CHAPTER 4: CURRENT CO-OPERATION
107. Co-operation in the North Sea basin is not
new. Both the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and the
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD) require co-operation
between Member States, whether through existing structures or
through new efforts.
Catalysts for marine co-operation
108. Two shipping incidents in the late 1960s
and early 1970s were instrumental in energising the political
will to agree binding rules to protect the marine environment.
The Torrey Canyon oil spill in 1967 required a joint clean-up
operation involving both the UK and France. Over 117,000 tonnes
of crude oil were spilt, resulting in a slick covering over 700km².
The accident, which was the worst in UK history, triggered global
action and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships. At a regional level, the Bonn Agreement was adopted (Agreement
for Co-operation in dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by
Oil and Other Harmful Substances).
109. The Dutch ship Stella Maris sailed
from Rotterdam in 1971 to dump chlorinated waste at sea, but because
of overwhelming local protests and political pressure, returned
to port unsuccessful. This widely-publicised incident led to the
adoption of the 1972 Oslo Convention for the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft.
110. Subsequent Conventions led to the creation
of the North East Atlantic Regional Sea Convention, commonly known
as OSPAR. The UK Government said "OSPAR is the key organisation
promoting regional co-operation for the North East Atlantic marine
environment."[194]
Further information can be found in Box 5.
The Directives
111. In 2010, Ministers attending OSPAR affirmed
its role in facilitating the co-ordinated and coherent implementation
of the MSFD,[195] setting
out a 'road map' for a regional implementation framework for the
Directive. This was further expanded in a North-East Atlantic
Environment Strategy.[196]
Other forms of co-operation to implement the MSFD include a 'Common
Implementation Strategy' across all Member States and regular
meetings of senior Member State officials responsible for the
marine environment.[197]
While these are positive examples of Member State co-operation,
the European Commission acknowledged that more could be done to
bring these efforts together.[198]
112. There is also evidence of co-operation with
regard to the MSPD. The European Commission told us about the
EU Member State Expert Sub-Group on marine planning:
"It meets on a regular basis and has taken
on, as its task, the development of further guidance with regard
to the concrete implementation of the Directive following its
adoption. In particular, what we expect from that group is that
it will provide at least the first elements for guidance to Member
States on things such as, for example, cooperation across
borders, but also on more technical things such as how to work
together on the collection and use of data you need for [marine
planning]."[199]
113. It is notable that OSPAR has convened a
working group on marine planning, though it has no power to force
Member States to co-operate with one another. Moreover, we heard
that resource constraints can impact on the work they undertake:
"Resources are a major issue for us in terms
of our Contracting parties, because national Administrations have
had their numbers of officials cut heavily, and their scientific
budgets might be under pressure. The Marine Strategy Framework
Directive has also created a lot of administrative burden for
those national Administrations, so it is a huge challenge for
us."[200]
114. The ecosystem approach to marine planning
places environmental considerations at the heart of decision making.
OSPAR described it as an "iterative process",[201]
and the European Environment Agency (EEA) told us that marine
planning must take ecosystems into account:
"Ecosystem-based management has to be directly
related to the [MSPD], where clearly you look at the overall context
as a system with different components intervening in a very interactive
manner. Interconnectedness is part of an ecosystem-based management."[202]
115. Under the UK Marine Policy Statement, all
UK Administrations have undertaken to develop plans based on this
ecosystem approach. Such an approach:
· ensures that the collective pressure of
human activities is kept within the levels compatible with the
achievement of good environmental status;
· does not compromise the capacity of marine
ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes;
· enables the sustainable use of marine
goods and services.[203]
116. The Marine Management Organisation (MMO)
(see Box 9), the body responsible for preparing the English Marine
Plans (see Appendix 5), assured us that it engaged with The Netherlands,
Belgium, and France over the recently published East Marine Plans.
The Dutch government was reportedly very complimentary about the
level of consultation.[204]
117. We observe that co-operation between
countries concerning the marine environment has often been prompted
by some form of crisis or disaster. The ensuing efforts in the
North Sea region have resulted in some effective tools and useful
mechanisms for co-operation which take account of environmental
considerations.
Energy
118. Co-operation is taking place within many
individual sectors, the energy industry being just one example.
The North Sea is an area traditionally rich in oil and gas, and
boasts a growing renewables industry. Political developments within
the energy sector are also becoming increasingly important. The
European Commission published a Strategy for an Energy Union on
25 February 2015.[205]
This built on the Conclusions adopted by the European Council
in October 2014, which emphasised the need to enhance energy security,
complete the internal energy market and improve governance. To
achieve these goals, greater co-ordination of national energy
policies and regional co-operation were recommended.[206]
In 2013, we concluded that stronger regional co-operation on energy
network planning "could be very beneficial in the transition
to a more renewable-based and secure system."[207]
119. The development of a 'meshed' North Sea
grid was advocated by most witnesses as more economically sound
than the current radial 'point to point' approach (see Figure
2).[208] Currently,
offshore renewable generators are individually connected to national
transmission onshore grids via a radial connection, and interconnectors
generally link together two onshore grids. Hybrid structures combining
interconnectors and renewable energy sources could, in some situations,
be a more efficient alternative, representing the first step towards
an offshore 'meshed' grid. Witnesses told us that, although the
technology to support such a development (voltage-source conversion
technology) was currently in place, there was regulatory resistance.[209] Figure
2: Approaches to offshore energy grids
Source: North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative
120. It is in this context that the North Seas
Countries' Offshore Grid Initiative (NSCOGI) has been established,
to consider how a meshed energy grid could be developed. It was
generally felt that, while helpful, it had not achieved the required
step change. For example, the 2014 NSCOGI progress report highlighted
remaining barriers to allocating the costs of hybrid assets among
interconnector and wind farm developers, and to trading options
for simple hybrid infrastructure (one wind farm linking to one
interconnector), and for more complex infrastructure (a number
of wind farms linked to an offshore hub).[210]
The North Sea Region Programme (NSRP) told us that the development
of such a grid would form part of the internal energy market and
would include renewable energy installations.[211]
Ofgem, on the other hand, spoke of the uncertainty surrounding
the project's future:
"We agree with the view that there is still
further work to be done to establish the full details of the regulatory
arrangements for projects that integrate offshore generation with
market-to-market interconnection. We will continue to work as
part of the NSCOGI group to make progress on these issues, but
also believe that there is a limit to how much can be done in
advance of greater visibility about the nature of projects that
are likely to be developed."[212]
121. The Minister, Matthew Hancock MP, echoed
this point, but emphasised the work that was being carried out
to overcome the regulatory barriers to fully realise the grid.[213]
The European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) told us, however,
that NSCOGI was "lacking teeth."[214]
This view was shared by Wildlife and Countryside Link, which pointed
out that ACER, the European energy regulator, possessed little
power to bring about greater regulatory integration.[215]
RenewableUK made the point more bluntly:
"All of the technology … is there.
We can roll out DC[216]
connectors. We could connect Norway; we could connect Iceland.
However, the regulatory aspects are lagging behind, and that is
a unique situation. Usually, the big vision is there but the technology
is lagging, but here it is the paperwork."[217]
122. Oil and Gas UK assured us that "the
representative bodies or trade associations for the oil and gas
producers around the North Sea meet formally on a regular basis
and informally as common issues arise."[218]
On a UK level, we were told that the Seabed Users and Developers
Group (SUDG), which is sponsored by the Crown Estate, "meets
regularly to discuss common issues around the sustainable use
of the marine environment, particularly within the context of
marine plans and marine protected areas."[219]
123. The European Commission explained that it
was undertaking a "preparatory action" for energy co-operation
and marine planning in the North Sea. It said that this would
take the form of a "discussion forum" that would tackle
the two issues of a smart grid and the wider implementation of
the MSPD, and that it would be a first step "to see what
ambition, what potential and what interest there is for developing
co-operation further in the North Sea on these issues in particular."[220]
Following this assurance, the European Commission and the North
Sea Commission (NSC) held a stakeholder conference in Edinburgh
on 29 January 2015.[221]
Speakers at the conference made the point that energy co-operation
could bring about cost-savings to the consumer and that the energy
industry should work on a flagship project as a first step.
124. Regulatory barriers to greater cross-border
energy co-operation remain. Member States should prioritise efforts
to overcome technical obstacles associated with trading options
and asset costs. In particular, we urge the UK Government to continue
its work in overcoming the regulatory barriers involved in the
North Seas Countries Offshore Grid Initiative. (Recommendation
12)
Fisheries
125. The involvement of fisheries stakeholders
and environmental organisations in the Common Fisheries Policy
(CFP) has been evolving for some time. Ann Bell, an independent
North Sea expert, highlighted the NSC's 1998 fisheries partnership,[222]
which eventually led to the Regional Advisory Councils' (RACs)
introduction under the 2002 CFP reform. The RACs were given a
statutory advisory function in 2013 and re-named as Advisory Councils
(ACs).[223] Two thirds
of the seats are allocated to representatives of the fisheries
sector and one third to representatives of the other interest
groups affected by the CFP, such as environmental organisations.[224]
126. This co-operation between the European Commission
and fisheries stakeholders was welcomed by some witnesses: the
MCS told us that "co-operation amongst the members of …
the various Advisory Councils seems to work well."[225]
The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (NFFO) told
us:
"Advisory Councils have been a big step
forward. In terms of the industry groupings, they provide a very
strong platform for mutual understanding. In the past it was all
too easy to blame somebody else for whatever was happening. It
is not quite so easy when you have to sit and listen, and understand
the nature of their fisheries. So, in terms of the industry, it
has been a very big step forward."[226]
127. Moreover, under the 2013 reform of the CFP,
groups of Member States surrounding a regional sea may agree on
a package of management measures which, provided that they conform
to the general principles of the Policy, are subsequently ratified
by the Commission.
128. The Government expressed strong support
for the new arrangements, based on its initial experience of applying
them in practice to detailed plans for initial implementation
of the landings obligation ('discard ban'):[227]
"The development of the pelagic discard
plans was the first formal application of the regional approach
to fisheries management under the new CFP and I have been extremely
pleased with how the process has worked. The appetite shown by
the other Member States in both the North Sea and North Western
Waters to employ the new processes was heartening and exceeded
my initial expectations … [we] have agreed Memoranda of Understanding
for how the groups operate, developed clear work programmes, dividing
tasks to share the workloads effectively and set out a very clear
process of engagement with the relevant Advisory Councils to ensure
they work to a clear timetable and scope … [officials] have
been able to work directly with their counterparts from other
regional Member States towards a clear set of outcomes from day
one."[228]
129. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF)
confirmed that "the Advisory Councils … now have a part
to play and are being consulted [on the development of discard
plans]."[229]
Despite this recent engagement, the fishing industry and environmental
NGOs were not able to coalesce around a single position on the
original proposal to introduce the controversial landings obligation.
The AC was not therefore in a position to influence discussions.
In contrast, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)
commented that the NGOs "threw the kitchen sink at it in
a surgical strike."[230]
130. The North Sea Advisory Council's position
paper in 2012 on the reform of the CFP highlighted funding as
a particular concern.[231]
Currently, ACs are funded by their members, by the Member States
and by an annual grant of €250,000 from the Commission, an
amount which has not changed since 2007. In 2008, we urged the
Commission to review the funding of RACs and we argued that this
"should factor in the pace at which their activities are
developing."[232]
131. We note the successes that have resulted
from the work of the fisheries Advisory Councils and support their
enhanced role in Commission-level consultations. In the light
of their enhanced role, we recommend an urgent review of their
funding by the Commission. We also recommend that the UK Government
consider how it may be able to contribute additional resources
to enable Advisory Councils to fulfil their obligations. (Recommendation
13)
Co-operation in practice
132. Numerous practical examples of co-operation
were drawn to our attention. Some specific examples, varying in
scope and scale, are summarised below.
BALTSEAPLAN AND THE BALTIC SEA STRATEGY
133. Co-operation around the Baltic Sea has been
particularly notable. The intensity of co-operation in the Baltic
was due, in large part, to serious issues of pollution and eutrophication.
BaltSeaPlan,[233] a
€3.7m project, was established in 2009 and was strongly supported
by Baltic Sea Member States. This led to a political commitment
to achieve a comprehensive level of marine planning by 2030 (BaltSea
Vision 2030).[234]
An EU Baltic Sea Strategy was launched in the same year, solely
on the initiative of the Member States concerned, and the German
government told us that this Plan influenced the subsequent approach
of the MSPD.[235] The
European Commission told us:
"[This] is the most ambitious example I
can give you of where we have been able, as a Commission globally,
to support work on developing [marine planning] co-operatively."[236]
The Baltic Sea Strategy has now been followed by
other macro-regional strategies such as that in the Adriatic and
Ionian region.
WADDEN SEA FORUM
134. This is an independent platform of stakeholders
from Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands contributing to an advanced
and sustainable development of the trilateral Wadden Sea Region.
It was established in 2002, following a decision by the 9th Governmental
Conference of The Trilateral Co-operation on the Protection of
the Wadden Sea.[237]
They have used a website with tools for integrated coastal zone
management, and the stakeholder group consists of representatives
from the agriculture, energy, and fisheries industries as well
as harbour, nature protection and tourism sectors. Local and regional
governments are part of the same group and national governments
are supportive and are represented as observers.[238]
CELTIC SEA PARTNERSHIP
135. This is led by the World Wide Fund for Nature
(WWF) and engages stakeholders across the Celtic Seas countries
and territories[239]
in project-based activities. They have secured a €4m budget
over four years and the main marine sectors, NGOs, academics and
governments are all involved, either as core stakeholders or,
in the case of governments, the European Commission and OSPAR,
as observers. The focus of the Partnership is the delivery of
the MSFD in the Celtic Seas. WWF called for this model to be extended
to the North Sea.[240]
MASPNOSE
136. MASPNOSE[241]
(Maritime Spatial Planning in the North Sea) was a study carried
out by a number of knowledge institutes (Centre for Marine Policy,
Deltares, vTI, University of Ghent and DTU-Aqua) at the request
of the European Commission. The consortium initiated discussions
with governmental parties and stakeholders (fisheries, NGOs and
other industry bodies). Two case studies in the North Sea were
taken up: developing an international fisheries management plan
for the Dogger Bank in the central North Sea and an exploration
of the potential for collaboration on the Thornton Bank in the
southern part of the North Sea. The challenges associated with
the Dogger Bank are described above, in paragraph 59, and
the project attempted to develop an international management plan
for the area taking into account those constraints. The Thornton
Bank is managed by The Netherlands and Belgium. Here the focus
was on potential areas of collaboration for wind energy and the
harmonisation of marine planning practices. The project concluded
that cross-border co-operation efforts often lacked commitment
and did not lead to a unified marine spatial plan for the area.
The project concluded that cross-border situations required a
pre-agreed process with a clear mandate and responsibilities.
BALLAST WATER OPPORTUNITY
137. This is an EU-funded project through the
North Sea Region Programme, under which research organisations
have come together in order to pilot different mechanisms to disinfect
ballast water in a cost-effective, non-environmentally harmful
way, before the water is discharged into the sea. We were told
that the results of research could be commercialised and marketed
internationally.[242]
CLEAN NORTH SEA SHIPPING
138. Involving both the NRSP and the NSC, this
project brought together research organisations, local government
and specialists in shipping and ports. Large ports such as Antwerp,
Rotterdam and Hamburg were also involved. The aim of the project
was to consider how to approach the Sulphur Directive and the
Emission Control Area for the North Sea region, in preparation
for the sulphur restrictions which will come into force in 2015.
The project ended with a set of recommendations which will be
circulated throughout the member regions for consideration.[243]
Factors and challenges in successful
co-operation
POLITICAL LEADERSHIP
139. The projects and partnerships described
above demonstrate the potential for effective collaborative working.
The Commission emphasised that Member States' commitment to greater
co-operation was absolutely crucial in order to deliver results.[244]
At the same time there was a clear view that the lack of strong
signals from national governments, and in some cases the European
Commission, may have impeded progress with regional co-operation
thus far. In the example of the Dogger Bank (see paragraph 59),
we heard that a stronger political steer would have been helpful,[245]
a conclusion echoed by the MASPNOSE project. Dr Jones told us:
"With the Dogger Bank, we had a trilateral
decision-making process between representatives from different
industries and the three Member States. They could not agree on
a single zonation plan; they ended up with two zonation plans
that they could not quite agree on, and then those went to the
Commission. That was three years ago, and, since then, there has
been zero progress. Where we see some laudable examples of good
cooperation between Member States, we also need to see a
commitment from the Commission to implement the decisions that
are taken as a result of that cooperation."[246]
140. The respective roles of the Commission and
the EU Member States, though, reflect the fact that competence
for marine planning and for the associated policy areas is spread
over all levels of governance. Concerns over competence mean,
as the Commission observed, that the issue of marine planning
"is not an entirely insensitive subject."[247]
141. Competence over town and country planning
and over national energy supply is shared between the EU and its
Member States. Legislation is subject to unanimous agreement by
the Member States.[248]
The EU and its Member States also share competence over aspects
of energy policy relating to the internal market and over environmental
policy, but legislation is adopted jointly by the European Parliament
and a qualified majority of Member States.[249]
Competence for fisheries policy lies almost exclusively with the
EU.[250] Overall responsibility
for shipping falls to the IMO, operating at the international
level. The tension inherent in competence relating to EU policies
affecting the marine environment is clear in the wording of the
MSPD:
"This Directive shall not interfere with
Member States' competence to design and determine, within their
marine waters, the extent and coverage of their maritime spatial
plans. It shall not apply to town and country planning."[251]
142. The North Sea region includes Norway, which
is not a member of the European Union but is a member of the European
Economic Area. Membership of the European Economic Area applies
EU internal energy market legislation to Norway. EU fisheries
policy does not apply to Norway, but the EU and Norway are obliged
under international law[252]
to agree on the management of shared stocks. Norway is a member
of OSPAR, which co-ordinates action on environmental protection
in the North Sea.
143. The German government argued that respect
for the division of competence on the one hand and regional co-operation
were not mutually exclusive:
"While insisting that the competence for
establishing the maritime spatial plans in the Exclusive Economic
Areas and the Coastal Zones has to remain a national one, we fully
recognise the need for consultation with our neighbour States
both in the Baltic and North Seas."[253]
144. Despite this positive statement by the German
government, concerns over loss of national control over marine
planning seemed to be evident in many of the discussions about
sea basin strategies and macro-regional strategies, such as the
Baltic Sea Strategy (see paragraph 133). In some cases it
may be that these concerns are acting as barriers to progress.
The Commission was careful not to force regions and Member States
to take on a macro-regional approach, but more could be done to
open up discussions on other possible courses of action.
145. The experience of co-operation thus far
indicates that clear direction from national governments is an
essential factor in effective marine co-operation. A lack of leadership
in situations where it has not proved possible to align economic
interests with environmental protection, has led to paralysis.
An example is the Dogger Bank, where we urge the UK Government
to show political leadership by intensifying efforts to agree
a joint recommendation for fisheries management. Failing any such
resolution, we recommend that the European Commission consider
the option of adopting urgent measures to manage the area. (Recommendation
14)
146. Competence over elements of marine policy
ranges from the international to the local and it is not therefore
appropriate for the European Commission to take a decisive role
in leading cross-border co-operation to develop coherent marine
plans in the North Sea. The examples of co-operation that we have
highlighted demonstrate that it is possible to co-operate effectively,
while respecting the boundaries of national competence.
DUPLICATION AND TRANSPARENCY
147. The Commission told us that "the last
thing we would want is for yet another institution to be called
into life to duplicate frameworks that already exist."[254]
Equally, some clarity over the respective roles of individual
organisations which already exist would be helpful. Oil and Gas
UK called for a new approach:
"There is a plethora of organisations, initiatives
and funding mechanisms operating within the North Sea region which
is challenging for individual sectors to engage with. Regional
co-operation could benefit from rationalisation to improve transparency
and manageability."[255]
148. We saw a number of complex diagrams during
our inquiry, which attempted to map the various bodies and institutions
and their interactions with one another. Professor Elliot drew
our attention to a diagram known as the 'horrendogram'[256]
to illustrate the complex and sectoral nature of the terrain.[257]
On the other hand, Dr Jones argued that the complexity was inevitable:
"If you look at a London A-Z, that is pretty
horrendous as well, but what we do is say, 'Where am I and where
do I want to go?' Then we can work out our route through it. With
horrendograms like this, it is important to remember that, if
you take a certain route through this landscape, it becomes much
easier to comprehend."[258]
149. Despite this assurance, we were left with
the distinct impression that more could be done to aid stakeholders
in engaging with the various bodies in existence and in navigating
the complicated legislative web.
150. We also examined the UK Government's departmental
approach to regional marine co-operation. Citing a diagram which
showed the various marine environment responsibilities of Government
departments,[259] we
asked the ministers whether the plethora of policy makers engaged
coherently with extra-national bodies. Despite being told that
"[The question] is not whether there are lots of government
departments but how well they come together,"[260]
and that cabinet government was the primary method of policy synthesis,
we were unconvinced that the Government was appraising the marine
environment in a holistic way.
151. We recommend that, through a joint effort,
national governments and the European Commission map the institutions
and frameworks that currently exist, in order to inform decisions
about future co-operation and to assist stakeholders. (Recommendation
15)
FUNDING
152. While failure to co-operate can be costly,
effective co-operation can bring about economic, environmental
and social gains; investment in such co-operation can be worthwhile.
As OSPAR told us, "the more you do things in a regional or
even in a sub-regional approach, the more you can then share some
of the costs."[261]
To be effective, however, co-operation needs to be properly resourced.
Indeed, the results of the effective use of funding can be seen
in the specific examples of co-operation in practice outlined
above in paragraphs 132-138.
153. The Government indicated that the new co-operation
processes under the reformed CFP had not increased the required
central resources. Discussions which would previously have taken
place centrally in Brussels were now taking place elsewhere on
a regional basis,[262]
though additional funding would be required to support the ACs'
enhanced responsibilities under the reformed CFP (see paragraph 125).
154. OSPAR (see paragraph 113) and the North
Sea Advisory Council (see paragraph 130) told us that cross-border
co-operation could be resource-intensive. The NSC added that funding
was one of the major challenges to co-operation.[263]
Similarly, the Scottish government was concerned that increased
co-operation "would potentially require additional resource."[264]
155. The European Commission acknowledged the
resource challenges of intensive co-ordination but told us that
it was providing further opportunities for EU funding using existing
sources:
"We do have considerable funding means available
at European level, through, for example, the European structural
and investment funds. These funds have been organised in such
a way that they make it possible for those Member States and Member
State regions that want to take up these possibilities to find
financial support for actions in the context of these strategies.
This is the case for the Atlantic strategy,[265]
for example."[266]
156. It went on to explain the importance of
those who apply for funding aligning objectives so that they cohered
with the wider objectives of the Commission:
"There are explicit possibilities in the
European structural and investment funds for blue growth actions
to be taken up in operational programmes proposed by Member States
and their region."[267]
157. We heard about the valuable work of the
NSRP in financing a wide range of projects aimed at regional development
(see paragraphs 134-135). This small scale project-based funding
scheme is part of INTERREG, the European Union's interregional
co-operation programme.[268]
158. EU financial resources can support a co-operative
approach to marine research. Such research features in the Commission's
Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation:
"Cross-cutting marine and maritime scientific
and technological knowledge will be addressed to unlock the potential
of the seas and oceans across the range of marine and maritime
industries, while protecting the environment."[269]
159. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
(COSLA), however, called for a greater co-ordination of "the
plethora of existing policies and funds to make their delivery
more effective and efficient."[270]
It noted the links between the INTERREG North West Europe Programme[271]
and the Atlantic Strategy and its Action Plan, describing them
as "a belated effort", and the "result of a lack
of any other substantive EU financial resources."[272]
This was a rather different picture to the one put forward by
the Commission.
160. Dr Jones expressed concerns about how well
research funding was co-ordinated at a macro level:
"There needs to be much better integration
of how the research funding is spent… [we] end up with different
projects at the end of different work programmes, all funding
the same sort of research."[273]
161. We also heard of the need for increased
communication on the part of research bodies, as well as a more
integrated approach at an EU level. Cefas explained that the UK's
Marine Science Co-ordination Committee (MSCC) had a role to play
on a national level:
"The MSCC has two main roles. One of them
is to deliver the UK marine science strategy … The second
part of its role is in communication, bringing together many funding
bodies, departments and Devolved Administrations to highlight
and co-ordinate what is being done, make sure there is no overlap
and fill important gaps as they arise."[274]
162. Oil and Gas UK suggested that greater Member
State co-operation could help fund a successful sea-bed mapping
project:
"The potential must exist for a co-operative
approach at Member State level to undertake mapping and consideration
could be given to a strategic review of research funding to enable
delivery of a regional resource."[275]
163. Co-operation between stakeholders and
Member States can deliver efficiencies and enable limited resources
to go further.
164. Accessing resources can be problematic,
and so we recommend that the European Commission prepare and publish
guidance on navigating and accessing the existing funding opportunities.
(Recommendation 16)
194 Written evidence from DEFRA (RMC0002) Back
195
Written evidence from OSPAR (RMC0005) Back
196
Ibid. Back
197
Q11 Back
198
Q6 Back
199
Q5 Back
200
Q45 (Darius Campbell) Back
201
Q39 (Darius Campbell) Back
202
Q50 Back
203
UK Marine Policy Statement, Para. 2.3.1 Back
204
Q78 (Dr Howell) Back
205
Communication from the Commission: A Framework Strategy for a
Resilient Energy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change Policy,
COM(2015) 80 Back
206
European Council, Conclusions on 2030 Climate and Energy Policy
Framework, SN 79/14, (23 October 2014): http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/145356.pdf [Accessed
6 February 2015] Back
207
European Union Committee, No Country is an Energy Island: Securing Investment for the EU's Future
(14th Report, Session 2012-13, HL Paper 161) Back
208
Q19 (Nick Medic) Back
209
Q23 (Nick Medic) Back
210
The North Seas Countries' Offshore Grid Initiative, NSCOGI
2013/2014 Progress Report, (August 2014): http://www.benelux.int/files/9814/0922/7026/NSCOGI_2013_2014.pdf
[Accessed 6 February 2015] Back
211
Written evidence from North Sea Region Programme (RMC0007) Back
212
Written evidence from Ofgem (RMC0016) Back
213
Q116 Back
214
Q18 (Jacopo Moccia) Back
215
Written evidence from Wildlife and Countryside Link (RMC0008) Back
216
Direct Current Back
217
Q23 (Nick Medic) Back
218
Written evidence from Oil and Gas UK (RMC0015) Back
219
Ibid. Back
220
Q10 Back
221
European Commission, 'Regional cooperation on energy and maritime
spatial planning in the North Sea': http://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/events/2015/01/events_20150129_01_en.htm
[Accessed 5 March 2015] Back
222
Q59 Back
223
Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 2013 Back
224
Council Decision 2004/585/EC of 19 July 2004 establishing Regional
Advisory Councils under the Common Fisheries Policy, (OJ L 256,
3 August 2004, p 17) Back
225
Written evidence from the Marine Conservation Society (RMC0011) Back
226
Q59 Back
227
Q118 Back
228
Letter from George Eustice MP to Lord Boswell on the North Sea
pelagic stocks discard plan (14543/14) in Appendix 7 Back
229
Q65 Back
230
Q102 Back
231
NSRAC, The NSRAC
perspective of a reform of the Common Fisheries Policy: Framework
regulation,(March 2012): http://www.nsrac.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NSRAC-1112-5-2012-03-13-CFP-Position-Paper-FINAL.pdf
[Accessed 6 February 2015] Back
232
European Union Committee, The Progress of the Common Fisheries Policy
(21st Report, Session 2007-08, HL Paper 146) Back
233
BaltSeaPlan Homepage: http://www.baltseaplan.eu [Accessed 6 February
2015] Back
234
BaltSeaPlan, Vision 2030: Towards the sustainable planning
of Baltic SeaSpace: http://www.baltseaplan.eu/
index.php?cmd=download&subcmd=downloads/2_BaltSeaPlan_Vision2030.pdf
[Accessed 6 February 2015] Back
235
Written evidence from the German Federal Ministry of Transport
and Digital Infrastructure (RMC0009) Back
236
Q5 Back
237
Wadden Sea Forum, 'About the forum': http://www.waddensea-forum.org
[Accessed 6 February 2015] Back
238
QQ29 (Kate Clarke) and 105 (Dr Dodds) Back
239
England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland,
France, Isle of Man Back
240
Written evidence from WWF (RMC0010) Back
241
Wageningen UR, 'Maspnose: Maritime Spatial Planning in the North
Sea': https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/show/Maspnose-Maritime-spatial-planning-in-the-North-Sea.htm
[Accessed 6 February 2015] Back
242
Q29 (Matt Nichols) Back
243
Q29 (Kate Clarke) Back
244
Q11 Back
245
Written evidence from Wildlife and Countryside Link (RMC0008)
and WWF (RMC0010) Back
246
Q132 Back
247
Q5 Back
248
Article 192, TFEU (OJ C 326 26 October 2012, p 133) Back
249
Articles 4, 192 and 194, TFEU (OJ C 326 26 October 2012, pp 18,133
and 134) Back
250
Articles 3, 4 and 43, TFEU (OJ C 326 26 October 2012, pp 51 and
64) The EU has exclusive competence over the conservation of marine
biological resources under the CFP but shares competence with
the Member States on the remaining aspects of fisheries policy,
such as control and enforcement. Legislation is adopted jointly
by the European Parliament and the Member States on all issues
except measures on fixing prices, levies, aids and quantitative
limitations and on the fixing and allocation of fishing opportunities. Back
251
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive, Article 2 Back
252
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas, Article 63:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/
convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
[Accessed 6 February 2015] Back
253
Written evidence from the German Federal Ministry of Transport
and Digital Infrastructure (RMC0009) Back
254
Q5 Back
255
Written evidence from Oil and Gas UK (RMC0015) Back
256
Suzanne J. Boyes and Michael Elliott, 'Marine legislation: The
ultimate 'horrendogram': International law, European directives
& national implementation', Marine Pollution Bulletin,
86, (2014), p 43 Back
257
Q129 Back
258
Q132 Back
259
Suzanne J. Boyes and Michael Elliott, 'The excessive complexity
of national marine governance systems: Has this decreased in England
since the introduction of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009?',
Marine Policy, 51, (2015), pp59-60 Back
260
Q118 (Rt Hon Matthew Hancock MP) Back
261
Q45 (Darius Campbell) Back
262
Letter from George Eustice MP to Lord Boswell in Appendix 7. Back
263
Q45 (Kate Clarke) Back
264
Written evidence from The Scottish Government (RMC0014) Back
265
Communication from the Commission: Developing a Maritime Strategy
for the Atlantic Ocean Area, COM(2011) 782 Back
266
Q11 Back
267
Ibid. Back
268
Q27 (Matt Nichols) Back
269
European Commission: 'Horizon 2020 Aquatic Resources': http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/
en/area/aquatic-resources
[Accessed 6 February 2015] Back
270
Written evidence from COSLA (RMC0006) Back
271
INTERREG North-West Europe (NWE) is a Programme of the European
Union to promote the economic, environmental, social and territorial
future of the North-West Europe area. It funds activities based
on the co-operation of partners from eight countries: Belgium,
France, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom. https://www.nweurope.eu/ [Accessed 6 February
2015] Back
272
Written evidence from COSLA (RMC0006) Back
273
Q134 Back
274
Q97 Back
275
Written evidence from Oil and Gas UK (RMC0015) Back
|
