of project submissions.

2.3.4 The other responding programmes contained similar areas of intervention, particularly with respect to transport, ports and the environment.

2.4 Impact of Sea-Basin Strategies & Macro Regional Strategies 2.4.1 Results of the questionnaire survey from the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes can be used for

comparison with the priorities of the Sea Basin and Macro Regional Strategies. This provides an

indication of where these strategies may potentially impact on planning of programmes. At present the picture is incomplete, as the programmes have yet to decide on the choice of Thematic

Objectives . Although priorities have not been decided by the programming committees, at the

time of writing of this report, Figure 2.4.1 illustrates the most likely TOs for the new programmes, and where marine and maritime discussions will be integrated.

6

Figure 2.4.1 Proposed Thematic Objectives 2014-2020, based on responses from six programmes

; ;

Technological Development & Innovation; 2

Low C arbon E conomy; 2

C limate C hange Adaption, R is k P revention &

Management; 1

E mployment & S upporting Labour

Mobility; 2

S oc ial Inc lus ion & C ombating P overty;

1

S us tainable Trans port & Removing

Bottlenecks ; 3

Ins titutional C apac ity & E ffic ient

public Adminis tration; 0

S mall & Medium E nterpris es ; 3

Information & C ommunications Technologies ; 0

P rotecting the E nvironment & P romoting Res ource

E ffic iency; 3

E ducation S kills & L ifelong Learning; 1

OCT, Richard Hill

2.4.2 The key TOs which appear to be emerging as common for the maritime cross-border programmes

are:

• Protecting the environment & promoting resource efficiency (three programmes);

• Enhancing the competitiveness of small and medium –sized enterprises (three programmes);

• Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures

(three programmes).

2.4.3 In addition, although not prominent in the discussions at present, the low carbon economy may

become prominent as the relevance of off-shore energy sources increases. This would provide a linkage to priorities which seek to improve access to efficient energy markets at the macro

regional level.


18

2.4.4 Within programme discussions concerning possible TOs, protection of the marine environment and

resource efficiency links well to the concept of maritime spatial planning promoted by initiatives such as the Baltic Sea Plan and Atlantic Strategy/ Action Plan. Spatial planning also links well at

the macro regional level, for example via the EUSBSR horizontal actions on maritime spatial planning. By making a link to shipping navigation services and aids to navigation, the promotion of

sustainable transport & removing bottlenecks programmes could also assist maritime spatial planning initiatives. Once again, maritime transport improvements link well to macro regional

priorities on transport, such as priorities to improve internal and external transport links under

EUSBSR.

2.4.5 Marine environmental protection fits well with the objectives of other initiatives, such as HELCOM or the Mediterranean Action Plan. Within programmes the protection of the environment and

resource efficiency TO would link well to the ecosystem approach of the Integrated Maritime

Policy, and it’s implementation by Sea Basin Strategies, such as the Atlantic Strategy/Action Plan; where the TO could also interlink with fisheries, aquaculture and marine spatial planning. Marine

environmental protection will also link well to priorities at the macro region level, for example EUSBSR priorities on preserving biodiversity and fisheries and reducing nutrient inputs

2.4.6 Promotion of sustainable transport could also make a Sea Basin Strategy policy link to reducing

carbon footprints, particularly for shipping and the moving of freight from land transport to sea.

Sustainable transport would also link well to the risk assessment and prevention elements of responding to threats and emergencies from maritime transport, i.e. oil and chemical spills from

tanker accidents. It would also interlink well at the macro regional level, for example EUSBSR priorities concerning clean shipping and improving transport links.

2.4.7 In programme discussions within the Mediterranean and surrounding areas, links concerning

protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency TO could be made with the

objectives of the Barcelona Convention and its implementation under the Mediterranean Action Plan. This approach would also fit with the EU Working Group on the Integrated Maritime Policy in

the Mediterranean. Although this is likely to have a wider remit than the Sea Basin Strategies for other areas (see Section 1.5 and annex A). The TO would also be supportive of macro regional

policies for the sustainable use of fisheries. It should also be noted that support to SMEs can also

be applied to the fisheries and aquaculture sectors as an area of intervention.

2.4.8 Given the development of the Sea Basin Strategies, programmes could consider providing support through enhancing institutional capacity and an efficient public administration. Similarly, it would

enhance the horizontal actions of macro regional strategies, for example the action of the EUSBSR concerning multi-level governance. However, when deciding incorporating this type of priority or

the allocation of funds, programmes should consider the existing governance frameworks,

particularly the ones addressing the programme territory (if such exist), how to create links to these and promote added value.

2.4.9 Horizontal integration with maritime areas of intervention could take place within programmes

considering TOs linked to research, technological development and innovation, the low carbon economy and climate change adaptation, risk prevention & management. If taken forward, these

would link well to the carbon foot print reduction, responding to threats and socially inclusive

growth objectives of Sea Basin Strategies, for example concerning the Atlantic or the Adriatic- Ionian Basins. Technological development and innovation could link to the sustainable exploration


19

of the sea floor, but care should be taken with these types of innovation given the lack of

competitiveness of such enterprises where technology is in the early stages of development. Such activities are likely to be outside the programme area, so investment could be limited to shore

based support projects. Once again, there will be cross-over with the policies at the macro regional level, for example the innovation priority of the EUSBSR.

2.4.10 Changes in employment structures, such as that due to the decline in fisheries, could also be

considered in TOs which promote intervention in employment and supporting labour mobility. It is

noted that a number of programmes consider marine pollution as an area of intervention. In doing so, they have made a strong link with shipping, particularly maritime tanker traffic. It is hardly

surprising given the past experiences of the Sea Empress, Aegean Sea, Erika and Prestige. A number of issues should be kept in mind. Firstly, that land based sources of marine pollution

(notably nutrient enrichment and industrial chemicals) can have a chronic impact on the marine

environment that can far outweigh an oil spill; secondly, operational spills from ships during cargo transfer and day to day activities can be as equally harmful; and thirdly hazardous and noxious

chemicals carried at sea have serious public safety and environmental risks in addition to oil transport. It should also be kept in mind during programme development that whilst the EU does

provide policy (particularly with respect to port state and flag state controls), the regulation of ship source marine pollution is largely determined at the international level (e.g. the MARPOL

Convention).

2.5 Overview of the Marine & Maritime Aspects of European Seas 2.5.1 EU statistical analysis of coastal regions is undertaken at NUTS3 level, and for maritime, marine

and coastal activities is now being based upon sea basins. For statistical analysis, the EU has defined the following sea basins: North Sea, Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Baltic Sea and North

East Atlantic Ocean (not including overseas territories and Arctic). It is within this framework that

the Maritime Cross-Border programmes sit. It would be useful follow-up work to see if the trends and issues identified in this section apply to, or are contrary to, information concerning each of

the programme areas.

2.5.2 The NUTS 3 areas can be subdivided into sea basins (figure 2.5.2). It should be noted that data

coverage is not complete in all areas, as some basins are bounded by non-EU countries. This is the case in the North Sea, Mediterranean, Adriatic and Black Sea. Unless otherwise stated, all statistics

in this section are provided from Eurostat.


20

7

Figure 2.5.2 Coastal regions in the EU, by sea basin and by NUTS 3 regions

Source: Eurostat

2.6 Fisheries 2.6.1 Wild fish stocks in the waters surrounding the European Union are considered to be a common

resource. The industry that exploits these resources provides a key economic activity for the coastal and fishing port communities of member states. Alongside these natural resource stocks, is

the development of commercial fish farming and aquaculture. Total fishery production (landings of

wild fish and aquaculture/ fish farming) in 1995 was over nine million tonnes for the EU, this declined by 35% to just over six million tonnes by 2010. By 2010, three member states accounted

for 43% of total catches and production. These were Denmark (14%), Spain (16%) and the United Kingdom (13%). However, there is no indication as to what proportion of these landings are

transported to other EU member states.

2.6.2 Whilst there has been a decline in overall fish production, aquaculture (the farming of fish,

molluscs, crustaceans, aquatic plants and other aquatic organisms) has remained stable, at between 1.2 to 1.4 million tonnes between 1995-2010. By 2010, four member states led

aquaculture production: Spain (20%), France (17%), United Kingdom (16%) and Italy (12%). Combined, these states accounted for two thirds of total EU aquaculture production in 2010.

However, it should be realised that among the EU’s near neighbours in EFTA, Norway’s production

of nearly 280 thousand tonnes outstrips the combined output of the five largest EU producer states. It should be further noted that Norwegian production has not remained static, increasing by

a staggering 267% from 1995 to 2010. Figures show that the static statistics for the EU as a whole mask fluctuations between member states. Whilst France, Italy, Germany, Denmark and the


21

Netherlands have decreased production; others, UK (115%) and Greece (270%), have increased

output during the same period.

2.6.3 Continued productivity is also dependent upon sustaining and improving marine environmental quality, particularly with respect to fishing grounds, the spawning and nursery areas used by target

species during their life cycle. Similarly, aquaculture is reliant on maintaining good water quality, particularly in respect to shellfish production and fish farming.

2.6.4 In 2010 wild fish catches were led by Denmark (17%), Spain (15%), United Kingdom (12%) and France (9%). However, this 53% of the total 2010 EU catch was a decline from the 60% in 1995.

Between 1995 and 2010, there has been a decline of 39% in total wild fish catches to the EU. Primarily this is due to a sharp reduction in the Danish catch, and accompanied by smaller declines

by France, Spain and the United Kingdom. With approximately three quarters of the EU catch, the

most important fishing areas for the EU are the North East Atlantic, Eastern and Central Atlantic, Mediterranean and Black Sea.

2.6.5 Different species command different monetary values. In 2010, the total value of the EU catch was

€6627 million. Of all the EU countries; Spain (€1869 million), Italy (€1148 million) and the UK (€719 million) had the highest value fish landings in 2010. In terms of volume; Denmark, Spain and the UK

make the highest landings. Once again the EFTA countries lead EU member states, Iceland has a

similar volume of landings to Denmark, but the species caught provide 43% more value (€807 million). Similarly, the value of Norway’s landings (€1758 million) exceed those of all EU countries,

with the exception of Spain.

2.6.6 In 2010, the EU fishing fleet comprised nearly 84 thousand vessels, with a combined tonnage of 1.75 million. Greece has the largest proportion of the fleet (20%), although these are

comparatively smaller vessels than other countries. Greece, together with Italy (16%), Spain (13%)

and Portugal (10%) make up 60% of the EU fleet’s vessels. However, in terms of tonnage, 56% of the EU fleet is retained by Spain, UK, Italy and France. The fleet, corresponding to fish catches, is

declining. This decline is also reflected in Norway and Iceland.

2.6.7 Trends within fish production, together with changes in aquaculture activity and the fishing fleet

may provide opportunities for intervention. The continued decline in wild fish catches raises the potential need for retraining and avoidance of social exclusion of former fishing communities.

There is also the potential for economic regeneration and reutilising of fishing infrastructure and redeployment of the workforce. The static aquaculture production figures for the EU indicate that

there may be a need, particularly at the SME level, to improve competitiveness with neighbouring countries such as Norway. The need to maintain productive wild fish stocks and inshore

aquaculture through good environmental quality makes an important link to sea basin strategies

and could be a focus for project development. Before developing projects, however, there may be a need to define the importance, or potential, of fisheries to the programme areas- given the

current figures are based on larger sea basin fishing areas. Similarly some consideration should be made of the importance of each programme areas fishing fleet and the factors impacting upon it.

These activities could form the basis of project support as the Common Fisheries Policy devolves to regional management.


22

2.7 Maritime Transport 2.7.1 Maritime shipping provides the main mode of transportation for EU imports and exports to the rest

of the World. Approximately two fifths of the EU’s external freight trade is seaborne; short sea shipping also plays a significant role in intra-EU trade between member states and with EFTA

countries. Almost 90% of European external freight trade is seaborne, with short sea shipping representing 40% of intra-EU exchanges in terms of ton-kilometres (when compared to road and

rail).

2.7.2 In 2010, EU ports handled an estimated 3.6 billion tonnes of goods. The trade was dominated by

the North Sea ports, which handled 38.3% of all maritime goods handled in EU coastal regions (figure 2.3.2). Approximately 15% of the total tonnage of goods handled in EU ports was via ports

in the Netherlands, with the UK ports being the second largest handler of goods in and out of the

EU (14.1%). Italy dominates the Mediterranean port activity, primarily due to its industrial base and gateway to southern Europe from the Mediterranean. Spain and France also handle significant

amounts of freight, having ports on the coasts of both the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic. The three largest EU ports, both in terms of gross weight of goods and volume of containers

handled, are all in the North Sea Region. These are Rotterdam, Antwerpen and Hamburg. Rotterdam alone accounting for more than 10% of the total EU tonnage in 2010. In addition, Seven

of the EUs top 10 Short Sea Shipping ports are located within the NSR: Rotterdam, Antwerpen,

Hamburg, Immingham, Goteborg (Baltic), London (Thames Estuary) and Amsterdam.

2.7.3 Outside of the Netherlands and Southern North Sea area, six other coastal regions have significant port activities. In France the region of Seine-Maritime has the ports of Le Havre and Rouen, which

handle freight for the Channel and North East Atlantic trade. On the southern coast of France, in the Mediterranean sea basin, the region of Bouches-du-Rhône handles the largest proportion of

freight due to Marseille. A similar dominance of certain regions is also seen in the Baltic

(Trojmiejski in Poland with the ports of Gdansk and Gdynia) and in the Black Sea with Constanta in Romania (Figure 2.7.3).


23

8

Figure 2.7.3 Total gross weight of maritime goods handled in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, 2010 (1) (million tonnes)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: mar_go_aa)

2.7.4 Maritime passenger traffic is dominated by ferry activities in EU waters, and not cruise ships (see

Section 2.9.4). In 2010, 395.6 million passengers were moved in and out of EU ports. Activity is centred amongst regions which provide access routes across sea basins, or routes to island

communities within sea basins (notable in the France/ Italy region and areas bordering the Ionian

Sea), Figure 2.7.4. This is demonstrated by the Attiki region of Greece where the port of Piraeus serves the Greek islands. Napoli is also a significant region in Italy, with Kent and Pas-de-Calais

providing the basis for the cross Channel trade between UK and France. Massina is also notable for the volume of passengers between mainland Italy and Sicily, and also provides connections to Malta

and Tunisia. In the Baltic the Skåne Iän and Stockholms Iön of Sweden are notable for their large ferry connections around the Baltic, as is the Danish Region of Vest-og Sydsjælland which links to

other parts of Denmark and Germany.


24

9

Figure 2.7.4 Maritime passengers in EU coastal regions by NUTS 3 regions, 2010 (1) (1 000 persons)

Source: Eurostat (online data code: mar_go_aa)

2.7.5 Trends within maritime transport may provide opportunities for intervention. Deep water port

regeneration or construction can be seen as a potential route to economic regeneration of coastal areas. However, in order to be able to do this a proposed port must have at least four qualities:

access channels that can take deep water ships (12-20 metres in depth), sufficient anchorages to

cope with large numbers of vessels, space to store containers and bulk cargoes, and access to the European hinterland by rail, road or inland waterways. This is why the deep water ports are

situated in their historic locations. However, two areas of possible intervention exist and that is: the provision of port services (navigation, logistics management, infrastructure, etc) to increase

efficiency and maintain safety at large ports. Secondly is the development of short sea shipping

routes and ports which move cargoes in smaller vessels (particularly containers via ro-ro) to and from the deep water ports from smaller feeder ports. These would take advantage of the

motorways of the sea concept to alleviate congestion and bottlenecks on traditional land based routes.

2.8 Renewable Energy

2.8.1 Wind Energy: Industry figures indicate that in 2011, Europe was the global leader in offshore wind energy with more than 90% of the world’s installed capacity. By 2012 the industry had installed and


25

grid connected 1662 turbines. These totalled 4995 MW in 55 windfarms established offshore in 10

member states waters. This represented a 31% increase in offshore capacity from 2011. In European waters, the average size of a wind turbine was 4 MW. The average size of an offshore

windfarm is 271 MW. Developments in technology allow turbines to be sited in average water depths of 22 metres at average distances of 29 km from the shore. It should be noted that the

offshore wind energy industry require not only turbines but superstructure suppliers, cable suppliers and transmission connectors to the grid supply. Growth in the industry has also seen a

corresponding development in support and installation vessels capable of operating in deeper

waters and harsher sea conditions. Technology continues to develop with the construction of larger turbines. In 1995 the average turbine rated capacity was 0.5 MW, by 2012 it was 4MW (source:

European Wind Energy Association).

2.8.2 The industry envisages that by 2020, a quarter of Europe’s wind energy could be produced

offshore. During 2012, 31 companies announced plans from 38 new models of turbine, 52% of these companies being European. In 2012, the offshore wind capacity in MW was dominated by the UK

(73%). The other main EU member states being Belgium (16%), Germany (7%) and Denmark (4%). Geographically installations are predominantly located in the North Sea (80%), Atlantic (16%) and

Baltic (4%). It should, however, be noted that the Mediterranean is seeing a growth in consents for new installations. The EU is a market world leader in offshore wind energy capacity at 90%. The

nearest competitors are China (9%) and Japan (1%). Although it should be noted that Korea, the

USA and Israel are developing new types of offshore wind turbine (source: European Wind Energy Association).

For further information see: http://setis.ec.europa.eu/technologies/marine-energy

2.8.3 There are also key developments which will lead to further EU and EFTA growth. These include the

North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative, UK- Norway Interconector and the Norway- Germany

Interconnector. 5

2.8.4 Wave energy generation in the EU is developing. Developments are likely to be based around shoreline and near shore devices, although there is the potential for installations to be placed in

deeper waters where wind energy facilities cannot be located. The EU Commission Strategic

Energy Technologies Information System (SETIS) indicates that “Europe's economic and technical electricity production potential from ocean wave energy is around 150-240 TWh per year. In terms

of resources, the Atlantic arc from Scotland to Portugal is the most favourable area. Taking baseline assumptions, SETIS forecasts that the installed capacity of wave energy will reach 0.9 GW

in 2020 and 1.7 GW in 2030. Taking assumptions of the maximum potential for wave energy, forecasts predict capacity in the EU-27 of up to 10 GW by 2020 and 16 GW by 2030. This would

generate 0.8% and 1.1% of the EU-27 electricity consumption projected for 2020 and 2030

respectively.” (source: SETIS)

2.8.5 Unlike wind energy, there are a number of barriers to wave energy generation. These include:

• Not cost competitive due to technology being in early stages of development and lack of

grid framework and connections;

• High licensing and authorisation costs, combined with complex procedures, and;

5 European Wind Energy Association


26

• High construction and maintenance costs.

These factors combine to effectively exclude SMEs.

2.8.6 Similar issues impact upon other developing forms of energy generation involving: salinity

gradients, ocean thermal energy conversion and marine current energy converters. For further

information see: http://www.eu-oea.com . It should, however, also be noted that the “Blue Growth” policies of the integrated maritime policy, concentrate primarily on the more developed

wind energy industry (see Section 1.3.2). This is a reflection of the confidence in tried and tested technology.

2.8.7 Trends within renewable energy may provide opportunities for intervention: The major issue for

programmes assessing renewable energy projects is achieving a good return for investment. Wind

energy appears to be a relatively achievable investment, with tidal and possibly wave energy secondary. Other forms of marine renewable energy may be too high a risk beyond small scale

feasibility studies. Another option may be in the planning of grid systems in order to make these multi –collection systems which different forms of energy generation can link to. This then brings

forward the idea of multi-energy generation areas rather than just wind turbines- enabling sustainable use of sea space.

2.9 Coastal & Marine Tourism

2.9.1 Two sets of statistics provide an indication of the significance of tourism in marine and coastal areas. These are for cruise passengers and tourist accommodation in coastal areas. However, these

should be treated with caution as they do not provide an indication of widespread water-based

recreation (sailing, wind surfings, jetski, etc) in coastal waters, nor do they include niche markets which may make promising intervention areas for SMEs such as marine wildlife watching,

recreational/ sport fishing, diving, etc.

2.9.2 Within the EU in 2009 there were approximately 28.1 million tourist bed spaces (hotels, campsites, etc.). Of these, approximately 17 million were in coastal regions. The largest amount of tourist

accommodation is found around the Mediterranean (7.1 million bed spaces) and North East Atlantic

(4.9 million bed spaces). Within these basins, most tourist accommodation is concentrated along the coastlines of France, Italy, the UK and Spain. Figure 2.9.2 provides information on tourist bed

density on sea basin coastlines.


27

10

Figure 2.9.2 Density of tourist accommodation in hotels, campsites and other tourist accommodation in EU coastal regions, by NUTS 3 regions, 2010 (1) (bed per km2)

Souce: Eurostat (online data code: tour_cap_nuts3 and demo_r_d3area)

2.9.3 The bed density information could be useful in demonstrating the need for identifying areas where interventions could promote growth in the tourist economy, but also to define areas (as with the

Adriatic, Mediterranean or Ionian Sea) where there is a danger of tourist populations overwhelming

resources and undermining the environmental assets of an area, particularly with respect to natural areas and environmental quality (e.g. water and air pollution).

2.9.4 The vast majority of maritime passenger traffic in EU waters is generated by ferry traffic.

However, there is a small, but high value proportion generated by the cruise ship industry. Although only 2-3% of all passenger traffic from EU ports in 2009 was related to the cruise industry,

this actually represents over 10.5 million people. However, this annual figure fell by 7% between

2009 and 2010- probably as a reflection of the recession.

2.9.5 Figure 2.9.5 demonstrates that the cruise industry is dominated by traffic in the Mediterranean sea basin, which accounts for 66.5% of all cruise passengers in the EU. The next most significant

regions being the North East Atlantic, presumably due to the dominance of Southampton as a

cruise gateway port and the Baltic Sea which has a tradition of circum sea cruises.


28

11

Figure 2.9.5: Percentage (%) Cruise Ship Passengers by Sea Basin

Source: Eurostat (online data codes: mar_pa_aa

2.9.6 Cruise ship related projects are often proposed as a source of economic regeneration for coastal

regions. These should be approved with caution. The industry is well established, and revolves

around traditional cruising waters and ports. The only likely source of intervention, as an economic

benefit, is likely to be as a result of departure, visiting and arrival ports reaching capacity and needing to overspill into other areas. In such cases these are likely to be in adjacent regions and

not new cruise routes in other sea basins.

2.10 Natura 2000 Network (Marine Protected Areas)

2.10.1 Natura 2000 sites can be designated on both land and water. This is done primarily with the

designation of Special Areas of Conservation under the Habitats Directive. It should also be noted that as well as SACs, there are significant numbers of Special Protection Areas (SPA) designated in

coastal and estuarine areas under the Birds Directive. Marine SACs provide not only protection at EU level, but contribute to the international network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

2.10.2 Marine SACs include a diverse range of habitats, from the near shore to deep sea. The network

includes reefs or lagoons, intertidal areas, areas which are always covered by the sea or areas near

the sea which is used by marine wildlife. Marine Natura 2000 areas should be protected by various conservation measures to deal with issues such as over-fishing, land based pollution from sewage

or agriculture, risks from shipping traffic, etc.

2.10.3 In 2011, the EU undertook an update of the Natura 2000 lists. The update concerned six out of the

nine EU bio-geographical regions, these were the Alpine, Atlantic, Boreal, Continental, Mediterranean and Pannonian regions. The update of the Natura 2000 lists concerned sixteen


29

Member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy,

Lithuania, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the UK. The number of "Sites of Community Importance" has increased by 166, expanding the network by nearly 18 800 km².

More than 90% of this area, 17 000 km², was designated for marine sites, primarily in the Atlantic biogeographic region (the UK, France and Belgium), but also in the Mediterranean (Greece and

Cyprus). At present the total area of the EU seas covered by some form of protection is 145 000 km². This includes a range of MPAs in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Atlantic.

2.10.4 The update provided protection to a number of new sites further offshore than previous designations. In the Atlantic, the UK additions feature 9 coldwater reefs, including reefs off

Rockall Island which are biodiversity hotspots home to coral, sea spiders and numerous as yet unnamed species. In the Mediterranean, the new sites were provided or the protection of

endangered species.

2.11 Marine Pollution

2.11.1 The majority of marine pollution originates from land based run-off from agricultural, urban and

industrial areas into rivers and estuaries. Figure 2.11.1 illustrates the percentage by weight of marine pollution sources around the globe.

12

Figure 2.11.1 World Sources of Marine Pollution

Source: GESAMP 1990, The State of the Marine Environment, United Nations Environment Programme

2.11.2 Marine pollution can be further defined by type:

• Degradable wastes: organic material that can be biologically broken down by bacteria from

organic compounds to stable inorganic compounds such as carbon dioxide, water and ammonia. Sources include agricultural waste, urban sewage, food processing waste, industrial

waste and oil spillages. If the rate of accumulation exceeds the rate of bacteriological degradation, wastes can accumulate and lead to the deoxygenation of water. In certain cases

anaerobic bacteria will produce hydrogen sulphide and methane;

• Fertilizers: Similar to organic wastes. Nitrates and phosphates from agricultural land run-off

into the sea causing algal blooms which can lead to eutrophication and anoxic conditions;

• Dissipating wastes: Primarily industrial sources which rapidly loose the damaging properties

after entering water. For example heat from industrial effluents, acids and alkalis with localised impacts due to “buffering” of sea water, some material such as cyanide, where

impact is normally restricted to area of outfall;


30

• Conservative wastes: Substances which cannot be broken down by bacterial action and do not dissipate, but react with plants and animals to bioaccumulate within organisms and

biomagnify up food chains. Includes wastes such as heavy metals, halogenated hydrocarbons, organochlorines, and radioactivity;

• Solid wastes: Inert wastes such as litter, plastics, fishing gear. Waste can smother habitats and/or clog the feeding and respiratory structures on animals, reduce light penetration

through the water column causing a reduction in photosynthesis by marine plants. Can also include: dredge spoil, mining waste, coastal dredging for aggregates, fly ash from power

stations, china clay waste, etc.

2.11.3 Pollution from degradable pollutants and fertilizers has been identified as a problem in the North

Sea, particularly the area of the German Bight. The Wadden Sea is particularly at risk to algal blooms due to nutrient enrichment. The Black Sea has also seen the build up of hydrogen sulphide,

with degradable waste from agriculture and industrial activity causing eutrophic conditions. The growth of towns and cities has also contributed to the nutrient loading leading to algal blooms. The

situation is similar in parts of the Mediterranean, with surrounding cities and industrial areas

creating hot spots. Problems are acute in enclosed sea basins, however the fringes of the Atlantic sea basin are not immune, with localised algal blooms in the Channel, and the estuaries and

coastal waters of surrounding countries.

2.11.4 Due to their long retention time conservative pollutants such as heavy metals and organochlorines have been identified as a pollution problem in the North Sea, Baltic, Black Sea and Mediterranean,

together with estuarine areas of the Atlantic. Given the risk of acute damage to natural resource,

ecosystems and the socio-economic fabric of EU coastlines there is a concern amongst programmes from ship source pollution. This is primarily centred upon oil spills, although it should be noted

that all the types of possible pollutant discussed in this section are carried as bulk and container cargo by vessels in EU waters. There is an increasing realisation that pollution from ships carrying

Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS) can pose risks, in addition to that of oil transportation.


31

Section 3 Key Marine & Maritime Actors and Stakeholders 3.1 Introduction

3.1.1 There are a number of methods which can be utilised to identify maritime stakeholders. The following section outlines three possible options. These are:

1. Maritime Jurisdiction 2. Sectoral Actors and Stakeholders

3. Marine Resource Specific

3.1.2 The section will discuss the stakeholders already identified by the Maritime Cross-Border

Programmes and will then outline methods for stakeholder engagement and involvement.

3.2 Maritime Jurisdiction

3.2.1 Stakeholders who could be involved in programme or project development can be determined by those national government organisations and decision-makers with responsibility and jurisdiction

over an area of sea and its resources; together with those users or stakeholders who work within or

are licenced to use resources or the seabed within this legal framework. For example:

• Aquaculture facilities (fish pens, mussel rafts, etc);

• Oil and natural gas production;

• Wind turbines and other offshore electricity generation;

• Aggregate dredging and other mineral extraction;

• Ports (particularly with respect to development and dredging operations);

3.2.2 The key legislation which establishes sovereignty and member state powers is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). This international convention establishes a national

government’s rights to exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing the resources of the surrounding sea area (water, seabed and subsoil). Figure 3.2.2 (next page) summarises the

sovereignty and jurisdiction of a nation state under UNCLOS.

3.2.3 Given the nature of the maritime cross-border areas, programmes will generally be dealing with

project proposals which concern the internal (estuarine), territorial (out to 12 nautical miles), contiguous and possibly part of the Exclusive Economic Zone (12-200 nautical miles). The distance

of these areas in cross-borders will be curtailed due to one member state abutting the waters of another member state, however, it is useful to understand the system where programme areas

border open ocean or are adjacent to non EU Member states.


32

13

Figure 3.2.2: Maritime Sovereignty under UNCLOS

Source: Fisheries & Oceans Canada

3.2.4 Individual member states will have established a legislative framework for the governance of their sea areas, for example the UK frame work (figure 3.2.4).

14

Figure 3.2.4: UK Legislation- Marine Jurisdiction

Source: UK Marine Management Organisation

3.2.5 Such legislative frameworks (as the UK’s) establish which key decision makers should be involved.

For example planning and development decisions in the UK down to the mean low water mark

normally fall under the jurisdiction of a local authority. Works affecting a port will normally require consent from a harbour authority. The setting up of structures such as wind turbines will


33

require the consent of the Marine Management Organisation (MMO). The framework can often be

confusing and is not the same for every EU Member state. For example, under the German federal system, an individual state’s jurisdiction extends to 12 nm, with the Federal Government taking

responsibility for the EEZ. In contrast a UK local or unitary authority’s jurisdiction only normally extends to the low water mark.

3.2.6 However, the framework also establishes which statutory agencies should also be consulted or

approvals sought from. In England this can involve the Environment Agency (for discharges to air

and water), the relevant Inshore Fisheries and Conservation authority, Natural England, Maritime and Coastguard Agency, Joint Nature Conservation Committee and various ministries within central

government (particularly those with respect to energy, transport and fisheries), etc. There are also key Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

(RSPB) and the Wildlife Trusts who would be involved as consultees in associated environmental

impact assessments for coastal or offshore developments.

3.3 Sectoral Stakeholders 3.3.1 The users of a given coastal and sea area will be diverse; including shipping companies,

recreational users (boats, windsurfing, diving, etc), inshore and deep sea fisheries, aquaculture,

aggregate dredging, renewable energy generation, oil and natural gas companies, etc. Not all these activities stakeholders will be readily identifiable under the Maritime Jurisdictional

framework (Section 3.2). It should also be noted that many trade associations for ports, shipping, renewables, etc. will have European or international level representation which is often outside of

the programme area, although their members may be engaged in activities within the programme area.

3.3.2 In such circumstances, a more complete picture of a sea area’s key stakeholders may be to identify which maritime sectors operate within or use a cross-border area. There is no definitive list of key

stakeholders for a given programme area, indeed there is likely to be significant variation across a programme area and between different programmes. However, the key to identifying an area’s

stakeholders comes from understanding which maritime sectors use the sea within a programme.

Such identification can form part of a comprehensive stakeholder analysis system: which is a process of identifying individuals or groups that are likely to affect or be affected by a proposed

action and then sorting them according to their impact on the action and the impact of the action on them. The goal being to develop co-operation between the stakeholder and the programme or

project.

3.3.3 In the context of maritime activities, a stakeholder can be defined as generally those who have an

interest in or are affected by a decision. Stakeholders are also those who have influence or power in a situation. Stakeholders’ interests in an issue can be monetary, professional, personal, or

cultural, or can arise from a host of other motivations.6

3.3.4 The development of Maritime Spatial Planning (see Section 1.4.6) in EU waters provides a good example of how stakeholders can be identified for a sea area such as a maritime cross-border

programme. The basis for stakeholder involvement is set out in COM(2010) 771 final: All

6 NOAA: Coastal Services Centre, Introduction to Stakeholder Participation


34

stakeholders should be involved early in the MSP process. This is essential when looking for

synergies and innovation and for making the goals and benefits of the process clear. An open debate must take place between the different sectors in order to identify conflicts and a means of coexistence between them. It is important to demarcate roles and responsibilities and encourage interaction between stakeholder groups and not just between policy-makers and stakeholders.

Stakeholder Involvement: Baltic Sea Example

The Baltic Sea Plan demonstrates how this policy can be put into practice. The Plan defines stakeholders in Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) as those individuals, groups and/or organizations that: • Are or will be affected by MSP decisions;

Are dependent on the resources of the management area where MSP decisions will be taken; Have or make legal claims or obligations over areas and resources within the management area; • Have special seasonal or geographic interests in the management area and • Have a special interest in the management of the area. Stakeholders are “individuals, or groups, or organisations, that are (or will be) affected, involved or interested (positively or negatively) by MSP measures or actions in various ways.” Based upon this definition the Baltic Sea Plan has been able to identify stakeholder groups and the sectors which are likely to be involved in MSP, figure 3.3.6. This methodology is documented within: BalticSeaPlan Report 24: Stakeholder Involvement in MSP by Tim-Ake Pentz. A similar approach could be applied to Maritime Cross-Border Programme development, possibly as part of the Situation Analysis. BalticSeaPlan MSP Stakeholder Groups & Sectors

3.4 Marine Resource Specific Stakeholders 3.4.1 An alternative method of stakeholder identification is based upon determining the marine

resources of a given area and then identifying those stakeholders who utilize that resource. This is a methodology that has been used in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) and initiatives based upon the

sustainable use of marine resources such as Marine Spatial Planning in North America.


35

3.4.2 When applied to an MPA, such as a Nutura 2000 offshore Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) or a

coastal Special Protection Area (SPA), the purpose is to identify all those stakeholders who utilise the natural marine/ coastal resources of a given geographical area. Given the detailed

understanding of an areas marine resources, it is likely that at this stage of Programme and Sea Basin Strategy development in the EU, such a process should be undertaken at a project level

scale, for example for a group of MPAs, a length of coastline for ICZM, management of an estuary or river basin. Figure 3.4.2 demonstrates Stakeholder identification for a EU MPA near Malta, note

the more localised type of stakeholders.

15

Figure 3.4.2 Marine Protected Area (MPA) Stakeholder Groups

Source: Prassede Vella, Robert E. Bowen and Anamarija Frankic: An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholder-influenced indicators of coastal change: the case of Marine Protected Areas (Malta)

3.5 Stakeholders identified by the Maritime Cross-Border Programmes

3.5.1 Maritime Cross-Border Programme answers to the INTERACT Questionnaire demonstrate that there

has already been maritime stakeholder engagement by the programmes for the 2014-2020 programme period, Figure 3.5.1.


36

16

Figure 3.5.1: Numbers of different types of Maritime Stakeholders identified by the Maritime CBC Programmes 2013

2 S eas ; 12

IP A Adriatic ; 20

C BC Italy‐ F rance; 16S outh Baltic ; 16

ÖK S ; 10

C entral Baltic ; 26

OCT, Richard Hill

3.5.2 Further analysis of the types of stakeholders involved during the 2007-2013 Programme Period

(Figure 3.5.2), demonstrates a similarity with those involved in examples of MSP and MPA management, so it is likely that similar methods of stakeholder identification and engagement

could be applied at programme and project levels. 17

Figure 3.5.2: Maritime CBC Stakeholders (2007-2013). Number indicates total number of programmes which had this type of stakeholder.

4

6

5

6

5

5263

5

6

5

24

4

42 3 3

5

Coastguard organisationsShip companiesNational administrationsCoastal administrations (local and regional)Port authorities/companiesCoastal management authorities (ICZM)NGOsMarine environmental managers Tourism agenciesRecreational organisationsChaimbers of commerce with maritime membersUniversities and research institutionsTraining organisationsCounter pollution organisationsMeteorogical organisations Hydrographic officesMarine management authoritiesHealth and safety organisationsAquacultureFisheries management

Source: OCT, Richard Hill

3.5.3 It should be noted that, traditionally, CBC Programmes are focused on involving local and regional

actors. The participation of national actors has usually being based on the benefits their support

creates for the Programme area, and in the 2007-2013 period their participation in cross-border cooperation has been limited.

The figure above however illustrates the wide range of actors involved in cross-border cooperation

through maritime activities. In many cases, these are specific thematic actors and represent

unique niche in the cooperation stakeholder spectrum. It is therefore advisable for programmes to


37

identify and target these potential stakeholders in order to engage and involve them from the

beginning of the programme period and in order to make them aware of the Programme. Such involvement of maritime actors, on the one hand, provides an expression of the added value

maritime programmes create, and is beneficial for providing early feedback to the programme design, for creating ownership, and for the development of relevant and good quality projects

during programme implementation.


38

Section 4: Factors for Programme Development and the Assessment of potentially successful Marine & Maritime Projects 4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 The following section sets out how marine and maritime issues could be integrated within project

development, it then sets out the factors that should be considered by the assessment phase of an

operational programme on receiving a marine or maritime project application. Development of a marine or maritime project should be no different from any other well managed CBC project.

However, the decision making process of those who review applications should be adapted to ensure marine & maritime considerations form part of the selection process.

4.2 Factors for Programme Development & Horizontal Integration

4.2.1 Marine and maritime factors which will influence programme development will primarily originate from the current situation in the programme area, as documented in the Situation Analysis. This

should be informed by policy, key actor and regional strategy (Sea Basin Macro-Regional) drivers.

4.2.2 Discussions with the responding CBC programmes indicate that there is general agreement that

marine and maritime programme priorities should be integrated horizontally across all programme priorities, rather than have a specific “stand-alone” marine/ maritime priority. Examples of the

types of projects that could be achieved through horizontal integration across Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities are included in Annex C. These demonstrate that with proper stakeholder

engagement and awareness raising of the relevance of CBC Programmes to funding marine and

maritime projects a diverse variety of projects can be integrated across all TO and investment priorities.

4.3 Assessment of Proposed Projects 4.3.1 The generic assessment process relates to the following phases:


39

The following section sets out issues that could be considered when developing a CBC programme

where there is likely to be a marine and maritime component.

4.4 Eligibility Check 4.4.1 An Eligibility Check is undertaken to ensure that an application is compliant with the requirements

of the call for proposals. Primarily these are administrative requirements, such as ensuring

applications are delivered by the call deadline, to the right location, all required documentation has been provided, appropriate signatures are in place, budget limits and ratios are in place, etc.

4.4.2 The eligibility check should also consider issues such as the minimum number of partners and

minimum number of countries that should be involved. Normally this is within the administrative framework of the CBC, and in a traditional cross-border environment where there are two

participating countries it is a relatively simple matter. However, within multi country CBC

programmes there may be a need to consider whether the composition of a partnership could lead to the desired impact. This is particularly relevant where a CBC programme is within the area of a

Sea Basin or Macro Regional Strategy and wishes to support the goals and objectives of those strategies. This has particular relevance where a strategy wishes to encourage synergies and

collaboration between SMEs, research and academic institutions, stakeholders and decision makers

(see Section 3). 4.5 Strategic Assessment 4.5.1 The Strategic Assessment should define how appropriate a proposed project is to the

implementation framework of a programme, i.e. is the application relevant to the thematic

objectives and investment priorities of the programme? Project proposals are normally checked

against their contribution to policy developments. For those programmes which find themselves within Macro -Regional or Sea Basin strategies, it may be particularly useful to assess the relevancy

or contribution a proposed project makes to the priorities and objectives of these strategies. This is particularly relevant where a CBC programme has incorporated marine and maritime issues as

part of horizontal integration across all priorities (see Section 4.3). During programme implementation, it may be possible to have a specific marine/ maritime call which is in line with

the goals and objectives of the relevant Sea Basin or Macro- Region Strategy. It may therefore be

advantageous for a CBC Programme, which wishes to support a Sea Basin or Macro Regional Strategy, to develop eligibility criteria which reflect objectives of the strategy the programme area

is within.

4.5.2 Section 2.2 provides an indication of the areas of marine and maritime interest the CBC

programmes are currently considering. In addition, responses to the questionnaire and discussions at the Brussels workshop demonstrate the CBC programmes areas of interest which may form part

of the programmes Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities. These may include:

• Marine Pollution

• Coastal Protection

• Coastal Tourism

• Maritime Transport

• Maritime Governance


40

‐ Integrated Coastal Zone Management

‐ Maritime Spatial Planning

• Marine Conservation

4.5.3 CBC Programmes set to develop maritime governance related actions, should consider how they link to the frameworks provided by the Sea Basin or Macro- Regional Strategy. Responses from the

CBC programmes to the questionnaire this document is based upon indicate that the contribution

of a number of CBC Programmes to maritime governance is still under discussion, although areas of interest where the programmes could provide support include maritime/ marine spatial planning

and integrated coastal zone management. It should, however, be kept in mind that in some areas Maritime Spatial Planning and ICZM have long lasting traditions as a source of projects. It is

therefore very likely that these aspects will be included in future programmes. When undertaking a strategic assessment of a marine and/ or maritime project, programmes may wish to consider the

following questions:

4.5.4 Does the project have a clear goal with coherent objectives linked to work tasks? Section 2 of

this document demonstrates that the framework of governance for marine areas can be complicated. A project should therefore have a clear goal for what is hoped to be achieved within

the framework of governance. This can be achieved in two ways (although innovation should be encouraged). Firstly a project should attempt to concentrate on one specific area of impact,

Section 4.2 and Annex C demonstrate that maritime projects can be focused on specific priorities.

Secondly, however, it is also worth considering a project methodology based around the interaction of stakeholder groups and the sustainable use of resources. For example management

of Marine Protected Areas in relation to fisheries, navigation access to ports and renewable energy developments, protection of tourist resources from marine pollution, etc.

4.5.5 Is the project’s partnership compatible and does it have the necessary and equal powers? This is a particular area of difficulty both in terms of project assessment and operational projects.

Legal powers may be held at different levels of governance within neighbouring member states. The problem can be further compounded if powers rest with one legal entity in one member state

and are divided between two or more across the border in a neighbouring member state. In order for a partnership to be compatible it should ensure that all those with similar powers and

jurisdictions be involved in a project either in the partnership or via clear communication. The

problem is particularly apparent in shipping and navigation related work. For example navigation powers and responsibilities can be divided between government ministries, statutory agencies and

ports. The problem is less apparent in conservation and MPA issues, where responsibility for Natura 2000 sites usually rests with one agency. However, assessment should be aware of the wide

spectrum of interest groups and NGOs which have an interest in site and species conservation.

4.5.6 Will project co-ordination build professional relationships and trust which lead to joint work? Ideally the use of co-ordinated tools within such as ICZM or Maritime Spatial Planning should encourage joint work. However, it should be kept in mind that marine and maritime projects are

operating in an environment where there is potential competition for resources and disagreement at times between partners/ beneficiaries on different sides of a border (or at different levels of

governance) on how to apply tools for the sustainable use of resources. These issues are likely to

be apparent in the implementation of Sea Basin Strategies, particularly in respect to Maritime Spatial Planning. Figure 4.5.6 demonstrates the envisaged development of working relationships

during the life span of a project. Where there is a disagreement between partners over a particular


41

task or group of tasks, there is a tendency for projects to stall at one of these levels, with

individual partners compartmentalising their work and proceeding to implement their part of the project in isolation from the partnership. It is therefore reasonable for a Programme to take

particular interest in assessing how disagreements will be resolved and what procedures are in place to reach agreement and compromise to achieve working together.

18

Figure 4.5.6 The “degrees of co-operation” illustrate that the more the co-operation area crosses through these different stages of intensity and integrates public policy, the more the partners are tied by common decisions which in turn facilitate the integration of the co-operation area.

Source: Developed by Dr. Joachim Beck, Director of Euroinstitut, Kehl (www.euroinstitut.org) in the course of a joint intervention of PROGNOS (www.prognos.com) and VIAREGIO (www.viaregio.com)

4.5.7 Are provisions made for implementing the project outcomes? Projects are likely to provide a

series of outcomes. However, to achieve an impact within a marine area there is a need for

comprehensive implementation. Key to this is ensuring that those with responsibility for

implementation are working together on both sides of a border (see above). To achieve this, it is advisable that one element of a project be a “implementation road-map” which works both within

and after the life cycle of a project to ensure that there are the necessary resources in place to implement the project outcomes. One problem with marine and maritime projects is that the

geographical area for implementation can be too large to achieve implementation. It is therefore advisable for the assessment process to consider if implementation is presented in general or

specific terms. Projects which identify specific MPAs, port facilities, navigation channels, areas of

seabed, etc. where the project is to be implemented are more likely to achieve an impact than those that talk in “concept terms” about the sea area of the programme. At the very least, a

project should attempt to identify specific locations or subdivide the sea area into recognisable units for implementation. Such implementation should then be documented within the

“implementation road-map”. Another good indicator of a project which can have a practical

impact is where the application indicates a pilot or trial area, with an intention to “roll-out” project outcomes to a wider sea area. This should be based on an assessment process, which will

allow programmes to monitor progress.

Degrees of co-operation

(1 = least developed)

6. Implementation - Joint implementation of actions, efficient joint management, fulfilment of requirements by each partner

5. Decision - Binding commitment of partners, partnership agreements

4. Strategy / Planning - Defining joint objectives and developing a concrete actions

3. Coordination / Representation - Creating a joint partnership structure, first allocation of functions and roles

2. Information - Developing (targeted) exchange of information, building basic co-operation structures and trust, shaping co-operation ideas

1. Meeting - Getting to know each other, learning about motivation, interests, needs, skills, expectations, cultural and structural aspects


42

4.6 Operational Assessment 4.6.1 Operational Assessment goes normally hand-in-hand with Strategic Assessment. This is an

assessment of a proposed project’s viability and feasibility, together with it’s value for money -

both in terms of budget and in terms of resources used versus results obtained.

4.6.2 The assessment of a marine or maritime project should be no different from any other application.

The framework of a project in terms of planning, task structure, schedule of work, deliverables/ outcomes, management structure and communication with stakeholders should be assessed in a

similar way. However, there may be a need for programmes to have access to marine/ maritime expertise to ensure that projects are effectively providing this framework within the maritime

structure of governance and in keeping with international, European and member state policy.

Specialist marine and maritime expertise may also be required to assess if a project is practically and realistically achievable.

4.6.3 Development of an effective marine and maritime project is dependent on a number of factors.

The project developer needs to take into account the framework the project operates within. Unlike previous terrestrial, and to some extent coastal, based projects; a marine or maritime

project must be aware of how to make local and regional aspirations workable within a structured

framework of maritime governance which has policy and legislative drivers at member state, EU, sea basin and International levels. In respect to marine and maritime projects, the Operational

Assessment may wish to consider:

4.6.4 Will the project communicate and account for progress with stakeholders and decision makers?

Section 3 of this document demonstrates the level of stakeholder involvement that should be

achieved by a marine or maritime project. It is not sufficient to just keep stakeholders “informed”. The successful implementation of a marine or maritime project is very dependent upon whether

the group of stakeholders for the sea area the project is to be implemented consider the project relevant to them or sufficient to inspire a spirit of “community ownership” between stakeholders.

Similarly, the success, or otherwise, of a project is also dependant on if it will be taken into

account by decision makers. It is therefore advisable that the operational assessment determines if a project has a mechanism to involve and communicate with all relevant stakeholders and decision

–makers, and then feedback their concerns into the project to ensure the project outcomes are modified to ensure it is relevant to those it aims to influence. This is the particular case for MPA,

ICZM and MSP based projects. It may also be relevant to fisheries and shipping based projects. One particular issue will be how to influence marine users who are not resident within a programme

area, for example fishing vessels that use the sea area of a programme from ports outside the

programme area, or merchant ships which passage through a programme area between ports outside of the programme.

4.6.4 As part of the questionnaire this document is based upon, responding CBC programmes where

asked to provide details of projects to be considered good examples of best practice. Information about these projects is contained within Annex D.


43

Section 5: Conclusion and Next Steps 5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 The following concluding section provides a summary of the main factors that will support the

development of marine and maritime projects within the CBC Programmes. It then briefly discusses the link between the CBC Programmes and the emerging Sea Basin and Macro-Regional Strategies.

Finally the section identifies a series of “Next Steps” that have been identified by the participating CBC Programmes. Areas of potential future work by INTERACT are also defined.

5.1.2 Discussions at the meeting with six maritime cross-border programmes in May 2013 in Brussels indicated it was possible to integrate marine and maritime actions horizontally with the Thematic

Objectives and Investment Priorities of a programme. Annex C to this document provides examples of the types of project which could undertaken if the marine and maritime dimension is integrated

within programme Thematic Objectives and Investment Priorities. It is therefore possible to encourage the development of marine and maritime projects by reflecting these issues within

programme development and encouraging participation through stakeholder engagement (Section

3), without developing Thematic Objectives.

5.1.3 The identification of the common Thematic Objectives will then present an opportunity for the maritime cross-border co-operation programmes to jointly develop maritime expertise and

economies of scale in these areas by sharing their knowledge and experience. In addition, this

presents an opportunity for considering cross-programme analysis and even evaluation of marine and maritime project proposals. Should programmes consider these options, they can already think

about allocating budget (and planning for) such activities while preparing the new programmes.

5.2 The context of Macro-Regional & Sea Basin Strategies

5.2.1 All programmes that responded to the questionnaire and participated at the workshop are aware of

macro-regional and sea basin strategies being developed and the potential to influence and impact upon programmes and potential projects. In some cases the links between CBC Programmes are

well developed, for example the Baltic. However, in other areas the links are not so well established and there is a need for a continued dialogue between programmes and strategies to

determine their joint relationship and the support that could be provided. The development of the relationship between the programmes, Macro-Regional and Sea Basin Strategies could be an area

of further work for INTERACT to support the CBC Programmes.

5.2.2 Based on discussions at the workshop, May 2013, programmes have expressed an opinion that in

the 2007-2013 period the marine & maritime dimension is present in the programmes’ context. This was evident from analysis of projects approved in the current period; and the type of

marine/maritime topics which were covered, during the 2007-2013 period. Programmes recognise

that understanding and visualising how the marine and maritime dimension features in projects gives the necessary focus for the programmes. In addition, it was also noted that where projects

with a marine or maritime character were not recognised as such, it can result in the focus of programmes on such issues being diluted.


44

5.2.3 Maritime programmes have stated that the marine & maritime dimension is the most natural/ unique denominator for co-operation. It provides maritime cross-border programmes with a unique

identity and scope for action where they can prove clear added value (also in terms of the types of stakeholders that they can engage/ mobilise).

5.3 Main Factors that support the development of marine and maritime projects

5.3.1 Policy areas which are likely to be a continuing source of projects, as with previous programmes

are those related to maritime safety, marine pollution, renewables and systems such as ICZM.

Although there is a foundation of policy for maritime safety and ship source marine pollution at EU level, the principal policy is cascaded from the international level, and assessment of project

proposals should ensure these policies are taken account of in order for projects to be

implemented effectively. These will need to be considered alongside maritime transport policy generated at EU level.

5.3.2 Reform of the Common Fisheries policy may also be a source of projects, and it should be noted

that fisheries has been identified within proposed TOs. The development of offshore Natura 2000 sites, particularly marine SACs is likely to continue to provide a source of potential projects. The

main policy area, however, likely to be a significant source of project ideas is the Integrated

Maritime Policy. This is particularly with respect to Blue Growth and the development of Maritime Spatial Planning. It should be noted that the Integrated Maritime Policy has established the

concept of Sea Basin Strategies, and that this policy area has been cascaded down to the regulations which advise the establishment of the new CBC programmes for 2014-2020.

5.3.3 Although top-down policy cascade will prove a source of projects, the bottom up flow of

aspirations within programme areas will remain an important driving force. Statistics generated

from NUTS 3 level demonstrate important processes affecting maritime activities with respect to where cruise ships operate, valued coastal tourism areas, decline in fisheries and renewable

energy development. There is also likely to be a significant modification of policy to meet local needs, particularly in respect to national policies concerning coastal protection and flood defence.

5.3.4 The ability of operational programmes to provide funding relatively quickly within 6 to 12 month cycles between calls, makes these funding structures attractive to project developers reacting to

emerging issues. Project development of marine pollution and maritime safety projects following the loss of the Erika and Prestige demonstrates this. The comparatively recent Costa Concordia and

Baltic Ace shipping accidents have led to some projects looking at navigation safety in the final calls of the existing programmes. The recent chemical pollution incidents in the western Channel

may also indicate a change in focus on ship source pollution projects to the implications of

Hazardous and Noxious Substances (HNS). The variety of potential projects lends weight to the concept of horizontal integration of marine and maritime projects across a range of TOs and

priorities, as demonstrated in Section 4.3.4. Provision of focused marine and maritime project selection guidelines, based upon previous INTERACT work concerning project assessment and

selection and this background document, could be an area of further INTERACT work to support CBC Programmes.


45

5.4 Next Steps

5.4.1 Joint discussions between INTERACT, Commission representatives and the CBC Programmes at the

Brussels Workshop identified three next steps for the CBC Programmes with marine and maritime interests. These are:

• CBC Programme Input to European Marine days;

• Provision of Marine & Maritime Expert Advice to CBC programmes, and;

• Joint Information and Experience Exchange between CBC Programmes.

5.4.2 Maritime programmes have recognised the opportunities from continuous exchange and

capitalisation on maritime issues. These opportunities are in terms of strengthening co-operation and networking among the maritime programmes as well as from analysis of maritime projects and

themes, providing opportunities for cross-programme evaluation on maritime issues, etc. In this way maritime programmes can develop knowledge and share expertise on maritime issues.

Richard Hill 23rd June 2013.


46

Annex A: EU Marine & Maritime Policy A.1 Integrated Maritime Policy: The EU has recognised that competition for marine space and the

cumulative impact of human activities on marine ecosystems require a collaborative and integrated approach to the wide range of policy areas affecting maritime issues. As a result, in October 2007,

the Commission adopted the Blue Paper launching ‘An integrated maritime policy for the European Union’ (COM(2007) 574 final). The aim of the Integrated Maritime Policy is to achieve

the full economic potential of the seas in harmony with the marine environment. It is the first

time a policy has brought together all the sectors that affect the oceans. The policy seeks to maximise the sustainable use of oceans and seas, enhance Europe’s knowledge and innovation

potential in maritime affairs, ensure development and sustainable growth in coastal regions, strengthen Europe’s maritime leadership and raise the profile of maritime Europe. The policy

recognises the complex interaction of stakeholders and interests in the EU maritime sector. As a result the policy is designed to provide a more coherent approach to maritime issues, with

increased coordination between different policy areas. It focuses on issues that do not fall under a

single sector-based policy e.g. "blue growth" (economic growth based on different maritime sectors), and; Issues that require the coordination of different sectors and actors e.g. marine

knowledge. A.2 The EU Integrated Maritime Policy is based around five policy areas:

• Blue Growth: is the long-term strategy for sustainable growth in the EU maritime sector. It is

based upon identifying challenges, highlighting synergies between sectoral policies, studying interactions between different activities and determining their potential impact on the marine

environment and biodiversity. Being cross-sectoral, it shares similar policies to the cross-border programmes with respect to removing administrative barriers, investing in research and

innovation and promoting skills through education and training. The initiative focuses on: Short Sea Shipping, coastal tourism, offshore wind, desalination and use of marine resources in

the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries.

• Marine Data and Knowledge: is based around the Marine Knowledge 2020 green paper. The

aim of this initiative is to assist industry, public authorities and researches find and make more efficient use of data in developing new products and services. By doing so it will improve

understanding of how the seas behave. The initiative is based around the European Marine

Observation and Data Network (EMONET).

• Maritime Spatial Planning: a structure for planning and regulating of all human uses of the sea, while protecting marine ecosystems. It focuses on marine waters under national

jurisdictions and is concerned only with planning activities at sea. The aim of this policy area

is to balance frequently competing sector-based interests. It should be noted that the Integrated Maritime Policy recognises that Maritime spatial planning remains a prerogative of

individual EU countries. However, plans for shared seas should be compatible, to avoid conflicts and support cross-border co-operation and investments. Common principles agreed

at EU level can ensure that national, regional and local maritime spatial plans are coherent.

• Integrated maritime surveillance: Previously, maritime surveillance policy was developed

through Maritime Safety, principally the so-called Erika Directives. Within the Integrated Maritime Policy, a link is made to the Common Information Sharing Environment (CISE) being

developed jointly by the European Commission and EU/EEA member states. The objective is to


47

integrate existing surveillance systems and networks and give all concerned authorities access

to the information they need for their missions at sea. CISE aims to make different systems interoperable so that data and other information can be exchanged easily through the use of

modern technologies.

• Sea Basin Strategies: a policy to promote growth and development of strategies that exploit

the strengths and address the weaknesses of each large sea region in the EU, including the North Sea. It should be noted that this policy area is being implemented by the individual sea

basin strategies (see Section 1.5, below).

A.3 Marine Strategy Framework Directive: otherwise known as the “Marine Directive”, is intended to be encompassing legislation which aims to protect the marine environment and natural resources.

To achieve this, the Marine Directive establishes a framework for the sustainable use of marine

waters. The Marine Directive was adopted in 2008. It forms a pillar of, and links to, the Integrated Maritime Policy. The objective of the directive is to achieve Good Environmental Status (GES) of

the EU’s marine waters by 2020, whilst protecting the resources the Community’s marine-related socioeconomic activities depend upon. The directive integrates the concepts of environmental

protection and sustainable use by using the ecosystem approach to manage human activities which have an impact on the marine environment. The Directive establishes European marine regions and

links to the Regional Sea Conventions, such as OSPAR and HELCOM, at international level. In order

to achieve the GES by 2020, each member state is required to develop a strategy for their marine waters, which are kept up to date and reviewed on a 6 year basis.

A.4 Common Fisheries Policy: Following the realisation that overfishing of stocks was bringing about a

decline in the EU fishing industry, particularly in the Mediterranean and Atlantic, the EU has

commenced the process of reforming the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The objective is to bring fish stocks back to sustainable levels. An important element of CFP reform has been the devolving

of fisheries management to a regional level. For further information, go to: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/reform/proposals/index_en.htm

A.5 Integrated Coastal Zone Management: The Integrated Maritime Policy does not cover direct

management of coastal zones or spatial planning of the sea-land interface where coastal

development and port activities take place, but it should be noted that some Sea Basin Strategies are integrating it within their own activities. Currently, this policy area is defined by

Recommendation 2002/413/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the implementation of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) in Europe. The recommendation

defines the principles of sound coastal planning and management. It predates, but is complimentary to the Integrated Maritime Policy. The recommendation was established in

response to the perception that coastal planning activities or development decisions were often

taken in a sectoral, fragmented way, leading to inefficient use of resources, conflicting claims on space and missed opportunities for more sustainable coastal development. The Recommendation

on ICZM defines the principles of coastal zone planning and management. These principles include: the need to base planning on sound and shared knowledge, the need to take a long-term and

cross-sector perspective, to pro-actively involve stakeholders and the need to take into account

both the terrestrial and the marine components of the coastal zone. With the advent of the integrated maritime policy, the EU is currently preparing a follow-up draft proposal to the

recommendation which will bring ICZM policy in line with the Integrated Maritime Policy. For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/home.htm


48

A.6 Maritime Transport: The EU’s maritime transport policies aim to prevent substandard shipping,

reducing the risk of serious maritime accidents and minimising the environmental impact of maritime transport. EU legislation also concerns working conditions within the maritime transport

sector and the protection of consumers’ rights. In 2009, the European Commission updated its ‘Strategic goals and recommendations for the EU’s maritime transport policy until 2018’

(COM(2009) 8). The two main recommendations concerned: the ability of the maritime transport sector to provide cost-efficient maritime transport

services adapted to the needs of sustainable economic growth of the EU and world economies,

and; the long-term competitiveness of the EU shipping sector, enhancing its capacity to generate

value and employment in the EU, both directly and indirectly, through the whole cluster of maritime industries.

A.7 The joint aims of a cost-efficient maritime transport services which ensures the long-term capacity of the EU shipping sector are dependent on the continuing safe and efficient access to

ports. Access is not only important at a cross-border or regional level, but also at an EU scale. The policy sets out that by 2018, the capacities of the EU’s maritime transport system should be

strengthened by putting in place an integrated information management system to enable the identification, monitoring, tracking and reporting of all vessels at sea and on inland waterways.

The policy also contributes towards the creation of an integrated cross-border and cross-sectoral

EU surveillance system and exchange of information networks amongst national authorities. The maritime transport policy also interlinks with the Integrated Maritime Policy by recognising the link

between shipping and the Marine Directive by ensuring that Member States are able to achieve "good environmental status" in marine waters covered by their sovereignty or jurisdiction by 2020,

as required by the new Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

A.8 Ports: In October 2007, the European Commission adopted a ‘Communication on a European ports policy’ (COM(2007) 616), focussing on capacity, freedom of access, competition, flexible employment and the environment. It aims to help concentrate efforts so that the EU’s ports can

face future challenges, attract new investment and fully contribute to the development of intermodal transport. The European Ports Policy, in keeping with other EU Policies, also links to

the ICZM policy. For further information:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0008:FIN:EN:PDF http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/index_en.htm

A.9 e-Maritime: The EU e-Maritime Policy aims to promote the use of advanced information

technologies within the maritime transport sector. A key aim of the policy is to encourage interoperability between port information systems. The objective is that such systems will provide

quality and efficiency gains in port operations.

For further information:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/maritime/e-maritime_en.htm

A.10 Maritime Safety: Following the losses of the Erika and Prestige tankers in 1999 and 2004, there has been a multitude of policies and legislative instruments. Some are relevant to ETC Programmes,

whilst others are not. INTERREG and ETC have funded a number of safety related projects, and

indeed a co-ordination initiative between several transnational programmes (during the 2000-2006 period). With the loss of the Costa Concordia and recent pollution incidents in the Channel, it is


49

likely that ETC Programmes continue support for such activities. The following are probably the

most relevant policy areas:

• Initial policy development centred upon port state control, standards for ship inspections, etc. Perhaps the most relevant policy area for project development is related to provision and use

of port waste reception facilities (Directive 2000/59/EC), given that operational spills from

cargo handling and cleaning of oil and hazardous and noxious cargo tanks can be as damaging as accidental releases in certain circumstances (for example the sea bird deaths of the south

coast of the UK in 2013).

• The first maritime safety package focused upon port state control, classification societies and

the replacement of single hull tankers. These issues are largely within the remit of national governments at international level.

• The second maritime safety package dealt with the establishment of the European Maritime

Safety Agency (EMSA) and compensation funds. However, it also established Community monitoring, control and information systems for maritime traffic, primarily through

SAFESEANET. Monitoring and information exchange concerning shipping has become a key area

in logistics, ship management, safety and pollution prevention. It has been the focus of previous Interreg projects linked to Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), e-Maritime (see

above) and the advent of the concept of e-Navigation. These are established areas for innovative technology based maritime projects.

• The third maritime safety package examined improvements in the quality of EU shipping, port state control, further traffic monitoring and places of refuge, together with ship source

pollution, classification societies, accident investigation and compensation to passengers. It is significant, as the programme of work for this package was completed in 2012, so it is likely

that there will be new policy developments during the life time of the 2014-2020 programming period.

A.11 It should be noted that whilst there has been legislation at EU level, maritime safety is primarily an

international responsibility requiring close co-ordination between EU policy and international

conventions. The link between EU Policy and the international level is provided by the Maritime Transport Policy. The policy supports the work of the specialised international organisations in the

maritime transport field, including the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the

International Labour Organisation (ILO), WTO and the World Customs Organisation (WCO), as well as its strong and growing network of bilateral maritime transport agreements and dialogues with

key shipping and trading partners. As part of this, the member states and EU will push for a comprehensive international regulatory framework for shipping, suited to face the challenges of

the 21st century.

A.12 Water Framework Directive: Adopted in 2002, the Water Framework Directive has been

implemented around the aims of:

• expanding the scope of water protection to all waters, surface waters and groundwater

• achieving "good status" for all waters by a set deadline

• water management based on river basins

• "combined approach" of emission limit values and quality standards

• getting the prices right


50

• getting the citizen involved more closely

• streamlining legislation By improving the water quality of river basins, the directive could bring about improvements in the

receiving waters of estuaries and wider coastal sinks.

A.13 NATURA 2000: Is the well established system of conservation sites and associated policies which

seek to protect and enhance the EU’s biodiversity. It is built around the foundations of two directives:

• The Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) established a network of protected sites and a system of

species protection. The directive seeks to protect over 1.000 animals and plant species and

over 200 so called "habitat types" (e.g. special types of forests, meadows, wetlands, etc.), which are of European importance, and;

• The Birds Directive (79/409/EEC, as amended by 2009/ 147 /EC) bans activities that directly

threaten birds, such as the deliberate killing or capture of birds, the destruction of their nests

and taking of their eggs, and associated activities such as trading in live or dead birds, although it does include exemptions. The Directive recognises hunting as a legitimate activity

and provides a system for the management of hunting to ensure that this practice is sustainable. This includes a requirement to ensure that birds are not hunted during the

periods of their greatest vulnerability, such as the return migration to the nesting areas, reproduction and the raising of chicks. It requires Member States to outlaw all forms of non-

selective and large scale killing of birds. It promotes research to underpin the protection,

management and use of all species of birds covered by the Directive.

A.14 With the advent of the Marine Directive, the Natura 2000 network is now being applied to marine sites, primarily via the designation of Special areas of Conservation (SAC) under the Habitats

Directive. All three directives have been an important policy source for previous project and programme development, and it is likely that this will continue under the next programme period.


51

Annex B: Methods of Stakeholder Engagement and Involvement

B.1 The following section sets-out different methods for maritime stakeholder engagement and

involvement. Whichever methods is used, it should be tailored to the geographical area

involved and the programme or project resources available. It should be noted that the majority of these methods are already common practice within projects and programmes.

Advisory Group/ Taskforce: Small group of people representing various interests that is set up to advise a programme or project on actions. Advisory groups can be multi-year

or indefinite arrangements, while task forces usually complete a single task and then disband.

Charette: Intense, multi-day effort to design something or solve a problem. There are

multiple versions of the charette, most of which include a design team that attempts

to translate stakeholder input into a form that could be implemented.

Field trip: Trip to specific location organized so that participants can match their mental images to real locations and conditions. Participants may be asked to express

their reactions verbally or in writing.

Focus Group: Small discussion group led by a facilitator who draws out in-depth

stakeholder input on specific questions. Normally, several focus groups are held, and participants can be chosen randomly or to approximate a subset of the stakeholders or

maritime sector.

Hotline: Widely advertised telephone number that directs callers to someone in an

agency who can answer caller questions and collect input.

Internet: Dialogue between agencies and stakeholders using Internet technology such as chatrooms, on-line bulletin boards, e-mail, and Web conferencing.

Interview: Face-to-face or telephone interaction with stakeholders conducted by the

agency or by a third-party representative.

Large/ Small Group Meetings: After an opening presentation, the group is broken into

smaller groups to discuss an issue or group meeting complete a specific task. Summaries of small group discussions and an open comment period may follow.

Open House: Event in which the public is invited to drop in at any time during an

announced period. Event includes staffed booths or stations on specific topics and may

precede a public meeting.

Poll, Survey or Questionnaire: Written or oral lists of questions to solicit stakeholder impressions about issues at a specific moment in time. Polls and surveys can be

administered in person, or via the telephone or Internet.


52

Public Hearing: Formal, single meeting where stakeholders present official statements

and positions, and those ideas are recorded into a formal record for delivery to the agency.

Public Meeting: A large public comment meeting where the participants stay together

throughout the meeting and make comments to the entire audience. Public meetings are less formal than a public hearing.

Referendum A direct vote by the whole electorate on its support of specific proposals or courses of action. Referendums should be preceded by public participation so that

the options before voters are credible. Note: this method should be used with care as many of those involved in programmes are either elected officials or representatives

of democratically elected bodies which already have a mandate to take decisions.

Retreat: A concentrated yet informal meeting away from the typical work setting that

emphasizes social interaction as well as discussion of issues.

Community Meeting: A less formal public hearing where all stakeholders have the opportunity to speak on an issue.

Workshop: Small stakeholder gathering, typically fewer than 25 people, designed to complete a specific assignment in a short time period.

Source: Adapted from Introduction to Stakeholder Participation, NOAA Coastal Services Centre.


53

Ann

ex C

:H

oriz

onta

l Int

egra

tion

:Ex

ampl

esof

Poss

ible

Mar

ine

&M

arit

ime

Proj

ects

Dis

clai

mer

:Th

efo

llow

ing

tabl

ede

mon

stra

tes

that

itis

poss

ible

t oin

clud

em

arin

ean

dm

arit

ime

proj

ects

unde

rth

epr

opos

edTh

emat

icO

bjec

tive

san

dIn

vest

men

tP r

iori

ties

.Th

e se

exam

ple

proj

ects

are

very

gene

rald

escr

i pti

ons

and

indi

cati

veon

ly.

The

tabl

esh

ould

bese

enas

aso

urce

ofin

spir

atio

nan

dno

tas

anex

haus

tive

list

ofpr

ojec

tid

eas.

The

proc

ess

ofde

velo

pmen

tof

mar

ine

and

mar

itim

epr

ojec

tsw

ithi

nea

chPr

ogra

mm

esh

ould

besu

ppor

ted

byth

ean

alys

isof

the

evid

ence

base

and

the

expe

rien

cefr

omth

eim

ple m

enta

tion

ofth

ecu

rren

tp r

ogra

mm

e.

Them

atic

Obj

ecti

ve

Inve

stm

ent

Prio

rity

Exam

ple

Proj

ects

(a)

enha

ncin

gre

s ear

chan

din

nova

tion

(R&

I)in

fras

truc

ture

[…]

and

capa

cit i

esto

deve

lop

R&Ie

xcel

lenc

ean

dpr

omot

ing

cent

res

ofco

mpe

tenc

e,in

part

icul

arth

ose

ofEu

rope

anin

tere

st;

•Li

nked

tom

arit

ime

acti

viti

es,

part

icul

arly

wit

hre

spec

tto

fish

erie

s,aq

uacu

ltur

e,m

iner

alex

trac

tion

,re

new

able

ener

gy(w

ind,

wav

e,ti

dal)

,et

c.Fi

sher

ies

and

aqua

cult

ure

infr

astr

uctu

rein

clud

ing

prod

ucti

on,

stor

age

and

tran

spor

tto

mar

kets

.Pa

rtic

ular

atte

ntio

nco

uld

focu

son

mai

ntai

ning

qual

ity

ofpr

oduc

tsbe

ing

mov

edac

ross

bord

ers;

(1)

stre

ngth

enin

gre

sear

ch,

tech

nolo

gica

l dev

elop

men

tan

din

nova

tion

thro

ugh:

(b)

prom

otin

gbu

sine

ss[…

]in

vest

men

tin

inno

vati

onan

dre

sear

ch,

and

deve

lopi

nglin

ksan

dsy

nerg

ies

betw

een

ente

rpri

ses,

R&D

cent

res

and

high

ered

ucat

ion,

inpa

rtic

ular

prod

uct

and

serv

ice

deve

lopm

ent,

tec

hnol

ogy

tran

sfer

,so

cial

inno

vati

onan

dpu

blic

serv

ice

appl

icat

ions

, de

man

d st

imul

atio

n,ne

twor

king

,cl

uste

rsan

dop

enin

nova

tion

thro

ugh

smar

tsp

ecia

lisat

ion

[…]

supp

orti

ngte

chno

logi

cala

ndap

plie

dre

sear

ch,

pilo

tlin

es,

earl

ypr

oduc

t va

lidat

ion

acti

ons,

adva

nced

man

ufac

turi

ngca

pabi

litie

san

dfi

rst

prod

ucti

onin

Key

Enab

ling

Tech

nolo

gies

and

diff

usio

nof

gene

ral

purp

ose

tech

nolo

gies

;

•Bl

ueEc

onom

y(r

enew

able

ener

gy,

biot

echn

olog

y,m

arin

ere

sour

ces)

;•

Mar

itim

eba

sed

clus

ters

;

(a)

exte

ndin

gbr

oadb

and

depl

oym

ent

and

the

roll-

out

ofhi

gh-s

peed

netw

orks

and

supp

orti

ngth

ead

opti

onof

emer

ging

tech

nolo

gies

and

netw

orks

for

the

digi

tale

cono

my;

•e-

Mar

itim

e(s

hip-

port

logi

stic

s)EU

Polic

yLe

vel;

(b)

deve

lopi

ngIC

Tpr

oduc

tsan

dse

rvic

es,

e-co

mm

erce

and

enha

ncin

gde

man

dfo

rIC

T;e-

Nav

igat

ion

(saf

ety,

pollu

tion

prev

enti

on,

link

tolo

gist

ics)

,pr

ojec

tsne

edto

bead

vise

dby

inte

rnat

iona

lpol

icy;

(2)

enha

ncin

gac

cess

toan

d us

ean

dqu

alit

yof

ICT

thro

ugh:

(c)

stre

ngth

enin

gIC

Tap

plic

atio

nsfo

re-

gove

rnm

ent,

e-le

arni

ng,

e-in

clus

ion,

e-cu

ltur

ean

de-

heal

th;

•Li

nked

toco

asta

lcom

mun

itie

s;En

hanc

ing

offs

hore

data

-lin

king

toal

low

acce

ssby

seaf

arer

s;(3

)en

hanc

ing

the

com

peti

tive

ness

of S

MEs

thro

ugh:

(a)

prom

otin

gen

trep

rene

ursh

ip,

inpa

rtic

ular

byfa

cilit

atin

gth

eec

onom

icex

ploi

tati

onof

new

idea

san

dfo

ster

ing

the

crea

tion

ofne

wfi

rms,

incl

udin

gth

roug

hbu

sine

ssin

cuba

tors

;

•Pr

omot

ing

entr

epre

neur

ship

thro

ugh

the

deve

lopm

ent

ofne

wsh

ort

sea

ship

ping

cros

s-bo

rder

rout

esor

chan

ges

tose

rvic

eson

exis

ting


54

rout

esto

faci

litat

eac

cess

tone

wm

arke

tar

eas;

•Fi

sher

ies

(par

ticu

larl

yin

shor

e);

•Aq

uacu

ltur

e;•

Enco

urag

emen

tof

SMEs

wit

hin

coas

tala

ndm

arin

eto

uris

min

tere

sts

(sm

allf

erry

links

,si

ghts

eein

g,w

ildlif

ew

atch

ing,

dive

boat

s,et

c.);

•Eq

uipm

ent

supp

liers

;(b

)de

velo

ping

and

impl

emen

ting

new

busi

ness

mod

els

for

SMEs

,in

part

icul

arfo

rin

tern

atio

nalis

atio

n;•

Inte

rnat

iona

lism

can

bepr

omot

edpr

imar

ilyby

SMEs

invo

lved

inpo

rts

and

ship

ping

base

dpr

ojec

ts;

•EU

e-M

arit

ime,

e-Lo

gist

ics

&e-

Cust

oms

base

dpr

ojec

ts;

•En

cour

agin

gpr

ogra

mm

ear

eaSM

Esto

beco

me

invo

lved

inre

gion

alre

new

able

ener

gypr

ojec

ts;

(c)

supp

orti

ngth

ecr

eati

onan

dth

eex

tens

ion

ofad

vanc

edca

paci

ties

for

p rod

uct

and

serv

ice

deve

lopm

ent;

•Pr

ovid

ing

adde

dva

lue

tofi

sher

ies

and

aqua

cult

ure

prod

ucts

thro

ugh

rese

arch

and

inno

vati

onw

hich

enco

urag

esen

trep

rene

ursh

ipth

atta

kes

adva

ntag

eof

expa

ndin

gex

isti

ngor

deve

lopi

ngne

wcr

oss-

bord

erm

arke

ts.

This

coul

dbe

achi

eved

thro

ugh

iden

tify

ing

new

targ

etsp

ecie

sor

bree

ding

new

stoc

ksin

aqua

cult

ure

faci

litie

san

dim

prov

emen

tsin

mar

keti

ngre

gim

es;

•M

arin

eto

uris

m(s

mal

lfer

rylin

ks,

sigh

tsee

ing,

wild

life

wat

chin

g,di

vebo

ats,

etc.

);•

Equi

pmen

tsu

pplie

rs;

(d)

supp

orti

ngth

eca

paci

tyof

SMEs

toen

gage

ingr

owth

and

inno

vati

onpr

oces

ses;

•Fi

sher

ies

(par

ticu

larl

yin

shor

e);

•Aq

uacu

ltur

e;•

Mar

ine

tour

ism

(sm

allf

erry

links

,si

ghts

eein

g,w

ildlif

ew

atch

ing,

dive

boat

s,et

c.);

•Eq

uipm

ent

supp

liers

;(4

)su

ppor

ting

the

shif

tto

war

dsa

low

-car

bon

econ

omy

inal

lsec

tors

thro

ugh:

(a)

prom

otin

gth

epr

oduc

tion

and

dist

ribu

tion

ofre

new

able

ener

gyso

urce

s;•

Dev

elop

men

tof

cros

s-bo

rder

infr

astr

uctu

re,

such

asen

ergy

grid

s;•

Rese

arch

and

deve

lopm

ent

ofvi

able

new

tech

nolo

gies

orim

prov

emen

tsto

exis

ting

tech

nolo

gy(e

mph

asis

onw

ind,

wav

ean

dti

dal

ener

gy);

•W

ind

ener

gy;


55

•W

ave

ener

gy;

•Ti

dale

nerg

y;•

R&D

into

feas

ibili

tyof

othe

rm

arin

eba

sed

rene

wab

les;

(b)

prom

otin

gen

ergy

effi

cien

cyan

dre

new

able

ener

gyus

ein

ente

rpri

ses;

•Ap

plic

atio

nto

port

san

dsh

ippi

ngin

dust

ryto

redu

ceem

issi

ons;

(c)

supp

orti

ngen

ergy

effi

cien

cyan

dr e

new

able

ener

gyus

ein

publ

icin

fras

truc

ture

s,in

clud

ing

inpu

blic

build

ings

and

inth

eho

usin

gse

ctor

;

•Ap

plic

atio

nto

mar

itim

epu

blic

infr

astr

uctu

rean

dbu

ildin

gse.

g.lo

cal/

regi

onal

auth

orit

ypo

rts

and

harb

ours

,cu

stom

sfa

cilit

ies,

coas

tgua

rdin

fras

truc

ture

,ai

dsto

navi

gati

on(l

ight

hous

es,

beac

ons,

etc.

);(d

)de

velo

ping

and

impl

emen

ting

s mar

tdi

str i

buti

onsy

stem

sat

low

and

med

ium

volt

age

l eve

ls;

•U

seof

rene

wab

les

bype

riph

eral

coas

talo

ris

land

base

dco

mm

unit

ies;

•

Loca

lcom

mun

ity

invo

lvem

ent

inde

velo

ping

sust

aina

ble

ener

gyso

urce

s;(e

)pr

omot

ing

low

-car

bon

stra

tegi

esfo

ral

ltyp

esof

terr

itor

ies,

inpa

rtic

ular

u rba

nar

eas,

incl

udin

gth

epr

omot

ion

ofsu

stai

nabl

eur

ban

mob

ility

and

mit

igat

ion

rele

vant

adap

tati

onm

easu

res;

•Ap

plic

atio

nto

port

,co

asta

land

offs

hore

faci

litie

s;

(f)

prom

otin

gre

sear

ch,

inno

vati

onan

dad

opti

onof

low

-car

bon

tech

nolo

gies

•Co

ncep

tof

“Blu

eCa

rbon

”-m

aint

enan

cean

den

hanc

emen

tof

mar

ine

ecos

yste

ms

asca

rbon

sink

s;

(g)

prom

otin

gth

eus

eof

high

-eff

icie

ncy

co-g

ener

atio

nof

heat

and

pow

erba

sed

onus

eful

heat

dem

and;

•Ap

plic

atio

nto

peri

pher

alco

asta

lor

isla

ndba

sed

com

mun

itie

s;(a

)su

ppor

ting

[…]

inve

stm

ent

for

adap

tati

onto

clim

ate

chan

ge;

•Co

ncep

tof

natu

ralc

oast

alde

fenc

ean

dfl

ood

prot

ecti

onby

mai

nten

ance

and

enha

ncem

ent

ofm

arin

eec

osys

tem

sas

natu

ralp

rote

ctio

nan

dde

fenc

elin

es;

(5)

prom

otin

gcl

imat

ech

ange

adap

tati

on,

risk

prev

enti

onan

dm

anag

emen

tth

roug

h:

(b)

prom

otin

gin

vest

men

tto

addr

ess

spec

ific

risk

s,en

suri

ngdi

sast

erre

silie

nce

and

deve

lopi

ngdi

sast

erm

anag

emen

tsy

stem

s;•

Emer

genc

ypl

anni

ngan

dpr

epar

edne

ssfo

rco

asta

lan

dri

veri

nefl

oodi

ng;

•Ri

skpr

even

tion

insh

ippi

ngop

erat

ions

and

acci

dent

s;•

Dev

elop

men

tof

inno

vati

vede

fenc

elin

esor

conc

epts

(e.g

.m

anag

edre

alig

nmen

t);

•Im

pact

ofw

ave

dire

ctio

nan

dst

orm

inte

nsit

yon

ship

ping

disa

ster

s;•

Oil

spill

and

Haz

ardo

us&

Nox

ious

Subs

tanc

e(H

NS)


56

cont

inge

ncy

plan

s;•

Sear

ch&

Resc

ue(S

AR);

•En

viro

nmen

talp

rote

ctio

nfr

omsh

ippi

ngpo

lluti

on;

(a)

addr

essi

ngth

esi

gnif

ican

tne

eds

for

inve

stm

ent

inth

ew

aste

sect

orto

mee

tth

ere

quir

emen

tsof

the

Uni

on’s

envi

ronm

enta

lac

q uis

;

•Sh

ipde

rive

dga

rbag

edi

spos

al;

•Ca

rgo

resi

dual

,po

rtw

aste

man

agem

ent

(oft

enin

volv

ing

haza

rdou

san

dno

xiou

ssu

bsta

nces

);(b

)ad

dres

sing

the

sign

ific

ant

need

sfo

rin

vest

men

tin

the

wat

erse

ctor

tom

eet

the

requ

irem

ents

ofth

eU

nion

’sen

viro

nmen

tal

acqu

i s;

•Po

int

sour

ce(i

ndus

tria

l,se

wag

e,et

cou

tfal

ls);

•N

on-p

oint

sour

ce(a

gric

ultu

rala

ndur

ban

run-

off)

;

(c)

prot

ect i

n g,

prom

otin

gan

dde

velo

ping

cult

ural

and

natu

ral

heri

tage

;•

Mar

itim

ehe

rita

ge;

(6)

prot

ecti

ngth

een

viro

nmen

tan

dpr

omot

ing

reso

urce

effi

cien

cy,

thro

ugh :

(d)

prot

ecti

ngan

dre

stor

ing

bio d

ive r

sit y

,so

ilpr

otec

tion

and

r est

ora t

ion

and

pro m

o tin

gec

osys

tem

serv

ices

incl

udin

gN

ATU

RA20

007

and

gre e

nin

fras

truc

ture

s;

•Pr

otec

ting

and

rest

orin

gbi

odiv

ersi

ty:

mar

ine

spec

ies

and

Nat

ura

2000

Mar

ine

Prot

ecte

dAr

eas;

•Re

gion

al&

Sub

regi

onal

fish

erie

sm

anag

emen

t(C

FPRe

form

),pa

rtic

ular

lysa

fegu

ardi

ngof

non-

targ

etsp

ecie

s;•

Prev

enti

onof

envi

ronm

enta

ldeg

rada

tion

due

toov

erfi

shin

g,lin

ked

tore

gion

alCF

Pap

proa

ch;

•Re

habi

litat

ion

ofst

ocks

thro

ugh

inve

stm

ent

inpr

ojec

tsw

hich

incr

ease

biod

iver

sity

and

prot

ect

fish

spaw

ning

and

nurs

ery

area

s;•

Rese

arch

toim

prov

ekn

owle

dge

ofm

arin

eec

osys

tem

sin

orde

rto

base

soun

dm

anag

emen

tan

dsu

stai

nabl

eus

eof

natu

ralr

esou

rce

deci

sion

s;•

Reha

bilit

atio

nof

degr

aded

coas

tala

ndm

arin

eec

osys

tem

s;•

Cros

s-bo

rder

co-o

rdin

atio

nin

ecos

yste

mm

anag

emen

tpa

rtic

ular

lyw

here

habi

tats

and

spec

ies

link

acro

ssbo

rder

(e.g

.m

igra

tion

,sp

awni

ngan

dnu

rser

yar

eas)

;•

Link

ages

tosu

stai

nabl

eto

uris

man

dus

eof

Nat

ura

2000

netw

ork

asad

ded

valu

eto

bord

erec

onom

ies;

•D

evel

opm

ent

ofcr

oss-

bord

erin

fras

truc

ture

tosu

ppor

tN

atur

a20

00 n

etw

ork;

•D

evel

opm

ent

ofsu

stai

nabl

eto

uris

mw

hich

take

sad

vant

age

ofco

asta

land

mar

ine

reso

urce

san

d

7 Set

upas

aco

here

ntEu

rope

anec

olog

ical

netw

ork

ofsp

ecia

lare

asof

cons

erva

tion

purs

uant

toAr

ticl

e3(

1)of

Coun

cilD

irec

tive

92/4

3/EE

Cof

21M

ay19

92on

the

cons

erva

tion

ofna

tura

l hab

itat

s an

dof

wild

faun

a an

dfl

ora,

OJ

L20

6, 2

2.7.

1992

, p.

7.


57

biod

iver

sity

(wild

life

wat

chin

g,di

ving

,et

c);

(e)

acti

onto

impr

ove

the

urba

ne n

viro

nmen

t,[…

]re

gene

rati

onof

brow

nfie

ldsi

tes

and

redu

ctio

nof

air

pollu

tion

;•

Rege

nera

tion

orre

dund

ant

port

and

carg

oha

ndlin

gar

eas;

•Re

duct

ion

ofem

issi

ons

from

ship

ping

;(f

)pr

omot

ing

inno

vati

vete

chno

logi

e sto

impr

ove

envi

ronm

enta

lpr

otec

tion

and

ress

our c

ee f

fici

ency

inth

ew

aste

sect

or,

wat

erse

ctor

,so

ilpr

otec

t ion

orto

redu

ceai

rpo

lluti

on;

•Id

enti

fica

tion

ofpr

inci

ple

cros

s-bo

rder

pollu

tion

sour

ces

and

impa

cts;

•In

vest

men

tin

appr

opri

ate

tech

nolo

gyto

redu

ce/

elim

inat

epo

lluti

onso

urce

s;•

Risk

prev

enti

onfr

omac

cide

ntal

rele

ases

;•

Oil

and

HN

Sco

ntin

genc

ypl

anni

ng(n

ote

used

toau

gmen

tex

isti

ngcr

oss-

bord

erar

rang

emen

ts);

•D

ata

exch

ange

duri

ngpo

lluti

onin

cide

nts

conc

erni

ngpo

lluta

nts,

envi

ronm

enta

land

publ

icsa

fety

risk

s;•

Ship

deri

ved

garb

age

disp

osal

;•

Carg

ore

sidu

al,

port

was

tem

anag

emen

t(o

ften

in

volv

ing

haza

rdou

san

dno

xiou

ssu

bsta

nces

);•

Pollu

tion

prev

enti

onto

redu

cefi

sher

ies

stoc

kde

clin

eor

degr

adin

gof

prod

ucts

(e.g

.ta

inti

ng,

fish

dise

ases

,to

xici

ty,

etc)

;(g

)su

ppor

ting

indu

stri

altr

ansi

tion

tow

ards

are

sour

ce-e

ffic

ient

econ

omy

and

prom

otin

ggr

een

grow

th;

•Sh

ippi

ngan

dpo

rts

rela

ted

proj

ects

;•

Impr

ovem

ents

insh

ipqu

alit

y,pr

omot

ion

ofcl

eane

rtr

ansp

ort

(par

ticu

larl

yw

ith

resp

ect

toai

ran

dw

ater

emis

sion

s);

(a)

supp

orti

nga

mul

tim

odal

Sing

leEu

rope

anTr

ansp

ort

Area

byin

vest

ing

inth

eTr

ans-

Euro

pean

Tran

spor

tN

etw

ork

(TEN

-T)

netw

ork;

•Po

rts

asm

ulti

noda

llin

ks;

•Se

atr

ansp

ort

(as

low

carb

on-

alth

ough

note

ship

ping

aspo

lluti

onso

urce

);•

TEN

-T(S

hort

Sea

Ship

ping

,M

otor

way

sof

the

Sea,

etc.

);(b

)en

hanc

ing

regi

onal

mob

ility

thro

ugh

conn

ecti

ngse

cond

ary

and

tert

iary

node

sto

TEN

-Tin

fras

truc

ture

;•

Nod

alch

ange

inpo

rts

tora

il,ro

adan

dsh

ort

sea

ship

ping

;

(7)

pro

mot

ing

sust

aina

ble

tran

spor

tan

dre

mov

ing

bott

lene

cks

inke

yne

twor

kin

fras

truc

ture

sth

roug

h:

(c)

loca

ldev

elop

men

tin

itia

tive

san

dai

dfo

rst

ruct

ures

prov

idin

gne

ighb

ourh

ood

serv

ices

tocr

eate

new

jobs

,w

here

such

acti

ons

are

outs

ide

the

scop

eof

Regu

lat i

on(E

U)

No

[…]/

2012

[ESF

];

•Li

nkin

gof

port

san

dha

rbou

rsto

neig

hbou

ring

com

mun

itie

s;•

Use

ofm

arit

ime

tran

spor

te.

g.fe

rry

orsm

allv

esse

lac

cess

toim

prov

ecr

oss-

bord

erac

cess

ibili

tyan

dco

mm

unic

atio

nbe

twee

nur

ban

and

rura

l/co

asta

lar

eas;


58

•Li

nkin

gor

tour

ism

tocr

oss-

bord

ertr

ansp

ort

conn

ecti

ons;

(d)

inve

stin

gin

infr

astr

uct u

refo

rpu

bli c

empl

oym

ent

serv

ices

;ET

Csp

ecif

ic,

for

cros

s-bo

rder

co- o

pera

t ion

:in

tegr

atin

gcr

oss-

bord

erla

bour

mar

k et s

,in

clud

i ng

cros

s-b o

rder

mob

ility

,jo

int

loca

lem

ploy

men

tin

itia

tive

san

djo

int

trai

ning

;

•Po

rts

and

enha

ncem

ent

oftr

ansp

ort

links

(e.g

.re

late

dto

ferr

y,tu

nnel

rem

ote

wor

king

,et

c.);

(a)

deve

lopm

ent

ofbu

sin e

ssin

cuba

tors

and

inve

stm

ent

supp

ort

for

self

-em

ploy

men

t ,m

icro

- ent

erpr

ises

and

busi

ness

crea

tion

;•

Fish

erie

s(p

arti

cula

rly

insh

ore)

&aq

uacu

ltur

e(s

hellf

ish,

fin-

fish

,se

awee

d,et

c);

•M

arin

ean

dco

asta

lrec

reat

ion

prov

ider

san

dop

erat

ors

(e.g

.di

ving

,w

ind

surf

ing,

smal

lcra

ft,

saili

ng,

etc.

);•

Mar

ine

and

coas

talt

ouri

sm;

(b)

supp

ort i

ngem

ploy

men

tfr

iend

lygr

owth

thro

ugh

the

deve

lopm

ent

ofen

doge

nous

pote

ntia

las

part

ofa

terr

itor

ials

trat

egy

for

spec

ific

area

s,in

clu d

ing

the

conv

ersi

onof

d ecl

inin

gin

dust

rial

regi

ons

and

enha

nce m

ent

ofac

cess

ibili

tyto

and

deve

lopm

ent

ofsp

ecif

icna

tura

lan

dcu

ltur

alre

sour

ces;

•Po

rtan

dha

rbou

rre

gene

rati

on,

part

icul

arly

whe

rede

clin

ein

port

sac

tivi

tyha

sca

used

decl

ine

ofsu

rrou

ndin

gco

mm

unit

ies)

;•

Fish

ing

port

rege

nera

tion

whi

chsu

ppor

tsfo

rmer

fish

ing

and

fish

proc

essi

ngco

mm

unit

ies;

•Pe

riph

eral

coas

tala

ndis

land

base

dco

mm

unit

ies;

(c)

loca

ldev

elop

men

tin

itia

tive

san

dai

dfo

rst

ruct

ures

prov

idin

gne

ighb

ourh

ood

serv

ices

tocr

eate

new

jobs

,w

here

such

acti

ons

are

outs

ide

the

scop

eof

Regu

lat i

on(E

U)

No

[…]/

2012

[ESF

];

•As

abov

e;

(8)

prom

otin

gem

p loy

men

tan

dsu

ppor

ting

labo

urm

obili

tyth

roug

h:

(d)

inve

stin

gin

infr

astr

uctu

refo

rpu

blic

empl

oym

ent

serv

ices

;ET

Csp

ecif

ic,

for

cros

s-bo

rder

co-o

pera

tion

:in

tegr

atin

gcr

oss-

bord

erla

bour

mar

kets

,in

clud

ing

cros

s-bo

rder

mob

ility

,jo

int

loca

lem

ploy

men

tin

itia

tive

san

djo

int

trai

ning

;

•Fi

sher

ies

&aq

uacu

ltur

e;•

Reso

urce

Prot

ecto

rs&

Cons

erva

tion

Man

ager

s;•

Seaf

arer

s;

(a)

inve

stin

gin

heal

than

dso

cial

infr

astr

uctu

rew

hich

cont

ribu

teto

nati

onal

,re

gion

alan

dlo

cald

evel

opm

ent,

redu

cing

ineq

ualit

ies

inte

rms

ofhe

alth

stat

us,

and

tran

siti

onfr

omin

stit

utio

nalt

oco

mm

unit

y-ba

sed

serv

ices

;

•Pr

ojec

tsre

late

dto

coas

tala

ndis

land

base

dco

mm

unit

ies;

(b)

supp

ort

for

phys

ical

[…]

econ

omic

and

soci

alre

gene

rati

onof

depr

ived

urba

nan

dru

ralc

omm

unit

ies

and

area

s ;•

Com

mun

itie

sne

ighb

ouri

ngde

clin

ing

port

,fi

shin

gan

dfi

shpr

oces

sing

area

sCh

ange

sin

port

empl

oym

ent

stru

ctur

e(l

oss

ofpr

ofit

abili

tydu

eto

chan

ges

inve

ssel

size

);•

Fish

erie

sde

clin

e,lo

ssof

inco

me

tocr

ews;

•Lo

ssof

inco

me

due

topo

lluti

onin

cide

nts

(tou

rism

,fi

sher

ies,

aqua

cult

ure,

etc.

);

(9)

prom

otin

gso

cial

incl

usio

nan

dco

mba

ting

pove

rty

thro

ugh:

; se si rpr etnelaico srof

tro ppu s)c (


59

ETC

spec

ific

,fo

rcr

oss-

bor d

erco

- ope

r ati

on:

p rom

otin

gge

nder

equa

lity

and

equa

lopp

ortu

niti

esac

r oss

bor

der s

, as

wel

las

prom

otin

gso

cial

incl

usio

nac

ross

bord

ers

(10)

inve

stin

gin

educ

ati o

n,sk

ills

and

li fel

ong

lear

nin g

byde

velo

ping

educ

atio

nan

dtr

aini

ngin

fras

truc

ture

;

E TC

spec

ific

,fo

rcr

oss-

b or d

erco

- ope

r ati

on:

deve

l opi

ngan

dim

plem

enti

n gjo

int

educ

a tio

nan

dtr

aini

ngsc

hem

es•

Rede

ploy

men

tof

form

erfi

sher

man

,se

afar

ers

and

port

sw

orkf

orce

;

(11)

enh

anci

ngin

sti t

utio

nal

capa

city

and

anef

fici

ent

publ

icad

min

istr

ati o

nby

stre

ngth

enin

gof

inst

itut

i ona

lcap

acit

yan

dth

eef

fici

ency

ofpu

blic

ad

min

istr

atio

nsan

dpu

blic

serv

ices

rela

ted

toim

plem

enta

tion

ofth

eER

DF,

and

insu

ppor

tof

ac

tion

sin

inst

itut

iona

lca

paci

tyan

din

the

effi

cien

cyof

publ

icad

min

istr

atio

nsu

ppor

ted

byth

eES

F.

ETC

spe c

ific

,fo

rcr

oss-

bord

erco

-ope

rati

on:

prom

otin

gle

gal

and

adm

inis

trat

ive

co-o

p era

tion

and

co- o

pera

tion

betw

een

citi

zens

and

inst

itut

ions

ETC

spe c

ific

for

tran

snat

iona

lco

-ope

rati

on:

deve

lopm

ent

and

coor

din a

tion

ofm

acr o

-reg

iona

lan

dse

a-ba

sin

stra

tegi

es(w

ithi

nth

eth

emat

icob

ject

ive

ofen

hanc

ing

inst

itut

iona

lca

paci

tyan

dan

effi

cien

tpu

blic

adm

inis

trat

ion)

•Li

nkto

Mar

itim

eSp

atia

lPla

nnin

g,M

acro

-Reg

ion

Plan

s,CF

Pan

dSe

aBa

sin

Stra

tegi

es;

•Pr

ovid

eas

sist

ance

and

rein

forc

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofre

gion

alfi

sher

ies

man

agem

ent

inre

lati

onto

cros

s-bo

rder

co-o

rdin

atio

nbe

twee

nfi

sher

ies

man

ager

s;•

Join

tm

anag

emen

tof

sea

area

sto

avoi

dco

nflic

tsw

ith

user

san

dst

akeh

olde

rsin

com

peti

tion

for

sea

spac

e


60

Ann

exD

:Ex

ampl

esof

Mar

ine

and

Mar

itim

ePr

ojec

tsfr

om t

he20

07-2

013

Cros

s-Bo

rder

Co-

oper

atio

nPr

ogra

mm

esPr

ogra

mm

ePr

ojec

tSe

ctor

Des

crip

tion

PMIB

BM

arin

eCo

nser

vati

on&

Mar

iti m

eG

ove r

nanc

e

Parc

oM

arin

oIn

tern

a zio

n ale

delle

Bocc

hedi

Boni

faci

o(P

MIB

B)ht

tp:/

/ww

w.p

mib

b.co

m

The

ma i

nai

mof

the

proj

e ct

isth

efi

rst

PMIB

Bef

fect

ive

impl

emen

tati

onof

the

Inte

rnat

iona

lMar

ine

Park

betw

een

Cor s

i ca

and

Sard

inia

,w

hich

prov

ides

for

the

crea

tion

ofa

Euro

pean

Gro

upin

gof

Terr

ito r

ialC

o-op

erat

ion

(EG

TC),

esta

blis

hed

purs

uant

to

EC R

egul

atio

n10

82/2

006,

hav

ing

asfi

rst

targ

ets

the

deve

lopm

ent

ofa

plan

ofjo

int

man

agem

ent,

the

esta

blis

hmen

tof

the

firs

tac

tion

sof

scie

ntif

icm

onit

o rin

gan

dim

plem

enta

tion

ofa

com

mon

mod

elfo

r th

e us

e of

rene

wab

le e

nerg

y to

the

head

quar

ter s

ofth

eIn

tern

atio

nalM

arin

ePa

rkof

Boni

faci

o(S

prea

dIs

land

,Sa

rdin

ia)

and

its

scie

ntif

icba

sis

(Lav

ezzi

,Co

rsic

a).

The

Off

ice

del'E

nvir

onne

men

tde

laCo

rse

and

EPN

A LM

(Nat

iona

lPar

kof

the

LaM

adda

lena

)co

llabo

rate

effe

ctiv

ely

sinc

eth

ecr

eati

onof

the

Park

Ital

ian

and

have

deve

lope

da

stro

ngco

-ope

rati

onth

atha

spr

oven

incr

easi

ngly

frui

tful

over

tim

e.Th

etw

oag

enci

esar

epu

rsui

ngth

eir

mis

sion

ofcr

oss-

bord

erco

-op

erat

ion,

basi

ngit

sac

tion

onit

sow

npr

otoc

olFr

anco

-Ita

lian

1993

.At

adi

stan

ceof

mor

eth

anfi

ftee

nye

ars

byth

e19

93Pr

otoc

ol,

the

OEC

and

EPN

ALM

inte

ndto

prop

ose

the

crea

tion

ofa

core

grou

pof

the

Inte

rnat

iona

lMar

ine

Park

ofBo

nifa

cio

(PM

IBB)

,co

inci

ding

wit

hth

eex

isti

ngpr

otec

ted

area

s,th

roug

hth

ees

tabl

ishm

ent

and

the

'star

t-up

ofa

Euro

pean

Gro

upin

gof

Terr

itor

ialC

o-op

erat

ion

(EG

TC),

esta

blis

hed

purs

uant

toEC

Reg

ulat

ion

1082

/200

6, a

nd in

fact

calle

d EG

CC-P

MIB

B.R

ESM

ARM

arin

eEn

viro

nmen

t&

Mar

itim

eG

over

nanc

e(b

utal

solin

ked

tow

ater

shed

and

terr

estr

ial

acti

viti

es)

RES

MAR

isa

stra

tegi

cpr

ojec

tfu

nded

unde

rth

eO

b iet

tivo

3It

alia

-Fra

ncia

Mar

itti

mo

Prog

ram

me.

The

Fren

ch-I

talia

npa

rtne

rshi

pof

RES

MAR

isco

mm

itte

dto

iden

tify

the

best

stra

tegi

esfo

ren

viro

nmen

tal

prot

ecti

onof

wat

eran

dso

ilco

mpa

rtm

ents

,th

roug

hm

onit

orin

gsy

stem

s,ri

skpr

even

tion

,m

anag

emen

tof

envi

ronm

enta

land

emer

genc

yis

sues

and

mit

igat

ion

ofpo

lluti

on.

RES

MAR

isdi

vide

din

toth

ree

area

s:i)

wat

erm

anag

emen

t,ii)

coas

tale

rosi

onan

dco

asta

ldyn

amic

s,iii

)te

rrit

oria

lgov

erna

nce;

thos

ear

eas

grou

pth

efo

urac

tion

sof

the

syst

eman

dth

e3

subp

r oje

cts

inw

hich

the

enti

repr

ojec

tis

stru

ctur

ed.

CBC

Ital

ieFr

ance

Mar

itim

ePr

ogra

mm

e20

0720

13

MO

MAR

Mar

ine

Envi

ronm

ent

&M

arit

ime

Gov

erna

nce

MO

MA

R(w

ww

.mo-

mar

.net

)is

acr

oss-

bord

erco

-ope

rati

onpr

ojec

tfi

nanc

edby

the

Euro

pean

Fund

for

Regi

onal

Dev

elop

men

tin

the

cont

ext

ofth

eO

pera

tion

alPr

ogra

mm

e(O

P)It

aly-

Fran

ce"M

arit

ime"

.

The

proj

ect

brin

gsto

geth

erre

gion

s,re

sear

chce

nter

san

dot

her

inst

itut

ions

tode

velo

pa

cour

seon

mar

ine

envi

ronm

enta

l mon

itor

ing

Estr

eth

eTu

scan

y, S

ardi

nia

and

Cors

ica

MO

MA

Rpu

tsal

lof

the

regi

ons,

rese

arch

cent

ers

and

othe

rin

stit

utio

nali

ssue

sof

Tusc

any,

Sard

inia

and


61

Cors

ica

to b

uild

a c

omm

on p

ath

in r

egar

d to

the

mon

itor

ing

of t

he m

arin

e en

viro

nmen

t.

In p

arti

cula

r, t

he s

peci

fic

obje

ctiv

es o

f th

e pr

ojec

t ar

e:

1. D

evel

op a

sys

tem

of

inte

grat

ed m

arin

e m

onit

orin

g,

2. T

he a

pplic

atio

n to

the

stu

dy o

f en

viro

nmen

tal i

ssue

s of

cro

ss-b

orde

r ar

ea,

3.

Edu

cate

org

aniz

atio

ns,

oper

ator

s an

d lo

cal c

omm

unit

ies

rega

rdin

g th

e is

sues

of

envi

ronm

enta

l and

in

volv

e th

em in

the

dev

elop

men

t of

pol

icie

s an

d st

rate

gies

for

sha

red

cont

rol a

nd p

rote

ctio

n of

the

m

arin

e an

d co

asta

l env

iron

men

t.

ART

WEI

Mar

ine

Envi

ronm

ent

&

Mar

itim

e G

over

nanc

e

Act

ion

for

the

Rein

forc

emen

t of

the

Tra

nsit

iona

l W

ater

s' En

viro

nmen

tal

Inte

grit

y th

roug

h es

tabl

ishm

ent

of f

our

“Tra

nsit

iona

l W

ater

Sta

keho

lder

s Bo

dies

”, o

ne o

n ea

ch c

ross

-bor

der

Tran

siti

onal

W

ater

s re

gion

of

the

Sout

h Ba

ltic

are

a –

Curo

nian

Lag

oon,

Vis

tula

Lag

oon,

Odr

a La

goon

and

Ore

sund

So

und.

Sout

h Ba

ltic

O

FFER

Off

shor

e Re

new

able

sSo

uth

Balt

ic O

ffsh

ore

Win

d En

ergy

Reg

ions

. Pr

omot

ion,

thr

ough

con

cert

ed

cros

s-bo

rder

act

ions

, of

fsho

re w

ind

ener

gy i

n th

e So

uth

Balt

ic a

rea,

whi

ch i

s id

enti

fied

as

one

of t

he

mos

t su

itab

le r

egio

ns f

or t

his

kind

of

rene

wab

le e

nerg

y pr

oduc

tion

at

an E

urop

ean

leve

l w

ith

enor

mou

s gr

owth

pot

enti

als.

G

ener

atio

n BA

LT

Mar

itim

e Ed

ucat

ion

Link

ing

mar

itim

e ed

ucat

ion

wit

h th

e ch

angi

ng j

ob m

arke

t fo

r a

new

gen

erat

ion

of t

he B

alti

c Se

a ex

pert

s.

Sout

h Ba

ltic

CBC

MAR

RIA

GE

Har

bour

s an

d M

arin

e To

uris

m

Bett

er m

arin

a m

anag

emen

t, h

arbo

ur n

etw

ork

cons

olid

atio

n an

d w

ater

tou

rism

mar

keti

ng in

the

so

uthe

rn B

alti

c ri

m.

Clus

ter

club

Sh

ip b

uild

ing

&

Nau

tica

l Sec

tor

links

to

SMEs

The

Clus

ter

Club

pro

ject

aim

s to

impr

ove

the

inno

vati

on’s

pos

sibi

lity

of t

erri

tori

al a

nd p

rodu

ctiv

e sy

stem

thr

ough

co-

oper

atio

n, b

usin

ess

oppo

rtun

itie

s an

d m

arke

t re

sear

ch.

It a

ims

also

to

acce

lera

te t

he

crea

tion

and

rei

nfor

cing

of

clus

ter’

s sy

stem

, in

par

ticu

lar

the

crea

tion

of

SMEs

net

wor

k, P

ublic

Ad

min

istr

atio

n, p

ublic

and

pri

vate

inst

itut

es o

f re

sear

ch,

cons

umer

s an

d po

tent

ial p

rodu

cts

and

serv

ices

pu

rcha

sers

and

rel

ated

ass

ocia

tion

s of

the

Adr

iati

c Ba

sin.

Thr

ough

the

par

tner

ship

com

pose

d by

di

ffer

ent

inst

itut

ions

: Ch

ambe

rs o

f Co

mm

erce

and

Cha

mbe

rs o

f Ec

onom

y, R

egio

nal D

evel

opm

ent

Agen

cies

fro

m C

roat

ia,

Alba

nia,

Bos

nia

Her

zego

vina

, G

reec

e an

d Se

rbia

, th

e pr

ojec

t in

tend

s to

val

oriz

e th

e di

ffer

ent

info

rmat

ion

of t

he d

evel

opm

ent

skill

s of

clu

ster

s in

a s

trat

egic

cro

ss-b

orde

r in

tegr

ated

fr

amew

ork.

The

pro

ject

is b

ased

on

the

anal

ysis

of

the

exis

ting

clu

ster

s to

the

nau

tica

l sec

tor

and

ship

build

ing

thro

ugh

a m

appi

ng a

nd id

enti

fica

tion

of

the

mer

chan

disi

ng s

ecto

r co

nnec

ted

to t

he

prod

ucti

ve c

hain

wit

h pa

rtic

ular

att

enti

on t

o w

ood,

mec

hani

c, p

last

ic,

rubb

er,

met

al a

nd t

exti

le o

f th

e pr

ojec

t ar

ea,

thro

ugh

the

exch

ange

of

best

pra

ctic

es a

nd e

xper

ienc

e of

ent

repr

eneu

rshi

p co

-ope

rati

on,

busi

ness

sco

utin

g ac

tion

s an

d m

atch

mak

ing

even

ts.

The

elab

orat

ion

and

crea

tion

of

com

mon

m

etho

dolo

gy w

ill s

uppo

rt t

he p

arti

cipa

ting

Cou

ntri

es t

o es

tabl

ish

new

link

s be

twee

n SM

Es a

nd b

usin

ess

inst

itut

ions

wit

h ai

m o

f su

ppor

ting

the

pro

mot

ion

of n

ew f

inan

cial

and

inno

vati

on in

stru

men

ts.

IPA

Adri

atic

CBC

SHAP

EM

arit

ime

Gov

erna

nce

Shap

ing

an H

olis

tic

App

roac

h to

Pro

tect

the

Adr

iati

c En

viro

nmen

t: b

etw

een

coas

t an

d se

a: S

HAP

E is

a

com

preh

ensi

ve p

roje

ct f

or t

he A

dria

tic

Regi

on a

imin

g to

cre

ate

the

basi

s fo

r th

e pr

otec

tion

and

su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t of

the

coa

stal

-mar

ine

envi

ronm

ent.

The

str

ateg

ic o

bjec

tive

is t

he


62

deve

lopm

ent

ofa

mul

tile

vela

ndcr

oss-

sect

orgo

vern

ance

syst

em,

base

don

anho

listi

cap

proa

chan

dai

min

gt o

the

inte

grat

edm

anag

emen

tof

the

natu

ral r

esou

rces

,ri

sk’s

prev

enti

onan

dth

ere

solu

tion

ofth

eco

nflic

tsam

ong

uses

and

user

s.

SEA-

RRe

new

able

Ener

gySu

stai

nabl

eEn

ergy

inth

eA

dria

tic

Regi

ons:

Know

ledg

eto

Inve

st:

SEA-

Rid

enti

fies

thre

em

ain

“ sou

rces

”f r

o mw

hich

sust

aina

ble

ener

gies

for

Adri

atic

can

deri

ve;

SUN

;SE

A;KN

OW

LED

GE.

Sun

and

Sea

are

d ist

ing u

ishi

ngch

a rac

t eri

stic

sof

the

regi

on,

whi

chca

nbe

effe

ctiv

ely

and

bett

erex

ploi

ted

for

frie

ndly

ener

gies

;Kn

owle

dge

isa

stra

tegi

c“f

uel”

for

thei

rdi

ffus

ion,

asit

prov

ides

oper

ator

san

dus

ers

wit

hB A

T(B

est

Avai

labl

eT e

chno

logi

es)

opti

ons

tofo

ster

inve

stm

ents

.Th

ege

nera

lobj

ecti

veis

the

prom

otio

nof

inve

s tm

ent-

orie

nted

know

ledg

eon

sust

aina

ble

and

com

peti

tive

ener

gypa

tter

ns(i

nte

rms

both

ofen

ergy

savi

ngan

dre

new

able

sour

ces)

in t

heAd

riat

ic r

egio

ns.

POW

ERED

R ene

wa b

leEn

ergy

Proj

ect

of O

ffs h

o re

Win

dEn

ergy

:Re

sear

ch,

Expe

rim

enta

tion

,D

evel

opm

ent:

POW

ERED

aim

sto

defi

nea

set

ofst

rate

gies

and

shar

edm

etho

dsfo

rth

ede

velo

pmen

tof

the

off-

shor

ew

ind

ener

gyin

all

the

Coun

trie

sov

erlo

oki n

gth

eAd

riat

icSe

a.Su

chen

erge

tic

choi

ceco

uld

allo

wa

rapi

din

crea

seof

inst

alla

tio n

s,th

anks

toth

ere

duct

ion

ofth

epr

oble

ms

rela

ted

tola

ndsc

ape

topi

cth

atar

efr

eque

ntly

the

ma i

no b

stac

les

toth

ecr

eati

onof

win

dpa

rks

inhi

ghde

nsit

ypo

pula

tion

terr

itor

ies

orin

area

sw

ith

high

hist

oric

alor

land

scap

e va

lue.

A DR

IAT

ICM

OS

Mar

iti m

eTr

ansp

ort/

Ship

ping

Dev

elop

ing

ofM

otor

way

sof

Sea

syst

emin

Adr

iati

cre

gion

:Th

eov

eral

lobj

ecti

veof

the

proj

ect

isto

deve

lop

the

MoS

inth

eAd

riat

icas

anin

tegr

alpa

rtof

Eas

tM

edit

erra

nean

MoS

tran

spor

tsy

stem

,th

roug

hth

ecr

eati

on,

deve

lopm

ent

and

elab

orat

ion

ofa

Ma s

ter

Plan

.W

hen

MoS

inAd

riat

icar

eaw

illbe

deve

lope

dat

suff

icie

ntle

vel,

itw

illpo

siti

vely

infl

uenc

eto

high

shar

eof

mod

alsh

ift

from

road

toin

term

odal

ity,

thu

sto

redu

cing

road

cong

esti

ons,

bene

fit

toen

viro

nmen

talp

rote

ctio

nan

d,at

the

end,

tosu

stai

nabl

egr

owth

ofec

onom

yin

the

regi

on.

ADR

IMO

BPo

rts

and

Acce

ssib

ility

Sust

aina

ble

coas

tM

OBi

lity

inth

eA

DRI

atic

area

:AD

RIM

OB

invo

lves

the

mai

npo

rts

ofAd

riat

iccr

oss-

bord

erar

ea.

Veni

ce,

Rave

nna,

Rim

ini,

Cese

nati

co,

Pesa

ro-U

rbin

o,Pe

scar

a,Br

indi

si,

Bari

,Ro

vinj

,Ra

b,Sp

alit

,D

urre

s,Ba

r,Ig

oum

enit

saan

dth

em

ain

port

sof

Slov

enia

nar

ea.

The

invo

lved

part

ners

gath

ered

thei

ref

fort

sw

ith

the

purp

ose

ofde

fini

nga

proj

ect

gene

rati

ngco

ncre

teso

luti

ons

tore

alpr

oble

ms:

impr

ovem

ent

and

upgr

ade

the

acce

ssib

ility

inth

eAd

riat

icar

ea,

infr

astr

uctu

res

and

tran

spor

tin

ter-

oper

abili

tyne

twor

ks.

APC

Port

s&

Logi

stic

s(p

ossi

bly

e-M

arit

ime)

The

Adr

iati

cPo

rtCo

mm

unit

y:Th

eAP

Cpr

ojec

tw

illde

velo

pa

syst

emba

sed

onth

epr

inci

ple

ofth

e“S

ingl

eW

indo

w”,

nam

ely

afa

cilit

yth

atal

low

spa

rtie

sin

volv

edin

trad

ean

dtr

ansp

ort

tolo

dge

stan

dard

ized

info

rmat

ion

and

docu

men

tsw

ith

asi

ngle

entr

ypo

int

tofu

lfil

alli

mpo

rt,

expo

rt,

and

tran

sit-

rela

ted

regu

lato

ryre

quir

emen

ts.

The

proj

ect

aim

sat

impr

ovin

gth

eef

fect

iven

ess

ofth

epr

oced

ures

for

the

clea

ranc

eof

frei

ght

flow

sin

port

area

s,th

roug

hth

ede

sign

,de

velo

pmen

tan

dte

stin

gof

asu

ppor

tin

stru

men

tfo

rsh

ipar

riva

land

depa

rtur

e,cu

stom

scl

eara

nce

and

carg

olo

gist

ic.

ADR

I-SE

APLA

NES

Mar

itim

eCr

oss-

bord

ertr

ansp

ort

links

and

acce

ss

Impl

emen

ting

Seap

lane

sSy

stem

inA

dria

tic

Basi

n:AD

RI-S

EAPL

ANES

aim

isto

crea

teth

ebe

stco

ndit

ions

for

the

set

upof

stab

leco

nnec

tion

sth

roug

ha

com

mon

seap

lane

syst

em.

Thro

ugh

the

proj

ect,

infa

ct,

part

ners

inte

nds

tode

velo

pan

alte

rnat

ive

and

fast

erw

ayof

tran

spor

tth

roug

hth

ese

tup

ofa

stab

lese

apla

neco

nnec

tion

,th

roug

hth

efo

llow

ing

step

s:1)

harm

oniz

atio

nof

the

cond

itio

nsat


63

norm

ativ

e, o

pera

tion

al a

nd s

truc

tura

l lev

el in

ord

er t

o fa

cilit

ate

inve

stm

ents

fro

m a

ll th

e Eu

rope

an

coun

trie

s; 2

) gi

ve p

orts

the

sm

all i

nfra

stru

ctur

al le

vel,

sup

port

ed b

y th

e m

anda

tory

inve

stm

ents

rel

ated

to

sec

urit

y in

ord

er t

o ob

tain

the

sta

tus

of w

ater

air

port

s 3)

invo

lvem

ent

of t

he p

riva

te s

ecto

r in

the

ac

tivi

ties

, as

indi

rect

ben

efic

iari

es o

f pr

ojec

t re

sult

s; 4

) Su

ppor

t at

pol

itic

al,

inst

ritu

tion

al a

nd

oper

atio

nal l

evel

of

the

new

ly e

stab

lishe

d se

apla

ne s

y ste

m t

hrou

gh t

he s

et u

p of

an

Adri

atic

sea

plan

e St

eeri

ng C

omm

itte

e, w

hose

aim

is a

lso

to e

nlar

ge t

he n

etw

ork

of s

eapl

ane

also

to

othe

r Ad

riat

ic P

orts

. EC

OSE

AFi

sher

ies,

M

arin

e Co

nser

vati

on &

M

arit

ime

Gov

erna

nce

Prot

ecti

on,

impr

ovem

ent

and

inte

grat

ed m

anag

emen

t of

the

sea

env

iron

men

t an

d of

cro

ss-b

orde

r na

tura

l res

ourc

es:

The

proj

ect

inte

nds

to p

rovi

de lo

ng-l

asti

ng r

espo

nses

to

over

fish

ing,

hab

itat

de

stru

ctio

n an

d as

soci

ated

soc

io e

cono

mic

impa

cts

prob

lem

s, p

rom

otin

g th

e im

prov

emen

t of

the

sea

an

d co

asta

l eco

syst

ems

by p

ropo

sing

mod

els

for

a co

ordi

nate

d fi

sher

y m

anag

emen

t pa

irin

g w

ith

dire

ct

acti

ons

for

impr

ovin

g fi

sher

ies

sust

aina

bilit

y an

d st

reng

then

ing

the

mar

ine

biod

iver

sity

. Th

e pr

ojec

t w

ill

trig

ger

a vi

rtuo

us p

roce

ss o

f su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t an

d co

mpe

titi

vene

ss o

f th

e co

asta

l com

mun

itie

s de

pend

ing

from

fis

hery

, in

a c

omm

on c

ross

-bor

der

fram

ewor

k of

eco

nom

ic,

soci

al a

nd t

erri

tori

al

cohe

sion

alo

ng t

he A

dria

tic

sea.

H

AZAD

RM

arin

e Po

lluti

on (

oil

and

HN

S)

Stre

ngth

enin

g co

mm

on r

eact

ion

capa

city

to

figh

t se

a po

lluti

on o

f oi

l, t

oxic

and

haz

ardo

us

subs

tanc

es in

Adr

iati

c Se

a: p

roje

ct a

ims

to a

ddre

ss c

oncr

ete

prob

lem

s an

d ne

eds

iden

tifi

ed in

exi

stin

g Eu

rope

an p

olic

ies

and

stra

tegi

es o

n se

a pr

otec

tion

, w

hile

at

nati

onal

and

reg

iona

l lev

el it

is b

ased

on

an

anal

ysis

of

the

leve

l of

prep

ared

ness

of

proj

ect

part

ners

. Th

e pr

ojec

t en

visa

ges

the

sett

ing

up o

f a

trai

ning

and

res

earc

h ce

ntre

for

com

bati

ng o

il sp

i lls,

and

spi

lls o

f ha

zard

ous

and

noxi

ous

subs

tanc

es,

whi

ch w

ill p

rim

arily

fun

ctio

n as

a t

rain

ing

and

rese

arch

inst

itut

ion

for

all A

dria

tic

stat

es w

ith

the

task

of

trai

ning

per

sonn

el,

espe

cial

ly r

espo

nse

team

s, in

volv

ed in

the

impl

emen

tati

on o

f co

ntin

genc

y pl

ans.

Th

e pr

ojec

t al

so p

ropo

ses

to o

rgan

ize

cros

s-bo

rder

exe

rcis

es a

ccor

ding

to

pred

eter

min

ed s

cena

rios

to

esta

blis

h th

e de

gree

of

oper

atio

nal p

repa

redn

ess,

impr

ove

co-o

pera

tion

, an

d co

ordi

nate

and

spe

ed u

p th

e re

spon

se.

Furt

herm

ore,

und

er t

he p

roje

ct it

is e

nvis

aged

to

crea

te a

com

mon

dat

abas

e on

the

av

aila

bilit

y an

d st

ate

of r

epai

r an

d sp

atia

l dis

trib

utio

n of

spi

ll re

spon

se e

quip

men

t in

Adr

iati

c co

untr

ies.

An

add

itio

nal a

ctiv

ity

shal

l be

the

anal

ysis

of

gene

ral a

nd s

peci

fic

regu

lati

ons

gove

rnin

g pr

otec

tion

of

the

sea

wit

h a

view

to

iden

tify

ing

com

mon

sol

utio

ns f

or h

arm

oniz

ing

resp

onse

pro

cedu

res

at s

ea.

2 Se

as C

BC

C-SC

OPE

Mar

itim

e G

over

nanc

e Co

mbi

ning

Sea

and

Coa

stal

Pla

nnin

g in

Eur

ope

( ww

w.c

scop

e.eu

)Th

e C-

SCO

PE p

artn

ersh

ip w

as c

reat

ed t

o ac

hiev

e a

seam

less

, in

tegr

ated

app

roac

h to

land

and

sea

pl

anni

ng a

nd m

anag

emen

t. T

he p

urpo

se o

f th

e pr

ojec

t is

to

prov

ide

the

foun

dati

on f

or s

tron

g, v

ibra

nt

and

sust

aina

ble

coas

tal e

cono

mie

s, w

hich

are

in h

arm

ony

wit

h th

e en

viro

nmen

t.

Invo

lvin

g al

l mar

itim

e se

ctor

s in

the

ir e

ndea

vour

s, b

oth

part

ners

are

con

cern

ed w

ith

enco

urag

ing

and

prom

otin

g su

stai

nabl

e an

d in

tegr

ated

man

agem

ent

of t

he c

oast

and

ens

urin

g th

at it

s in

here

nt n

atur

al

and

cult

ural

qua

litie

s ar

e m

aint

aine

d an

d en

hanc

ed f

or t

he b

enef

it o

f fu

ture

gen

erat

ions

.

The

proj

ect

will

ach

ieve

its

obje

ctiv

es b

y de

velo

ping

a f

ram

ewor

k fo

r in

tegr

atin

g te

rres

tria

l and

mar

ine

plan

ning

, to

ols

for

achi

evin

g su

stai

nabl

e co

asta

l eco

nom

ies

and

envi

ronm

ents

– s

uch

as a

pla

nnin

g to

ol

for

deci

sion

-mak

ing

in t

he c

oast

al z

one,

a c

oast

al a

tlas

and

indi

cato

rs –

and

eng

agin

g w

ith

stak

ehol

ders

on

the

ir c

omm

itm

ent

to IC

ZM.


64

Mar

itim

eth

emes

addr

ess e

d:In

tegr

ated

Coas

talZ

one

Man

agem

ent,

Inte

grat

edM

arit

ime

Spat

ialP

lann

ing

Inte

rest

ing

p lan

ning

tool

sde

velo

ped:

ww

w.i

coas

t.co

.uk

and

ww

w.k

usta

tlas

.be

ERD

Fbu

dget

:€

895

433

MIR

G-E

UM

arin

ePo

lluti

on,

Civi

lPr

otec

t ion

&M

arin

eEn

viro

nmen

tal

Prot

ecti

on

Mar

itim

eIn

cide

ntRe

spon

seG

roup

(ww

w.m

irg.

eu)

Ship

ping

isa

safe

for m

oftr

ansp

ort.

How

ever

,w

hen

acci

dent

sdo

occu

r,th

eco

nseq

uenc

esca

nbe

extr

emel

yse

rio u

sin

term

sof

fata

litie

s,en

viro

nmen

talp

ollu

tion

orec

onom

icco

nseq

uenc

esfo

rth

efi

s hin

gan

dle

isur

ein

dust

ries

.

Topr

ovid

eth

issa

fety

inth

e2

Seas

area

,th

efi

rebr

igad

esfr

om t

he f

our

Mem

ber-

Stat

esha

vede

cide

dto

coop

erat

ean

des

tabl

ish

acr

oss-

bord

erM

arit

ime

Inci

dent

Resp

onse

Gro

up(M

IRG

EU).

The

obje

ctiv

eof

the

proj

ect

isto

crea

tean

dtr

ain

3m

arit

ime

inci

dent

resp

onse

grou

ps(M

IRG

s)in

Belg

ium

,Fr

ance

and

the

Net

herl

ands

,us

ing

the

exis

ting

know

ledg

ean

dsk

ills

ofth

eM

IRG

team

inEn

glan

d.Th

eai

mis

tofo

rma

spec

i alis

ed g

roup

of

fire

figh

ters

usin

ga

com

mon

set

of

proc

edur

esfo

rfi

re-f

ight

ing

and

inci

dent

res p

onse

,on

pass

enge

rsh

ips

and

carg

ove

ssel

s.Th

eyw

illim

plem

ent

the

resu

lts

ofa

shar

edtr

aini

ngsc

hem

eba

sed

ona

risk

anal

ysis

ofth

e2

Seas

area

that

will

defi

neco

mm

onm

etho

dolo

gies

and

prot

ocol

.Th

roug

hth

epr

ojec

t,al

mos

t12

0Fr

ench

,Be

lgia

nan

dD

utch

fire

men

will

betr

aine

d.M

arit

ime

them

esad

dres

sed:

Mar

itim

eSa

fety

,Co

-ope

rati

onbe

twee

nco

astg

uard

agen

cies

and

fire

men

Pa

rtne

rsER

DF

budg

et:€

162

734

2Pa

tch

Port

san

dSo

cio-

econ

omic

Port

sA

dapt

ing

toCh

ange

s

( htt

p://

ww

w.p

orto

foos

tend

e.be

/pat

ch/p

atch

.htm

)

PATC

His

deve

lopi

ngjo

int

econ

omic

acti

viti

esin

the

mar

itim

e&

logi

stic

indu

stry

toen

hanc

eco

mpe

titi

vene

ssan

din

crea

secr

oss-

bord

eren

trep

rene

ursh

ipin

this

sect

or,

and

stre

ngth

enco

-ope

rati

onbe

twee

nlo

gist

ichu

bsin

the

cros

sbor

der

area

.

The

part

ners

hip

brin

gsto

geth

erpo

rts

ofth

e2

Seas

area

,an

dth

ein

tere

sts

ofal

lof

the

regi

ons

arou

ndth

emto

deve

lop

ash

ared

know

ledg

epl

atfo

rman

dsu

stai

ned

colla

bora

tion

inan

inte

nsel

yus

edan

dye

tre

lati

vely

narr

owm

arit

ime

corr

idor

.

Toac

hiev

eth

eir

obje

ctiv

es,

part

ners

will

prov

ide

cros

sbor

der

supp

ort

for

port

sto

pool

reso

urce

san

dim

prov

eth

equ

alit

yof

port

man

agem

ent

and

logi

stic

sop

erat

ions

,to

guar

ante

em

ore

effi

cien

tcr

oss-

bord

ertr

ansp

ort

corr

idor

s.Th

eyw

i llen

cour

age

them

todi

vers

ify

thei

rec

onom

icac

tivi

ties

,in

vest

injo

int

skill

and

com

pete

nce

deve

lopm

ent

and

tosh

are

the

resu

lts

ofth

eir

inno

vati

ons,

part

icul

arly

inen

ergy

-eff

icie

ncy.

Mar

itim

eth

emes

addr

esse

d:Po

rts

man

agem

ent

ERD

Fbu

dget

:€

424

360

0Ce

ntra

lBal

tic

CBC

VO

MAR

ESe

arch

&Re

scue

,Ci

vil

Volu

ntar

y M

arin

eRe

scue

:


65

Prot

ecti

on

http

://w

ww

.cen

tral

balt

ic.e

u/pr

ojec

ts/f

unde

d-pr

ojec

ts-2

/279

-sfe

/469

-vol

unta

ry-m

arit

ime-

resc

ue

The

VOM

ARE

proj

ect

enha

nces

the

co-

oper

atio

n be

twee

n th

e Fi

nnis

h an

d Es

toni

an v

olun

tary

mar

itim

e se

arch

and

res

cue

syst

ems.

The

pro

ject

rai

ses

the

prep

ared

ness

of

the

resc

ue s

ervi

ces

on t

he E

ston

ian

coas

t to

the

leve

l spe

cifi

ed in

inte

rnat

iona

l agr

eem

ents

to

mak

e th

e re

scue

ser

vice

s su

ffic

ient

for

the

co

untr

y’s

own

citi

zens

and

vis

itor

s fr

om a

broa

d. Im

prov

ing

the

self

-suf

fici

ency

of

Esto

nia

to p

rovi

de

resc

ue s

ervi

ces

redu

ces

the

need

for

Fin

land

to

part

icip

ate

in r

escu

e m

issi

ons

in E

ston

ia.

The

proj

ect

rais

es o

vera

ll aw

aren

e ss

abou

t vo

lunt

ary

mar

itim

e se

arch

and

res

cue

oper

atio

ns.

It a

lso

seek

s to

bri

ng t

oget

her

sea-

spir

ited

peo

ple

who

are

inte

rest

ed in

vol

unta

ry m

arit

ime

sear

ch a

nd r

escu

e op

erat

ions

. Th

e pr

ojec

t se

ts u

p ne

w s

earc

h an

d re

scue

uni

ts in

Est

onia

and

tra

ins

new

vol

unte

ers.

The

pr

ojec

t al

so h

elps

to

equi

p fo

ur r

escu

e ve

ssel

s th

at a

re lo

cate

d at

var

ious

Est

onia

n ha

rbou

rs.

MIM

ICM

arit

ime

Safe

ty,

Mar

ine

Pollu

tion

Min

imiz

ing

Risk

s of

Mar

itim

e O

il Tr

ansp

ort

by H

olis

tic

Safe

ty S

trat

egie

:

http

://w

ww

.cen

tral

balt

ic.e

u/pr

ojec

ts/f

unde

d-pr

ojec

ts-

2/27

8-cb

/459

-min

imiz

ing-

risk

s-of

-mar

itim

e-oi

l-tr

ansp

ort-

by-h

olis

tic-

safe

ty-s

trat

egie

The

aim

of

the

proj

ect

is t

o co

mbi

ne t

he in

form

atio

n pr

ovid

ed s

o fa

r in

ear

lier

proj

ects

dea

ling

wit

h m

arit

ime

safe

ty a

nd r

isks

rel

ated

to

oil t

rans

por t

atio

n w

ith

new

info

rmat

ion

abou

t th

e le

ss s

tudi

ed

aspe

cts

of m

arit

ime

acci

dent

s an

d ri

sks.

MIM

IC p

roje

ct a

sses

ses

the

curr

ent

cont

rol o

ptio

ns,

polic

y in

stru

men

ts,

and

over

all s

afet

y m

anag

emen

t in

the

soc

iety

, an

d pr

ovid

es t

his

info

rmat

ion

for

stak

ehol

ders

and

dec

isio

n-m

aker

s. T

he p

roje

ct a

lso

esti

mat

es t

he e

nvir

onm

enta

l eff

ects

and

fin

anci

al c

ons e

quen

ces

of o

il sp

ills.

Ult

imat

ely,

the

se e

ffor

ts

will

res

ult

in a

web

app

licat

ion

for

deci

sion

ana

lysi

s an

d su

ppor

t as

wel

l as

sem

inar

s an

d tr

aini

ng

exer

cise

s co

ncer

ning

the

sec

urit

y th

reat

s an

d oi

l acc

iden

t re

spon

se.


66

Abbreviations CB Cross-border CBC Cross-border Co-operation CFP Common Fisheries Policy CPR Common Provisions Regulations- COM (2011) 615 Final EFTA European Free Trade Association (Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment funds ETC European Territorial Co-operation EWEA European Wind Energy Association EU European Union EUSBSR European Strategy for the Baltic Sea Eurostat Statistical Office of the European Union GW Gigawatts HELCOM Helsinki Commission HNS Hazardous & Noxious Substances INTERACT Animation, Cooperation and Transfer" for European cooperation programmes ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management (sometimes shortened to CZM) MERiFIC Marine Energy in Far Peripheral and Island Communities (Project) MSP Marine Spatial Planning (term is sometimes interchanged with “maritime”) MW Megawatts MMO Marine Management Organisation (UK) MPA Marine Protected Area NGO Non-Governmental Organisation Natura 2000 EU wide network of nature protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats

Directive. NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (United States of America) NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics OP Operational Programme SAC Special Area of Conservation (Habitats Directive) SETIS Strategic Energy Technologies Information System SME Small and Medium Enterprises TO Thematic Objectives (see Article 9, CPR) TWh Terawatt hours UNCLOS United Nations Law of the Sea


67

Bibliography EU 2009 Protecting Europe’s Nature: Learning from LIFE, Nature Conservation

best practice.

EU 2009 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions Concerning Towards an Integrated

Maritime Policy for better governance in the Mediterranean COM (2009)466 final

EU 2011 The Common Provisions Regulation (CPR) COM (2011) 615 Final

EU 2011 The ERDF Regulation COM(2011) 614

EU 2011 The European Territorial Co-Operation Regulation COM(2011) 611

EU 2012 Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council: Developing a European Union Policy towards the Arctic Region: progress

since 2008 and next steps SWD(2012) 182 final & SWD(2012) 183 final EU 2012 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions Concerning A Maritime Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian Seas COM(2012) 713 final

EU 2012 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the

Committee of the Regions Concerning the European Union strategy for the Baltic Sea region, COM(2012) 128 final

EU 2013 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the

Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Concerning the Action Plan for a Maritime

Strategy in the Atlantic area Delivering smart, sustainable and inclusive growth COM(2013) 279 final

Eurostat 2012 Eurostat Pocketbooks: Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics. Main results 2010-2011

Eurostat 2012 Eurostat Pocketbooks: Energy, transport and environmental indicators

Eurostat 2012 Eurostat Pocketbooks: Euro-Mediterranean statistics

Eurostat 2012 Coastal region statistics (Viewed June 2013):

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Coas

tal_region_statistics#Further_Eurostat_information Eurostat 2012 Maritime ports freight and passenger statistics (Viewed June 2013):

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Maritime_ports_freight_and_passenger_statistics#Further_Eurostat_informa

tion Eurostat 2012 Maritime transport statistics - short sea shipping of goods (Viewed June

2013):

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Maritime_transport_statistics_-

_short_sea_shipping_of_goods#Further_Eurostat_information


68

EWEA 2012 The European offshore wind industry- key trends and statistics 2012: A

report by the European Wind Energy Association. MERiFIC 2013 Civil society involvement and social acceptability of marine energy

projects, Best practices of the marine energy sector A report prepared as part of the MERiFIC Project "Marine Energy in Far Peripheral and

Island Communities" NOAA 2007 Social Science Tools for Coastal Programs: Introduction to Stakeholder

Participation

North Sea Commission 2013 North Sea Commission Strategy: Contributing to Europe 2020 Ounanian, K. et al 2012 On unequal footing : Stakeholder perspectives on the marine

strategy framework directive as a mechanism of the ecosystem-based approach to marine management. Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 3,

May 2012, Pages 658–666

Pentz, T. 2012 BaltSeaPlan Report 24: Stakeholder Involvement in MSP

Vella, P, et al 2009 An evolving protocol to identify key stakeholder-influenced indicators of coastal change: the case of Marine Protected Areas. – ICES Journal of

Marine Science, 66: 203–213 Roland, F. &

Hollwedel, M. - 2011 EMAR²RES Deliverable No. 2.1 Report on Stakeholders Identification

(Maritime Part) Schultz-Zehden, A &

Gee, K - 2013 The BaltSeaPlan Findings: Experiences and Lessons

SETIS 2012 Marine Energy (Viewed June 2013): http://setis.ec.europa.eu/technologies/Ocean-wave-power/info

(Strategic Energy Technologies Information System)

Documents

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