Case Study #5: the Myrtoon Sea/ Peloponnese - Crete
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Addressing MSP Implementation in Case Study Areas Case Study #5: The Myrtoon Sea/ Peloponnese - Crete Passage Deliverable C.1.3.8. Co-funded by the1 European Maritime and Fisheries Fund of the European Union. Agreement EASME/EMFF/2015/1.2.1.3/01/S12.742087 - SUPREME ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work described in this report was supported by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund of the European Union- through the Grant Agreement EASME/EMFF/2015/1.2.1.3/01/S12.742087 - SUPREME, corresponding to the Call for proposal EASME/EMFF/2015/1.2.1.3 for Projects on Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP). DISCLAIMERS This document reflects only the authors’ views and not those of the European Union. This work may rely on data from sources external to the SUPREME project Consortium. Members of the Consortium do not accept liability for loss or damage suffered by any third party as a result of errors or inaccuracies in such data. The user thereof uses the information at its sole risk and neither the European Union nor any member of the SUPREME Consortium, are liable for any use that may be made of the information The designations employed and the presentation of material in the present document do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of UN Environment/MAP Barcelona Convention Secretariat concerning the legal status of any country, territory, area, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The depiction and use of boundaries, geographic names and related data shown on maps included in the present document are not warranted to be error free nor do they imply official endorsement or acceptance by UN Environment/ MAP Barcelona Convention Secretariat. UN Environment/MAP Barcelona Convention Secretariat is not accountable for the data and cannot guarantee that they are correct, accurate or comprehensive. 2 Supporting maritime spatial Planning in the Eastern Project Full title Mediterranean (SUPREME) Project Acronym SUPREME Agreement EASME/EMFF/2015/1.2.1.3/01/S12.742087 - Grant Agreement No. SUPREME Coordinator Dr. Pierpaolo Campostrini Project start date and duration 01/01/2017 – 31/12/2018 Project website http://www.msp-supreme.eu/ Deliverable Nr. C.1.3.8. Deliverable Date 03/12/2018 Status: Final (F) / Draft (D) / Revised draft F (RV) Task number C.1.3. Addressing MSP Implementation in Case Study Areas. Case Task number Title Study #5: The Myrtoon Sea/ Peloponnese - Crete Passage. Responsible Institute (acronym) NTUA, UTh (with the participation of NKUA) NTUA Avgerinou-Kolonias S., Toufengopoulou A., Spyropoulos I. Koutsari M., Petrakos K., Stratakis P. UTh Beriatos E., Papageorgiou M., Sakellariou S., Authors Christopoulou O., Kallioras D., Sfougaris A., Karapanagiotidis I., Mente E. NKUA Dassenakis M., Poulos S., Megalophonou P., Paramana Th., Chalkiadaki O., Karditsa A., Petrakis S., Milatou N. 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Analysis of the current situation .................................................................................................. 5 1.1. Location of the area in the national, European and international spatial system ............... 5 1.2 The role of the area in the national, European and international production spatial system7 1.3 Administrative organisation ................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Geographical and geological features.................................................................................. 10 1.5 Evolution of the population and socio-economic characteristics ........................................ 18 1.6 Coastal Land Uses & Land covery ........................................................................................ 39 1.7 Technical infrastructure and networks (ports, cables, pipes etc.). ...................................... 42 1.8 Living and non-living resources ............................................................................................ 54 1.9 Natural, cultural heritage (classified P.A.) and Landscape .................................................. 76 2. Review of European and national planning policies and guidelines .......................................... 89 2.1 Guidelines of European policies ........................................................................................... 89 2.2 EU Studies ............................................................................................................................ 91 2.3 Guidelines for spatial policy ................................................................................................. 93 2.4 Development plan guidelines .............................................................................................. 99 2.5 Land planning guidelines ................................................................................................... 101 3. Stakeholders involvement ....................................................................................................... 106 3.1. Incorporation of the primary research conclusions.......................................................... 106 3.1.1. General notes ............................................................................................................................... 106 3.1.2. Methodological approach followed in the pilot area .................................................................. 107 3.1.3. Key information on the stakeholders’ involvement per meetings and workshops ..................... 108 3.1.4. Key outcomes of the SUPREME Meetings and Workshops ......................................................... 110 3.1.5. The questionnaire survey (applied to the pilot area No5) ........................................................... 111 3.1.6. Key outcomes of the questionnaire survey ................................................................................. 112 4. Evaluation of existing situation ................................................................................................ 120 4.1. SWOT Analysis................................................................................................................... 120 4.2. Land-sea interactions (LSI) ................................................................................................ 132 5. Formation of planning guidelines in the pilot study area ........................................................ 137 4 1. Analysis of the current situation 1.1. Location of the area in the national, European and international spatial system The study area is not a single administrative unit in the Greek state. The land areas belong to the Regions of the Peloponnese, Attica and Crete. The result is a lack of one single administrative treatment for the area. On the contrary, there is obvious spatial segregation, which is accentuated by the geomorphology. The marine area served until recently as an unclear administrative boundary, helping to clearly define the land administrative boundaries. The land part of the Peloponnese and the Elafonisos island belong administratively to the Region of the Peloponnese. On a 1st degree local government level, the area is comprised by the Municipality of Eastern Mani, the Municipality of Evrotas, the Municipality of Monemvasia and the Municipality of Elafonisos. The analysis of the study for the Regional Spatial Framework of the Peloponnese, prepared in the period 2012- 2016 with a fifteen year time frame, shows that the south-eastern end of the Peloponnese, which is part of the study area, lies in the margin as regards space. Taking also into account that the whole Region is disadvantaged, far from development axes and poles on a national, European and international level, and that there is no integrated land transportation network, the isolation of this part of the study area is apparent. Kythera and Antikythera, although located off the edge of the Peloponnese, administratively belong to the Region of Attica. On a 1st degree local government level, the area coincides with the Municipality of Kythera. Given that the Region of Attica is the only region of the country that is not subject to regional spatial planning, but to a metropolitan level of planning, Kythera and Antikythera are treated as part of a metropolitan area, although this is not true either spatially or developmentally. The Metropolitan Plan of Athens/Attica 2021 includes the area in the Spatial Unit of Island Attica together with the Argo-Saronic Islands, highlighting the fact that they are all islands. However, the fact that Kythera and Antikythera are located at a great distance from the other islands of the Spatial Unit, while they are geographically close to the Peloponnese, should not be ignored. The land part of Crete belongs administratively to the Region of Crete. On a 1st degree local government level it is comprised of the Municipalities of Kissamos, Platanias and Chania. The fact that Chania is the 2nd largest urban centre of Crete, gives to the part of the study area a great importance within the whole spatial developmental Region. Therefore, it is an area where the provisions of the Regional Spatial Framework of the Region of Crete are reflected upon. The Region of Crete is a spatially autonomous system with inland area and population of significant size. It is clearly turned towards the international environment, but also the European and Mediterranean Space, and the regional economy is characterised by openness. Notably, it is the most developed part of the whole study area, the one that has been