benchmarking study crpm · part 4 of this report provides a swot analysis, based on the information...

CPMR – Benchmarking study on Marine Renewable Energies – p. 2

Contents

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1. Scope of the study ............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2. Purpose and structure of this report ................................................................................................. 4

2. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Data sources and assumptions .......................................................................................................... 5

2.2. Overview of questionnaire topics ..................................................................................................... 5

3. MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE APC REGIONS ................................................................................ 5

3.1. Diagnosis of Regional Competences, Expertise and Strategies ......................................................... 5

3.1.1. Technology ................................................................................................................................ 5

3.1.2. Grid .......................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1.3. Finance ..................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1.4. Consents and permit process .................................................................................................. 13

3.1.5. Stakeholder Interactions ......................................................................................................... 15

3.2. Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions ..................................................................... 15

3.3. Prospective and Long-term Strategies ............................................................................................ 19

4. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................. 27

5. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................... 27

ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................................... 31

Annex A: Study Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 31

A. General Presentation ............................................................................................................................... 31

B. Diagnosis of regional competences, expertise and strategies ................................................................ 32

C. Benchmarking study on the MRE in partner Regions .............................................................................. 34

D. Prospective and long-term strategies ..................................................................................................... 36


ABSTRACT

This abstract summarises the content of the Report without going into too much detail. The scope of the

study, as well as the purpose and structure of the report, will be detailed in the introduction. Another part

is dedicated to the methodology used to draft this report (data sources and assumptions, overview of

questionnaire topics).

Part 3 of the Report deals with Marine Renewable Energy (MRE) in the APC partner regions. It is the most

developed part of the questionnaire, detailing regional competences, technological development

capabilities, manufacturing capabilities, grid connection and availability, finance (investors, companies and

research centres), incentive and funding, consents and the permit process as well as stakeholders’

interactions, with a list of the main players in the MRE field within the partner regions included in Annexes.

The sub-part 3.2 of the Report is the so called “Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions”. This

part of the questionnaire (cf. Annex A) covers a large number of questions related to four sub-topics:

studies and strategies, MRE dedicated services in regional authorities, staff and budget, principal regional

partners and stakeholders, special interest and barriers. This part is the most developed within this general

Report.

Part 4 of this Report provides a SWOT analysis, based on the information available from the questionnaires.

The common starting point for this analysis is the abundance of similar natural resources for the installation

of Marine Renewable Energy in the partner Regions. However, the technology and benefits are still to be

proven for some technologies, so as to be accepted by different stakeholders and the public in general.

The last chapter of the questionnaire summarises the main findings and provides some conclusions to the

Report. Indeed, the study has been drafted on the basis of a considerable amount of information relating to

the current state of play and prospects of MRE in partner regions. Even if the Report cannot be considered

as exhaustive (based on 12 questionnaires), it has allowed a number of findings and conclusions enabling us

to draw up a general picture as to where the Atlantic Regions are now in terms of MRE. These points should

enable the APC partners to better define where they want to be in the near future, as well as to promote

cooperation among complementary regions.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Scope of the study

The Atlantic Power Cluster seeks to exploit the renewable energy potential of the marine and coastal

environment of the participating regions. The APC regions span the Atlantic coastline including regions

from the UK, Ireland, France, Spain and Portugal. They are represented by 16 partner organisations, some

of which are regional authorities and some research or technical centres, as shown in Fig. 1 and table,

below.

The project is supported by the Atlantic Area Operational Programme 2007 – 2013. It started in February

2012 and will run for 24 months. One of its activities is the Regional study on marine renewable energies

(MRE), conducted within the “Work Package 2”. The study addresses the present situation in the partner

regions from a strategic and political point of view. Understanding where the regions are now will enable

them to better define where they want to be in the future.


This study was put together by the Conference of Peripheral and Maritime Regions Atlantic Arc Commission

‘AAC)1 with data provided by the other APC partners through a detailed questionnaire and other

information coming from exchanges and meeting with experts. As a transnational body of regional

authorities located along the Atlantic sea shore, the Atlantic Arc Commission has been able to mobilize

Atlantic regional experts, especially through a technical working group on Marine energy gathering experts

from the 24 member Regions of the CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission.

1.2. Purpose and structure of this report

The present report presents and analyses the findings of the study, together with a synthesis of the main

findings and conclusions.

Section 2 outlines the methodology of the study. It is followed by the main part of the report (section 3 –

MRE in the APC regions) which follows closely the structure of the questionnaire used by the study (see

below).

Section 4 provides a SWOT analysis for the whole of the cluster and is followed by the closing section 5

with the main findings and conclusions.

Fig. 1: Map of Partners

NB: Partner number 17, Regen SW UK, has withdrawn from the project and had been replaced by Plymouth

University after the study was launched.

1 CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission’s website : www.arcatlantique.org

Partner Organisation Partner Region

1 SODERCAN Cantabria (ES)

2 FUAC –Foundation University of La Coruña, ES

Galicia (ES)

4 Bretagne Development Innovation, FR Bretagne (FR)

5 FAEN –Asturias Energy Agency, ES Asturias (ES)

16 CIEMAT – Spanish Environment Energy Research Centre, ES

Spain (info provided on Asturias Region) (ES)

6 Regional Council of Basse-Normandie, FR

Basse-Normandie (FR)

8 CIT – Cork Institute of Technology, IE Ireland (IE incl. N Ireland, UK) 3 Galway County Council, IE

9 EVE – Basque Government Energy Agency, ES

Basque Country (ES)

10 Wave Energy Centre, PT Portugal (North, Centre, Lisbon &

Azores) 11 INEGI, PT

12 SEGEC – Scottish European Green Energy Centre, UK

Scotland (UK)

13 Pôle des Eco-Industries de Poitou –Charentes, FR

Poitou –Charentes (FR)

14 Société Publique Régionale des Pays de la Loire, FR

Pays de la Loire (FR)

15 Regional Council of Aquitaine, FR Aquitaine (FR)

7 CPMR –Atlantic Arc Commission, FR (Study coordination)


2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Data sources and assumptions

The data requested for this study was provided in July and August 2012 through a questionnaire sent out by

CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission to the other partner regions. The reference date for the information

provided was June 2012.

Thirteen responses (completed questionnaires) each covering one region, were received, two of which are

treated as joint responses (Portugal and Ireland) as shown in the table above. Partner 16, CIEMAT, the

Spanish Environment Energy Research Centre sent a response with answers related to the situation in

Asturias. Consequently, this answer was jointly treated with Partner 5, FAEN, from Asturias Region.

Consequently, the analysis provided below is based on data relating to 12 geographical Atlantic regions:

Portuguese Regions (North, Centre, Lisbon & Azores), Irish Regions (including Northern Ireland, UK),

Scotland, Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country, Aquitaine, Poitou-Charentes, Pays de la Loire,

Brittany and Lower Normandy.

The data was analysed and provided the basis for a draft report which was circulated to all partners the 17th

January 2013. Some of the partners provided supplementary information in the form of revised

questionnaires and/or suggested additions or additions to the draft report.

The present report has taken into account all such contributions.

2.2. Overview of questionnaire topics

The following topics were covered through a total of 44 questions in the questionnaire:

� Diagnosis of Regional Competences, Expertise and Strategies - What are the competencies of the

partner Regions in the area of MRE?

o Technology

o Grid

o Finance

o Consents

o Stakeholder Interactions

� Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions - Where are the Regions today?

� Prospective and Long-term Strategies - Where do Regions want to be in 10 or 20 years time?

The questionnaire can be found in Annex A. Summary tables for each of the topics covered by the

questionnaire are presented in Annex B.

3. MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY IN THE APC REGIONS

3.1. Diagnosis of Regional Competences, Expertise and Strategies

3.1.1. Technology

Technology is the first topic under the rubric of regional competences, expertise and strategy and covers

three sub-topics: regional marine renewable energy, technological development capabilities and

manufacturing capabilities.


Regional Marine Renewable Capacity

The first sub-topic concerns the regional marine renewable capacity, which is either already installed or in

the pipeline (Q1.1/2). As illustrated in Fig 2, below, nearly half of the responding regions do not have any

such capacity installed at present. Of the five regions lacking installed capacity, three (Asturias, Pays de la

Loire and Basse-Normandie) have indicated that there are projects in the pipeline to install such capacity.

The two regions which have not reported any such plans are Galicia and Poitou-Charentes.

Fig. 2: Regional Marine Renewable Capacity

The types of installed or envisaged capacity are predominantly offshore wind and wave energy, with nearly

half of the regions also having installed or planned capacity in tidal current energy (see Fig 3).

Fig 3: Types of Marine Renewable Capacity

The size of installed or envisaged capacity varies considerably between regions:

• The smallest installed wind capacity is 2MW (in Portugal) and the largest 190MW (in Scotland).

There are projects for new capacities in six regions, ranging from 27MW (in Portugal) to 10,000MW

(in Scotland).

7

5 Regions with installedcapacity

Regions without anyinstalled capacity

4

5

5

1

3

4

Current

Wave

Wind

Installed In the pipeline


• The smallest installed wave capacity is 0.05MW (in Cantabria) and the largest is 2.8MW (in

Scotland). No new capacity is envisaged in Portugal (0.3MW already installed), but new capacities

envisaged can go up to 690MW (in Scotland).

• The smallest installed tidal stream capacity is 1.2MW (in Ireland) and the largest 3MW (in

Scotland). There projects in the pipeline in two regions with a capacity of 400MW (in Bretagne) and

1,052MW (in Scotland).


Technological development capabilities

The second sub-topic covers a number of aspects regarding the technological development capabilities of

the regions (Q1.3/4/5/6 & 8). Ten of the responding partners have reported that there are test centres of

various types and characteristics and that additional such facilities are envisaged, as illustrated in Fig. 4,

below. A typical example is the range of facilities mentioned in the response of the Pays de la Loire:

• Indoor:

o Hydrodynamics and Ocean Engineering Tank (École Centrale de Nantes)

o Towing Tank (École Centrale de Nantes)

o Climatic wind tunnel of the CSTB (Scientific and Technical Centre of the Building Industry)

o Full scale tidal energy generator test rig (Alstom)

• Outdoor

o SEM-REV: marine test site for wave energy and floating wind turbines

o Onshore test site to test the 1st Alstom 6 MW offshore wind turbine prototype”.

A separate report on test facility capabilities has been completed under the sixth work package, deliverable

6.2.

Fig. 4: Regions with Test Centres

The respondents have also indicated that in practically all regions there are active technology developers,

as well as structured links between academia and industry for innovation (see Fig 5, below). There are

various types of academia/industry links, including clusters (in several regions), science and technology

parks (e.g. Cantabria), business/academia fora (e.g. the Basque Maritime Forum which brings together

companies, associations, banks, research centres and universities ), as well as project specific partnerships

(several examples have been mentioned in the response of the Pays de la Loire, including “Hydrol44,

partnership between IREENA, École Centrale de Nantes, LASQUO, Alstom Hydro that aims at developing a

prototype of tidal energy generator”).

3

7

7

9

9

1

1

1

Other

Wind tunnel

Wave tank

Outdoor

Indoor

Existing Envisaged


Fig. 5: Regions with Links between Academia and Industry

All responses mentioned at least one organisation as the main technology developer in the region (DCNS

MRE incubator in Bretagne and Eco.cinetic in Poitou-Charentes), with Cantabria and Scotland reporting

much larger numbers (13 and 26, respectively). The types of organisations include utilities, manufacturing

and specialist enterprises (based in the region or outside but working in the region), as well as

universities/research centres.

The questionnaire also included a question regarding the involvement of the regions in the development of

standards. Four regions have indicated such an involvement, typically through a national-level or regional-

level body located in the respective region (France Energies Marines in Bretagne and Aquitaine, EMEC in

Scotland, Tecnalia in the Basque Country and IPQ in Portugal). There are also some regions also

contributing to the International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 114 (IEC TC114) marine

energy standards.

Manufacturing capabilities

The third sub-topic concerns the manufacturing capabilities of the regions (Q1.7) and has attracted a

consistent response across the board indicating that relevant capabilities are available in abundance. It is

illustrated in Basse-Normandie’s response: “a complete supply chain for MRE”.

In most cases the relevant manufacturing sectors and sub-sectors that are present in the region (and the

industrial traditions of the region) have been outlined briefly. In two cases additional information has been

included: the total number of enterprises and jobs per sector for the Pays de la Loire and information on

individual enterprises for Scotland.

Overall, shipbuilding and port activities represent a common denominator. Other more specific sectoral

capabilities are illustrated in the example of Cantabria’s response which refers to: “Mechanical

manufacturing / machining of large parts (Hubs, main shafts, bearing housings, main frames …); Software

development (SCADAs, TCM…); Submarine robotics; Wind Generators (direct drive, permanent magnet,

double fed); Electromechanical components; Electronic integrators”.

10

2

With links

Without links


3.1.2. Grid

A specific topic in the questionnaire has been devoted to the coastal grid connection; its availability, state

of development and capacity (Q2.1).

A majority of answers, 5 out of 12 categorised the availability of the coastal grid connection as “bad”. On

the opposite, 4 out of 12 partner regions reported a “good or sufficient” coastal grid connection, presenting

a mixed picture of grid availability as shown in Fig. 6, below. Some of the responses have elaborated their

assessment, explaining the nature of bottlenecks or shortcomings.

For instance, the situation in Portugal has been described as “Bad availability of connections but very good

grid along the coast”. As for Spain, FUAC (Galicia region) report that generally the availability of the coastal

grid connection is good. The matter is if there is a substation at the specific point, near the MRE

deployment.

Fig. 6: Coastal Grid Connection Availability

By contrast, all nine responses have indicated that significant improvements are under development. Most

of them have provided detailed descriptions of the state of play, including in most cases data on the

capacity of the connection(s) – both actual and envisaged. These descriptions are not standardised to allow

their distillation in this report. An example is provided below from Aquitaine:

• “The current state of the coastal grid connection would not be capable of storing and distributing a

large amount of electricity produced from marine energy sources”.

• More precisely, HTB1 connection would be sufficient (50MW per farm) but HTB2 (250MW per

farm) and HTB3 (>250MW per farm) would not.

• However, there are under development a RTE plan and the S3ENR (Renewable energies grid

connection plan). The last does not include the development of MRE, but could be revised if

needed”.

4

5

3

Good/sufficient

Bad/constrained

No reply or to beconfirmed


3.1.3. Finance

A further topic concerns financial aspects in terms of incentives and funding for renewable energy, and

investors, companies and research centres active in MRE in the regions.

Investors, companies and research centres

On the sub-topic of investors in the MRE sector, and enterprises and research centres and their budgetary

focus on MRE (Q3.1/4/5), there is a largely consistent pattern throughout the partner regions.

Eleven out of the twelve partner regions have reported various investors active in MRE in their region. In

the case of Poitou-Charentes, although there is no project at an advanced state, there are existing public

and private investors in the renewable energies field. Fig 7 shows that the main investors tend to come

from both the public sector and the private sector (investment companies, utilities or other enterprises).

Fig. 7: Main investors in MRE by sector

Large numbers of investors from both the public and private sectors have been reported by some regions,

notably, Scotland, Pays de la Loire, Bretagne and Cantabria. For example, Cantabria’s response has

mentioned: “Sodercan (Public), Cantabria Government (InverCantabria Investments Plan), Spanish

Government, Iberdrola Renovables, EON Renovables, European Union (R&D Programmes), IDERMAR”.

Similarly, there are enterprises active in marine energy related projects in practically all the partner regions,

and research centres in nine regions. Typically, several enterprises and research centres are active (see Fig

8, below). For instance, Companies: A. Silva Matos, EDP, ENP, Kymaner, Sea for Life, Generg, Eneólica; and

Research Centres: CENTEC, IDMEC, INEGI, MARETEC, WavEC, in the case of Portugal. Similarly, in Pays de la

Loire there are active enterprises (Alstom Wind, Alstom Hydro, STX, DCNS, Rollix) and research

establishments (Ecole Centrale de Nantes, The Jules Verne Technological Research Institute).

Moreover, in all cases, these enterprises or research centres have specific budgets dedicated to the

development of MRE.

10

1

Public & privatesectors

Private sector only


Fig. 8: Number of Enterprises and Research Centres active in MRE in Partner Regions

Incentives and funding

On the sub-topic of incentives and funding for MRE (Q3.2/3) practically all partner regions currently offer

some incentives. However, there is no clear pattern, with the exception of feed-in tariffs and other market

pull mechanisms (such as the Renewable Obligation Certificates, ROCs) which are available in eight regions,

as a national level measure. Other types of incentives reported as being in use are at national and/or

regional level but quite diverse and have been mentioned specifically by small numbers of respondents (see

below in brackets). They can be summarised, as follows:

• R&D / innovation / demonstration funding (Cantabria, Galicia, Asturias, Bretagne, Pays de la Loire,

Aquitaine and Ireland).

• Investment tax reductions or grants (Ireland, Basque Country, Pays de la Loire and Scotland).

• Various grants to pilot plants, test centres, construction of prototypes, feasibility studies (Asturias,

Basque Country, Pays de la Loire and Poitou-Charentes).

• Job creation, enterprise creation, and similar economic development schemes (Bretagne, Pays de la

Loire and Asturias).

Similarly, there is a large majority with projects bidding for EU funding, but in this instance, a much clearer

pattern can be discerned. As shown in Fig 9, funding has been sought mainly from FP7 Energy (with five

partner regions mentioning the MARINET project – Bretagne, Pays de la Loire, Ireland, Basque Country,

Scotland) and less so from NER 300, Energy Intelligent Europe and national funding calls. Nevertheless,

French partner regions have stressed that “from a French point of view, national funding calls are the main

source of public financing”. Other less common sources used included European Regional Development

Fund (ERDF) (eg. In Galicia, a project called ENERGY-MARE, in financed by ERDF) Life+/Interreg (other than

APC), DG Mare calls for proposals (European Marine and Fisheries Fund), regional funding calls (e.g. in

Cantabria) and various small-scale demonstration etc schemes (e.g. in Scotland).

3

4

5

1

5

6

0 research centres

1-3 research centres

4+ research centres

0 companies

1-5 companies

6+ companies


Fig. 9: Regions with projects bidding for EU funding

3.1.4. Consents and permit process

Another topic of the questionnaire refers to consents, covering the permit process to implement MRE in

the coastal zone and related issues.

Regional role in the permit process

The first sub-topic is focused on whether the region has adopted such a process, the amount of time the

process takes and the availability of baseline surveys (Q4.1/2/3).

Most regions have not adopted such a process (see Fig 10, below). The responses of the four regions which

have stated that a regional process has been adopted indicate that this tends to be a national process. In

some cases it is described as a “national procedure” (Bretagne, Aquitaine and all the French Regions) which

includes a “regional consultation” (Pays de la Loire). In the case of Scotland, it is largely devolved by the UK

Government to the Scottish Government, whilst in Portugal the consent procedure applies specifically to

the Portuguese Pilot Zone.

Only four regions have provided indications of the amount of time required for the permit process and

these are based on diverse experiences from which it is difficult to generalise. Cantabria’s estimate is 6

years and this is supported by a specific experience described in the Basque Country’s response, where the

process started in 2008 and has not yet been completed. In Scotland, there is a target of 9 months and a

particular case has been mentioned where this target has been met. It is worth noting that the 9 months is

the time for processing the application not the collection of data.

The questionnaire also covered the availability of baseline surveys regarding the permit process. As shown

in Fig. 11, such surveys have been reported as being available in a relatively small number of regions.

3

6

4

9

6

Other

National funding calls

Life+ & Interreg

FP7 Energy

NER 300


Fig. 10: Regions with permit process Fig. 11: Regions with baseline surveys

Most of these responses have provided a very brief reference, e.g. “bathymetric and profiling” (in Scotland)

and surveys “to identify and qualify potential offshore wind energy areas” (in the Pays de la Loire). In the

case of Portugal a fuller description has been provided for different areas, as follows:

• “Pilot Zone: Bathymetry and seabed morphology, Water circulation pattern (currents, wave

climate, tides and oceanography), Meteorology, Water quality, Sediments quality, Sediments

coverage mapping, Sediments transport and dynamics and Sea birds and marine mammals (one

campaign in June 2011).

• Peniche: Bathymetry, seismic profiling, sediment cover and type, beach morphology and sediment

dynamics.

• Aguçadoura:

o Benthos: analysis of communities structure and composition

o Fish: analysis of populations’ structure and composition

o Marine mammals: analysis of species composition and distribution.”

Similarly, the description provided by Asturias is indicative of the range of baseline surveys:

• Wave energy resources.

• Distance to the coast.

• Accessibility of grid.

• Distance to ports.

• Density of fishing.

• Environmental sustainability relative to adjacent coastal area.

• Environmental sustainability relative to adjacent marine area.

• Cultural Heritage.

• Access to the electricity grid in the coastal.

• Exploitation of marine living resources.

• Spatial Planning Constraints.

• Infrastructures present at the coast.

Constraints on the installation of MRE

4

8

Withregionalpermitprocess

Withoutregionalpermitprocess

6

3

3Surveysavailable

Surveys notavailable

No response


This sub-topic covers environmental, legal and other constraints on the installation of MRE of relevance to

the consent process (Q4.4).

A wide range of constraints have been reported, as illustrated in Fig 12 below, with environmental

constraints by far the most common. Legal constraints have been mentioned by nearly half the

respondents. “Other constraints” fall into the following categories:

• Competition with fisheries and aquaculture.

• Conflicts with port activities, navigation, shipping lanes.

• Conflicts with heritage/historic interest, tourism, recreational activities, etc.

• Lack of grid connectivity and associated financial constraints.

• National defence considerations.

Fig. 12: Constraints on the installation of MRE

3.1.5. Stakeholder Interactions

A list of Stakeholders in each partner Regions is enclosed in the Annexe C of this report. This list, classified

by Member State, Region and type of stakeholder will be useful for other partners so as to detail the

stakeholder interactions in the Atlantic Area, maybe through an interactive map.

This aspect will be further developed under WP6 of APC project “Defining a marine energy cluster for the

Atlantic”.

3.2. Benchmarking Study on the MRE in Partner Regions

The benchmarking topic of the questionnaire covered a large number of questions coming under four sub-

topics: studies and strategies; dedicated service, staff and budget; partners and stakeholders; special

interest and barriers.

2

3

2

5

6

5

9

Heritage, recreation, etc

National defence

Grid connectivity

Port activities, navigation

Fisheries and aquaculture

Legal

Environmental


Studies and strategies

The first sub-topic concerned the specific studies and strategies on MRE at regional level (Q6.1 /2).

As illustrated in Chart 13, below, there are studies on marine energy in practically all regions. For some

regions, the respondents mentioned several such studies, as in the case of Cantabria and Pays de la Loire (4

studies), Bretagne (3) and the Basque Country (“Catalogue of Offshore Wind Energy in the Basque

Country”, “Guide to wave power capacity in the Basque Country”, “An Atlas on Wave’s Energy”). Asturias

reported a large number of carried out either for the whole coast ("Atlas of wave energy in Asturias",

Industrial capabilities for offshore renewable energies in Asturias, Infrastructure study for the offshore

renewable energy in Asturias, draft Catalogue of marine energy in Asturias) or for some zones of the coast

(Study of the morphological and sedimentary characteristics of the inner continental shelf, Campaigns of

bathymetry and bottom imaging, Geophysical study: seismic reflection, Background sedimentological

studies, Geological and Environmental, Geotechnical study, Technical and economic analysis of the

electrical connection, Plan and business viability, Study of marine currents, Analysis of the

telecommunications systems to control marine stations).

Much fewer regions have adopted a specific regional strategy for the development of MRE (7 including the

Basque Country where it was a draft strategy at the time of the submission of the questionnaire (see Chart

14). These strategies have been adopted fairly recently (since 2010) and more of the regions are in the

process of developing such a strategy, for example, Aquitaine where prospective studies and research have

been carried out.

Fig. 13: Regions with Marine Energy Studies Fig.14: Regions with MRE Development Strategy

Dedicated service, staff and budget

The second sub-topic concerned the number of people who work on the development of MRE within the

Regional Administration and the existence or otherwise of a specific service for this purpose (Q6.4). It also

covered the possibility of a specific regional budget dedicated to the development of the MRE sector

(Q6.3).

Seven of the responding regions have reported that such a dedicated service exists (see Chart 15) and that

the number of people who work in that service typically ranges from 2 to 6. In Scotland a higher level of

staff is dedicated to MRE (estimated at some 30 full-time equivalent) within two services which have a

broader remit than renewable energy.

11

1 With existingstudies

Withoutexistingstudies

7

5

With specificregionalstrategy

Withoutspecificregionalstrategy


Fig. 15: MRE Service within the Regional Administration

Only four of the responding regions have indicated that there is a dedicated budget for the development of

the MRE sector. In the case of Basse-Normandie it is reported as €1M whilst for Cantabria and the Basque

Country the budget is set at €200M but with a multi-annual horizon to 2020. Pays de la Loire has reported a

€130M budget by 2020.

Partners and stakeholders

The third sub-topic relates to different types of organisation that work in this field and cooperate with the

region (Q6.5/6/7).

There is a wide range of such partners and stakeholders in practically all regions. Regarding other public or

semi-public organisations, respondents have mentioned from one to six or more organisations. For

instance, Bretagne’s response mentions Bretagne Développement Innovation, France Energies Marines,

Chambers of Commerce and Industry (4), Bretagne Pôle Naval, Pôle Mer Bretagne.

Similarly, in all cases the regions are reported as working closely with the private sector, often through

development, innovation or investment agencies, as well as through direct cooperation and support to a

technology developer. Other “models” have also been mentioned and are worth noting, e.g. clusters (wind

turbines) in Aquitaine and professional networks or organizations such as Pôle des Eco-Industries and

Grand Port Maritime de La Rochelle in Poitou-Charentes.

Business is also the largest category of “privileged discussion partners” active in all nine of the responding

regions. The other categories are civil society and other levels of governance. Environmental groups,

fishermen associations, technical bodies and research centres have been mentioned frequently under

different categories (see Chart 16 below). The response of Pays de la Loire was the most extensive listing

partners under several headings, including four “public investors” (e.g. The Nantes Saint Nazaire Port

Authority) and 11 “private investors” (e.g. Alstom Wind Power).

7

5 With dedicatedservice

Without dedicatedservice


Fig. 16: Privileged Discussion Partners of the Region

The questionnaire also asked for an estimate of the number of people employed in the MRE sector (Q6.8).

However, the relatively few responses received were not on a consistent basis to allow a deeper analysis in

this report. It is to be noted that an “Assessment of Potential Growth Patterns for the Developing European

Marine Renewable Energy Labour Market” will be prepared under Work Package 5 Activity 1.1. This

assessment will present both current and projected detailed figures.

Special interest and main barriers

The fourth sub-topic referred to the special interest that partner regions may have in particular

technologies in view of their geographical characteristics (Q6.9) and to any remaining technological,

financial and other non-technological barriers for the development of MRE (Q610/11/12/13).

The issue of special interest in any particular technologies is of strategic importance to the whole study.

The responses reveal a remarkable commonality of interest, with practically all regions regarding offshore

wind and waves technologies as of special interest (see Fig. 17 below). Four regions mentioned specifically

a special interest in floating offshore wind (Cantabria, Galicia, Basque Country and Asturias). Half of the

responding regions expressed an interest in tidal currents. A small number of regions also mentioned

salinity gradient and OTEC (Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion).

Fig. 17: Special Interest in Types of Technology

6

7

9

7

Other

Other level of governance

Business

Civil society

1

2

6

11

4

9

OTEC

Salinity gradient

Tidal currents

Waves

Offshore wind (floating)

Offshore wind


With one exception (Bretagne) there is a consensus that non-technological barriers remain. The responses

range from highlighting briefly a specific barrier (e.g. “political barriers”, “formation”) to providing a long

and systematic listing of numerous such barriers (e.g by the Basque Country) or in a similar but briefer

statement in Galicia’s response, which covers the following: “Administrative (e.g. no specific procedure

established, long delays), financial (e.g. lack of support), environmental (e.g. protected areas such as Rede

galega de espazos naturais protexidos), economic (e.g. importance of the fishery in the regional economy),

political (implementation of offshore wind farms rejected by regional Parliament), land management (e.g.

the law of costs limits the construction in coastal areas) and sea management (e.g. other activities, such as

navigation and defence).”

Financial barriers are mentioned in many of the responses, often emphasising the intensity of the problem

“where technology is still being proven” (e.g. Scotland) and “all this makes the fundraising difficult” (e.g.

Basque Country). There are also some encouraging signs, as in the case of Scotland where the Scottish

Government is reported to be “in the process of adopting a more risk based approach to consenting, which

will help environmental questions as we will gain data from devices being deployed”.

There is less agreement on the issue of any remaining technological barriers with, for instance, Aquitaine

stating that “the technologies are not mature enough” while the Pays de la Loire mentions “grid

connection” and “electricity storage” among the remaining barriers. Similarly, Portugal’s response refers to

lack of “subsea cable network” and “reliability of mechanical components (especially for wave energy)”.

Suggestions on the kind of actions that could counter the reported barriers have been made, for instance,

in the response of Poitou-Charentes (“simplification of administrative authorisations and feed-in tariffs”)

and of Portugal (“Introduce stable policies with a clear and consistent target. This counts for

entrepreneurial activities, market incentives and R&D. Stakeholders (in this case mostly entrepreneurs and

researchers) find themselves in a very unstable business, research, financial and policy environment”).

The huge diversity in the regions’ assessment of “the problem” makes it very difficult to define a coherent

set of “solutions”. Nevertheless, it could be said that the main thrust of the suggestions made in the

responses points to greater simplification on administrative matters and greater stability in financial

matters.

3.3. Prospective and Long-term Strategies

Longer term strategies and expectations of partner regions are considered under this topic.


Strategic perspective

This sub-topic (Q7.1/2/4/8) covers the state of play with the regions’ global strategies towards 2020 and

beyond, the place of MRE in such strategies, and whether MRE will be part of the “Smart Specialisation

Strategy” requested by the European Commission as ex-ante conditionality for the next programming

period of EU Cohesion Funds (2014-2020).

A large majority of responses (9) have stated that the region has adopted a 2020 strategy or is in the final

approval stage (see Fig. 18). The responses of the regions without a strategy suggest that virtually all

regions will be doing so: Asturias is currently in the process of drafting such a strategy; Bretagne’s response

indicates an intention to do so. From the titles and (in a few cases) brief descriptions supplied it transpires

that there are considerable variations as to the type and scope of the adopted strategies: some are truly

“global”, some are on energy generally, some on MRE specifically, one is a national strategy). The responses

that provided strategy titles etc are, as follows:

France

all the Regions have

adopted a Regional

Scheme Climate Air

Energy (SRCAE2)

Aquitaine: SRCAE (global strategy)

Pays de la Loire: SRCAE + SREED : « Schéma

Régional de l’Economie et de l’Emploi Durable » i.e.

Regional Scheme for Economy and Sustainable Jobs,

for the 2011-2016 period.

Poitou-Charentes: SRCAE + Regional Development

Plan of Renewable Energy at horizon 2020.

Bretagne: SRCAE + Regional Strategy Economic

Development and Innovation (SRDEI)

Ireland

• Our Ocean Wealth, 2012 – Improving the commercialisation of our ocean

resources including MRE, fisheries and carbon fuel deposits.

• Ocean Energy Roadmap to 2050

• In March 2007, the Irish Government launched its Energy White Paper

entitled ‘Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for Ireland’. The paper is a

practical action-based strategy for achieving a new energy future for

Ireland. The strategy is to be delivered in partnership with all stakeholders

and will span the timeframe 2007-2020. The strategy reflects the

Government’s tripartite goals of ensuring safe and secure energy supplies,

promoting a sustainable energy future, and delivering economically

efficient prices to Irish consumers.

The United Kingdom

Scotland • Renewable Energy Action Plan 2009,

• 2020 Routemap for Renewable Energy in

Scotland 2011 (is an updated and extended

version of the 2009 Action Plan);

• Marine Energy Group – Marine Energy Road

2 In French: SRCAE : Schéma Régional Climat Air Energie (en English : Regional Scheme Climate Air Energy)


Map 2009; Marine Energy Group – Marine

Energy Action Plan 2012 (a review and update

of the 2009 road map)

Spain

National objectives are

recorded in the PER

2011-2020 (Renewable

Energies Plan), which

contains a number of

measures that aim to

meet European

requirements (Directive

2009/28/EC).

Basque Country: 3E2020 (Energy Strategy for the

Basque Country 2020)

Cantabria: Strategic Energy Plan - PLENERCAN. 2020

Horizon

Galicia: Galicia’s Regional Government considers

fundamental to promote the use of renewable

energies, in order to cover the 95% of Galician

electric consumption in 2015 (Plan Enerxético

Estratéxico de Galicia 2010-2015) and the 20% of

the gross energy demand in 2020. However, there

are no specific objectives to RME.

Portugal

National Renewable Energy Action Plan (NREAP): a national strategy in

accordance with Directive 2009/28/EC on the promotion of the use of energy

from renewable sources

Regarding Regional Strategies towards 2020 and beyond, the responses received have indicated that MRE

are mentioned, even if in some cases, this mention is minor (e.g. Basque Country, Portugal, Aquitaine).

Fig. 18 Regional Strategies towards 2020 and Beyond

As regards the question on whether MRE will be part of the “Smart Specialisation Strategy3” requested by

the European Commission so as to prepare the next programming period of the European Structural

Investment Funds (ESIF) in the Regions, there have been only four affirmative responses from partner

3 About Smart Specialisation Strategies: www.s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu

9

3

With 2020 strategy

Without 2020strategy


regions (Bretagne, Basse-Normandie, Pays de la Loire, Asturias) with others indicating that “it is too early”

or that the matter is “under discussion”.


Targets, obligations and expectations

This sub-topic explored renewable energy or carbon emission targets, renewable energy supply or

generation obligations, and what the regions expect from the MRE sector.

As illustrated in Fig. 19, below, virtually all partner regions were able to specify targets applicable to the

partner regions, the only exception being Bretagne which provided a descriptive statement. However, it is

apparent that the information has not been provided in a consistent manner, as shown below.

France

National level: 23%

Renewable Energies by

2020

Bretagne:

Commitment to produce up to 3 600 MW of Renewable

Energy before 2020

Basse-Normandie:

23% of production from Renewable Energy, decrease of

CO2 emissions by 14%

Poitou-Charentes:

30% of renewable energy supply before 2020

Pays de la Loire:

3x30 = - 30% of energy consumed, use of renewable

energy to be increased by 30%, - 30% of greenhouse gas

emissions

Aquitaine:

Compliance with national and EU objectives (20/20/20)

• Grenelle de la Mer: 0,8 GW in 2020 (MRE) + 6 GW

offshore wind by 2020 to reach 23% of the energy

final consumption

• SRCAE’ set of objectives: reduction of 28,5% of

energy final consumption by 2020 (year of reference:

2008); renewable energy production equivalent to

25,4% of the final energy consumption in 2020,

reduction in 2020, reduction of 20% of the

greenhouse gas emissions (year of reference: 1990),

reduction of atmospheric pollutants.

Ireland

The indicative target set for Ireland under the Directive is 13.2%. The Irish

Government in 2006 announced that it was increasing this national target to 15%.

Separate to the Directive, a further national target of 33% has been set to be

achieved by 2020.

The UK

The UK has renewable

energy targets of 15%

renewable energy by

2020

Scotland:

• The interim target of 31% by 2011 was met and

exceeded (35%).

• A carbon emission reduction target of 42% of the


1990 levels by 2020.


Spain

Cantabria:

22.31 % of the final energy consumption from renewable sources; 5% of that with

MRE. 16.81 % of primary energy saving.

Asturias:

No specific regional target. Asturias will help Spain to reach the goal of a gross final

consumption of renewable of 20.8 % on final energy consumption

Basque Country:

• Use of renewable energy to be increased by 87% in 2020, giving renewables a

14% share of final consumption

• A 2.5 Mt reduction in CO2 emissions through implementation of the measures

set out in the energy policy 2020 for the Basque Country.

Portugal 31 % of total energy from renewable by 2020

Fig. 19: Regional RE / CE Targets Fig. 20: RE Supply or Generation Obligations

As far as national/regional renewable energy supply or generation obligations are concerned

approximately half of the partner regions have responded affirmatively (see Fig. 20, above). In some cases

the responses have provided a precise definition of such obligations:

� France:

• Poitou-Charentes: National : 21% of renewable energies before 2020

• Bretagne: Horizon 2020 (3*20)

• Pays de la Loire: 3x30 = -30% of energy consumed, use of renewable energy to be increased by

30%, -30% of greenhouse gas emissions

� Ireland:

• Our Ocean Wealth, 2012 – Improving the commercialisation of our ocean resources including

MRE, fisheries and carbon fuel deposits. Ocean Energy Roadmap to 20504.

� The UK

• Scotland: Renewable Obligation Scotland (ROS) scheme which means all suppliers are obliged

to have an increasing percentage of their electricity generated from renewable energy sources

(currently 12.4% Apr 2012/13). Prior to the banding of the ROS there was a Marine Supply

Obligation (MSO) which has since been superseded.

4http://www.seai.ie/Renewables/Ocean_Energy/Ocean_Energy_Information_Research/Ocean_Energy_Publications/Ocean_Energy

_Roadmap_to_2050.pdf

11

1 With RE/CEtargets

WithoutRE/CEtargets

7

5

Withsupply/generationobligations

Withoutsupply/generationobligations


� Spain

• Cantabria: Spanish Strategy for Renewable Energies - PER 2011-2020 (64GW renewable

installed and 850MW of marine energies)

• Asturias: Spanish Strategy for Renewable Energies - PER 2011-2020

• Basque Country: The electricity system has the obligation of acquiring the electricity generated

by the renewable plants in first place, before the one generated by the conventional centrals.

� Portugal

• Presently the mandatory target is 31% of the final energy from renewable by 2020. There are

specific targets for the major contribution:

o biomass (38% of the total renewable)

o wind energy (21%),

o reversible hydro (20%).

What does the Region expect from this sector?

“Growth and Employment” represent the common denominator of the responses from all 12 partner

regions to the question “What does the Region expect from this sector?” However, it should be noted that

there are often also additional expectations (internationalisation, business development, as well as

differences in prioritisation (e.g. Aquitaine: “innovation, growth and employment”).

A few of the respondents have also specified and quantified how these expectations are defined in terms of

employment and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as follows:

• Cantabria: PLENERCAN 2011-2020:

o the renewables’s GDP will increase by 0.58 in 2009 to 2.44 % in 2020,

o the total number of renewable energies employees will growth from 516 employees in

2010 to 5,329 direct employees in 2020

o 400 of the employees will be MRE employees in 2020.

• Basse-Normandie: 600 direct employments in 2017/2018 + 1000 indirect employments

• Basque Country: GDP increase by 1.6% in 2020; expected creation of 14 150 jobs until 2020

• Pays de la Loire : creation of 3500 direct and indirect jobs


4. ANALYSIS

A SWOT analysis has been undertaken in terms of the full Atlantic Power Cluster on the basis of the

information available to the study through the questionnaires. Its outcome is summarised below.

Strengths Weaknesses

• Abundance of natural resources suited

to MRE

• MRE capacities already installed or in

the pipeline (s3.3.1)

• Substantial technological development

capabilities, including active technology

developers, research centres,

academia/industry links and test centres

(s3.3.1& 3.1.3)

• Substantial manufacturing capabilities

(s3.3.1)

• Studies, strategies and targets for MRE

(s3.2&3.3)

• Active public and private sector

investors and enterprises (s3.1.3)

• Bad or constraint grid connections

(s3.1.2)

• Insufficient financial incentives

• Extensive environmental, legal and other

constraints on the installation of MRE

• Lack of baseline surveys

• Slow permit process

• No dedicated MRE service or budget

within the Regional Administration

Opportunities Threats

• Commonality of interest in terms of

natural endowment and different types

of MRE, especially wind, waves and

currents

• EU funding

• Transnational cooperation in many

fields (R&D, studies, strategies, smart

specialisation, institutional solutions,

etc)

• Technological, financial and other non-

technological barriers

• Slow progress in acceptability and

“provability” of MRE

This analysis has required a number of generalisations of the specific findings of the study which have been

presented in this report. Thus it should be regarded as a first approximation and, undoubtedly, it would

require further information and debate in order to sharpen it up and validate it.

Each of the selected points in the four parts of the SWOT is cross-referenced to the relevant section of the

report. There are also three additional points of fundamental importance to the APC, not mentioned

explicitly in the report, which should be highlighted:

• The common starting point and principal strength for the cluster is the abundance of similar natural

resources (sea, rivers/estuaries, wind).

• The underlying threat to MRE in terms of the rate at which it is gaining acceptability and its

technology and benefits are “proven”.

• The multiple opportunities for transnational cooperation between the partner regions.

5. MAIN FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS


The study has obtained a considerable amount of information on the current state of play and the

prospects of MRE in the Atlantic Power Cluster but it should be accepted that the study has not been

exhaustive. Nevertheless, the information that the partners provided through the questionnaire has

allowed a number of findings and conclusions to be established as to where the regions are now in terms of

MRE. These points would also enable the partner regions to better define where they want to be in the

foreseeable future.

Summary of main findings

The main findings have been brought together and are illustrated in Fig. 21, below. This shows an

impressive degree of coverage of virtually all aspects of relevance to the development and installation of

MRE in the APC regions.

The main findings that stand out by topic or sub-topic for the whole cluster can be summarised, as follows:

• Installed and planned MRE capacities show that MRE is “real” in the cluster, although lacking in a

few regions (see below), much can be built on the existing experiences and capacities of the

cluster.

• The technological development capabilities of the cluster are significant and extensive.

• Although there are quite a few regions with grid connection issues, in practically all regions the grid

connections are under development.

• There are many investors and enterprises active in MRE, however, incentives do not appear to be

extensive or strong enough.

• A good deal of progress has already been made with the preparation of studies and adoption of

MRE and global strategies and targets.

• Practically all regions report significant constraints on MRE installation, as well as environmental,

legal and other barriers.


Fig. 21: Summary of Main Findings by Topic and Region

There are considerable similarities between partner regions and, as already noted, a strong commonality of

interest in MRE and the particular types of MRE that are being pursued. There are also some differences

that the study has highlighted. The main differences can be summarised, as follows:

• Level of advancement: four partner regions do not yet have either installed or planned MRE

capacities, thus their contributions to the cluster will be relying less on “real” MRE experience than

the other partner regions.

• Type of MRE: only a small core of partner regions (eg. Scotland) have at present installed or

planned capacities in all three principal types of MRE (wind, wave, current) and can play a pivotal

role pulling different aspects of MRE together in the cluster.

Global 2020 strategy

RE or CE targets *

RE obligations *

Barriers

Regional MRE budget

Regional MRE service

MRE strategy

MRE studies

Constraints *

Baseline surveys

Companies active

Research Centres

EU funding

Incentives availability

Under development

Good availability/sufficient

Technology developers

Test centres

Academia/industry links

*

*

APC partner 1 2 4 5&16 6 8&3 9 10&11 12 13 14 15

APC Region

Can

tab

ria

Gal

icia

Bre

tag

ne

Ast

uri

as

Bas

se-N

orm

and

ie

Irel

and

Bas

qu

e C

ou

ntr

y

Po

rtu

gal

N, C

, L, A

Sco

tlan

d

Po

ito

u-C

har

ente

s

Pay

s d

e la

Lo

ire

Aq

uit

ain

e

* information provided requires confirmation or clarification

MRE capacity in the pipeline small number MRE capacity installed large number

Techn Devlt Capabilities

Current

Wave

Wind

MRE capacity

Long-term prospects

Regions today

Consents

Finance

Grid


• Institutional aspects: most gaps (no MRE strategy or dedicated MRE service or dedicated MRE

budget) have been noted in the case of four partners (Galicia, Asturias, Ireland, Portugal) who,

therefore, could benefit most from cooperation in this field with other APC partners.

Conclusions

The study has shown that there are very strong MRE foundations in the partners regions of APC project.

There are already installed and planned wind, wave and current energy capacities, studies and strategies,

and so on so forth.

Having said that, most of the partner regions have a long way to go before they can claim to have

significant MRE capacities installed in the foreseeable future; measured against the existing European,

national or their own regional targets for MRE.

However, there are good opportunities for the cluster to advance in this direction. Many of the

preconditions for moving forward are in place, such as studies, technology development, financing,

enterprises, public/private and academia/business partnerships.

There are also major opportunities for transnational cooperation between partner regions, in many the

fields, including R&D, studies, strategies, smart specialisation, target setting, accessing EU funding,

institutional solutions and this could become a major contributory factor in progressing and progressing

faster. This could be further developed with regards to the implementation of the Atlantic sea basin

Strategy Action Plan, to be released by the European Commission as a Communication before mid-2013.

Finally, the study has shown that the Atlantic Power Cluster should not underestimate the remaining

challenges in developing MRE. Serious constraints and formidable barriers remain and it would be much

easier to be tackled them through cooperation and joint action.


ANNEXES

Annex A: Study Questionnaire

Activity 2: Benchmarking Regional Study on Marine Renewable Energy (MRE)

This questionnaire aims at collecting the data concerning the present situation of MRE in the partner

regions, from a technical, strategic and political point of view. Understanding where the regions are will

enable them to better define where they want to be in the next future.

Please complete the following tables regarding the state of art of MRE in your region and return by Friday

31 August 2012 to [email protected] and [email protected] (CC). Please provide as

much information as possible in the relevant sections.

Coordinator: CPMR Atlantic Arc Commission (APC Partner 7)

Recipients: Member Regions of APC Partnership

Questionnaire in 4 parts: Regional Study on Marine Renewable Energies

A. General Presentation

B. Diagnosis of regional competences

C. Regional strategies and actions/ identification of non-

technological barriers

D. Prospective and long-term strategies

A. General Presentation

Region

Contact Person

Address

e-mail

Specific interest for Marine

Renewable Energies? (long -

term/ recent/ current?)


B. Diagnosis of regional competences, expertise and strategies

→ What are the competencies of the partner Regions in the area of MRE?

1. Technology

1.1

What is the regional Installed marine renewable capacity by

type?

Current: …….MW

Wave: ……. MW

Wind:……….MW

Other (please specify): ….. MW

1.2 What is the capacity of projects in the pipeline?

Current: …….MW

Wave: ……. MW

Wind:……….MW

Other (please specify): ….. MW

1.3

Who are the main Technology developers active in the region?

Please include website if available)

1.4

Are there defined links between academia and industry for

innovation e.g. Catapult, etc.?

1.5

Are there any test centres

in your Region?

• YES / NO

• Indoor, outdoor facility or both?

• What kind of facility ? (wave tank, wind tunnel,

etc.)

1.6

Does your Region have an Interest

to build a test centre?

• YES / NO

• Any predicted timeframe?

• What kind of facility would that be?

1.7

What are the Manufacturing capabilities of the Region?

(Mechanical, electronics, fabrication, etc.)

1.8

Is your region trying to develop standards, or are you involved

within the International Electrotechnical Commission (IETC TC

114, cf.

http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:7:0::::FSP_ORG_ID:1316)


2. Grid

2.1 Please characterize the coastal grid

connection availability in your Region?

• Good/ bad availability?

• Under development?

• Please specify: ……MW, ………kV

3. Finance

3.1

Who are the main investors

(regional, national) in the MRE sector

in your Region?

• Public or private investors?

• Name of the companies?

3.2 What are the incentives (regional,

national)

• Reduction of taxes, etc…

• Feed-in Tariffs, etc.

3.3

Are there projects in you Region

bidding for European funding:

(Please include website if available)

• YES / NO

• NER 300

• FP7 Energy

• Life+, Interreg, other?

• National funding calls

• Other

3.4

Are there companies and/or research

centers particularly active in marine

energy related projects?

• YES / NO

• Companies:

• Research Centers:

3.5

If yes, do they have a specific budget

devolved to the development

of the MRE sector?

• Companies: YES / NO

• Research centrers: YES / NO

4. Consents

4.1

Has your Region adopted a permit

process to implement MRE

in the coastal zone?

• YES / NO

• Please specify(type of procedure, etc.)

4.2 If YES, how much time does the permit

process take?

• Please give either an estimation from past projects or information given by

entities in charge of this process

4.3 Are there Baseline surveys available

regarding the permit process?

• YES / NO

• Please specify: what Baseline Survey (date, theme, etc.)

4.4 Are there specific constraints

to the installation of MRE

• Environmental, legal, other ?


on the regional coast?

5. Stakeholder interactions (link with WP3 Social acceptance)

5.1

What are the competencies

of your Region in the field of MRE?

• In relation with the Regional Legal framework

5.2 Are those shared competencies?

• YES / NO

5.3 If so, with whom?

• National level? Other?

5.4

In which domain(s) is your Region

particularly active?

• Professional formation? Research and innovation? Infrastructure? Etc.

5.5

Example(s) of action(s) put in place

by your Region to support MRE?

• Seminar, conferences, creation of a new structure, one-stop-shop, etc?

5.6

Is there any type of business cluster

to facilitate the deployment of marine

renewable energy in your Region?

• YES / NO

• Is yes, please name and specify the overall objective of the cluster(s):

5.7

Identify industries in your Region

interested in marine energy projects

• (eg. Telecommunications, shipbuilding, maritime safety, manufacturing

companies, electrical or electronics, etc.)

C. Benchmarking study on the MRE in partner Regions

→ Where are the Regions today?

6.1

Is there any existing study(ies)

on Marine Energy at the regional

level?

• YES / NO

• If Yes, please specify the institution that has done this study:

• Is it available on the internet? (if yes, please provide website):

6.2

Did your Region adopt a specific

Regional Strategy for the development

of MRE?

(If so, please specify when and enclose

a copy of this Regional Strategy)

• YES / NO

• When?

6.3

Is there a specific regional budget

devolved to the development

of the MRE sector?

• YES / NO

• Budget per year or multiannual:

6.4

How many people work

for the development of MRE within

the Regional Administration?

• Specific service: YES / NO

• If YES: how many people work on that service?


6.5 What other public or semi-public

organization work in this field? • E.g. regional agency, national-regional partnership, etc.

6.6 Who are the privileged discussion

partners of the Region?

• Civil society?

• Business?

• Other level of governance?

• Other?

6.7 Does your Region work closely

with the private sector?

• YES / NO

• Ex.

6.8

If available, can you give an estimate

of the number of employees

in the MRE sector in your Region?

6.9

Is there a special interest in one

technology in particular? (Offshore

wind, thermal energy, waves and

tides, etc…) with regards the

geographical characteristics of the

region?

• YES / NO

• If yes, which technology in particular?

6.10 Are there remaining non-technological

barriers for the development of MRE? • YES / NO

6.11 If so, can you identify/give examples

of these barriers?

• Administrative barriers ?

• Lack of test site?

• Etc.

6.12

What kind of action will/could

be taken to counterbalance

these barriers?

• Simplification? In what domain?

6.13 Are there remaining technological

or financial barriers you can identify? • Lack of investment? Cost of a prototype, etc?


D. Prospective and long-term strategies

→ Where do Regions want to be in 10 or 20 years time?

7.1

Has your Region adopted a global

strategy towards 2020 or beyond?

• YES / NO

• If yes, title of the Strategy, what horizon?

7.2

If not, precise at what stage

is your Region regarding a general long

term strategy

• Negotiating the strategy/ drafting /already adopted/ already voted/ already

implemented/partly implemented? Etc.

7.3

Do you have any regional or national

renewable energy or carbon emission

targets?

• In relation with the EU objectives (20/20/20) ?

• What target, what horizon?

7.4

If your region has adopted a Strategy,

is MRE mentioned in this strategy?

• YES / NO

• Major part of the Strategy? Small paragraph? Just mentioned?

7.5

Are there national/regional renewable

energy supply or generation

obligations?

• YES / NO

• If YES, please identify:

7.6

What does the Region expect

from this sector?

• Growth? Employment? Specialization? Internationalization?

7.7

Are these expectations defined

in terms of employment or GDP?

If so, on what basis?

• Ex. Increase of GDP by …% in 2020 / creation of … jobs before 2030, etc.

• Based on a study? Projections?

7.8

Will the MRE be part of the “Smart

Specialization Strategy”5 requested

by the European Commission

as an ex-ante conditionality

for the next programming period of EU

Cohesion Funds (2014-2020)?

• YES / NO

• Not done yet?

Any other comments? • Questions of importance that have not been tackled in this questionnaire?

• 5 Smart Specialisation is a strategic approach to economic development through targeted support to Research and

Innovation (R&I). http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/home

benchmarking study crpm · part 4 of this report provides a swot analysis, based on the information...

Documents