4. Stakeholder Engagement

Deliverable D.2.3 Site and technology developers, project financers and authorities questionnaires

Report on questionnaires

March 2012

SOWFIA project synopsis

The Streamlining of Ocean Wave Farms Impact Assessment (SOWFIA) Project (IEE/09/809/ SI2.558291) is an EU Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) funded project that draws together ten partners, across eight European countries, who are actively involved with planned wave farm test centres. The SOWFIA project aims to achieve the sharing and consolidation of pan- European experience of consenting processes and environmental and socio-economic impact assessment (IA) best practices for offshore wave energy conversion developments.

Studies of wave farm demonstration projects in each of the collaborating EU nations are contributing to the findings. The study sites comprise a wide range of device technologies, environmental settings and stakeholder interests. Through project workshops, meetings, on-going communication and networking amongst project partners, ideas and experiences relating to IA and policy are being shared, and co-ordinated studies addressing key questions for wave energy development are being carried out.

The overall goal of the SOWFIA project is to provide recommendations for approval process streamlining and European-wide streamlining of IA processes, thereby helping to remove legal, environmental and socio-economic barriers to the development of offshore power generation from waves. By utilising the findings from technology-specific monitoring at multiple sites, SOWFIA will accelerate knowledge transfer and promote European-wide expertise on environmental and socio-economic impact assessments of wave energy projects. In this way, the development of the future, commercial phase of offshore wave energy installations will benefit from the lessons learned from existing smaller-scale developments.

Grant Agreement number : IEE/09/809/SI2.558291 Project acronym: SOWFIA Project title: Streamlining of Ocean Wave Farms Impact Assessment

Deliverable D2. 3

Site/Technology developers, project financers and authorities questionnaires

Authors: Affiliation:

Enrique Muñoz Arjona Marine Energy Business Unit, Cristina Huertas Olivares Inabensa, Sevilla, Spain.

Davide Magagna School of Marine Science & Deborah Greaves Engineering, University of Plymouth, England.

Anne Marie O’Hagan Hydraulics & Maritime Research Brian Holmes Centre, University College Cork, Ireland.

Jan Sundberg Uppsala University, Sweden.

Teresa Simas Centro de Energia das Ondas - Wave Sofia Patrício Energy Centre, Portugal.

Yago Torre-Enciso Ente Vasco de la Energía (EVE), Bilbao, Spain.

March 2012

“The sole responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein”

Executive Summary The successful transition of wave energy conversion from the development phase to commercial reality is achieved not only through technological improvements but also through the implementation of a fit for purpose consenting process. A key condition for the improvement of the regulatory procedures is the assessment of the weakness and strength of the existing process.

As part of the EU funded SOWFIA project, a “Stakeholders Questionnaire” was designed to determine what type of regulatory procedures site and device developers have gone through in developing their test site. The survey was aimed to gather EU-wide experience of the consenting process, with a particular focus on the way stakeholders were involved in the process and their concerns addressed. The Survey was circulated among EU test site developers, and to wave and tidal device developers.

This report presents the answers obtained by 16 different site and device developers in response to the surveys developed by the SOWFIA project. The information gathered is organised to reflect the structures of the two questionnaires to allow for a quick comparison between different test sites. Key points gathered are hereby summarized:

• Consenting procedures: Each country has implemented the EIA 85/337/EEC and Naturas 2000 in different ways leading to discrepancies in the consenting process in Europe. • Formal and informal stakeholder engagement: Many site and device developers have approached stakeholder using informal approached aside from regulation requirements • Response from stakeholders: Fisheries groups represent a common denominator in terms of stakeholders groups for wave and tidal energy development. • Concerns raised: Concerns predominantly involved issues of navigation safety, fishing areas and impacts on marine life. • Opinion of the consenting process and lessons learned: Approaching stakeholders early and establishing open discussion is key to reduce stakeholders’ concerns. • Financing: Test sites often financed by local or national government in conjunction with EU. • Authorities: Approval given on the basis of existing regulations and considering renewable energy obligations.

This document shows the results obtained from an EU wide survey of site and device developers, and aims to present the reader with an overview of the experience to date in terms of consenting process and stakeholder engagement. A more in-depth analysis of the results obtained will be carried out within the SOWFIA project, integrating the work of these surveys with the results obtained.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 8 2. General Description of Site ...... 9 2.1. Test Sites ...... 9 2.2. Additional Sites ...... 11 2.3. Wave Power developers ...... 12 2.4. Tidal Stream Developers ...... 17 3. Consents Required and Stakeholder Engagement in the Consenting Process ...... 19 3.1. Test Sites ...... 19 3.2. Additional Sites ...... 22 3.3. Wave Power Developers...... 23 3.4. Tidal Stream Developers ...... 25 4. Stakeholder Engagement ...... 27 4.1. Test Sites ...... 27 4.2. Additional Sites ...... 29 4.3. Wave Power Developers...... 30 4.4. Tidal Stream Developers ...... 31 5. Public and Stakeholder Awareness ...... 32 5.1. Test Sites ...... 32 5.2. Additional Sites ...... 33 5.3. Wave Power Developers...... 33 5.4. Tidal Stream Developers ...... 34 6. Stakeholder Engagement in the Consultation Process ...... 35 6.1. Test Sites ...... 35 6.2. Additional Sites ...... 38 6.3. Wave Power Developers...... 39 6.4. Tidal Stream Developers: ...... 42 7. Stakeholder Concerns ...... 43 7.1. Test Sites ...... 43 7.2. Additional Sites ...... 45 7.3. Wave Power Developers...... 46 7.4. Tidal Stream Developers ...... 47 8. Public and Environmental Groups Support ...... 48 8.1. Test Sites ...... 48 8.2. Additional Sites ...... 49 8.3. Wave Power Developers...... 49 8.4. Tidal Stream Developers ...... 51 9. Stakeholder Knowledge of Socio-economic Benefits ...... 52 9.1. Test Sites ...... 52 9.2. Additional Sites ...... 53 9.3. Wave Power Developers...... 53 9.4. Tidal Stream Developers ...... 54 10. Opinion and Suggestions on the Stakeholder Consultation Procedure ...... 56 10.1.Test Sites ...... 56 10.2.Additional Sites ...... 57 10.3.Wave Power Developers...... 58 10.4.Tidal Stream Developers ...... 60 11. Financing Process: Reasons and Uncertainties ...... 61

11.1.Test Sites ...... 61 11.2.Additional Projects ...... 63 12. Authorities: Consenting Reasons and Concerns ...... 65 13. Conclusion ...... 67 14. Annexes ...... 69

Glossary

Acronym Description

AMETS Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site AWE AW – Energy CPA Coastal Protection Act DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change ERSE Energy Services Regulatory Authority EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESBI ESB Energy International Limited EMEC European Marine Energy Centre EPS European Protected Species FEPA Food and Environmental Protection Act HVDC High Voltage Direct Current IBA Important Bird Area ICOE International Conference of Energy IMO International Maritime Organisation MCT Marine Current Turbines MI Marine Institute MMO Marine Management Organisation MREI Marine Renewable Energy Installations MCA Maritime and Coastguard Agency DPMT Maritime and Terrestrial Public Domain NS Nursery Sites OIC Orkney Islands Council OWC Oscillating water column SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SWRDA South West Regional Development Agency SAS Surfers Against the Sewage SEAI Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland TTS Tidal Test Site UKHO UK Hydrographical Office WEC Wave Energy Converter WTS Wave Test Site

1. Introduction

In October 2010, the SOWFIA project (Streamlining of Ocean Wave Farms Impact Assessment) was launched. The SOWFIA project draws together partners from across Europe that have an interest in streamlining impact assessment for wave farm developments.

This deliverable is part of the work package 2, aimed to identify non technological barriers and accelerators of the Impact Assessment process among EU Member states and import the lessons learned to date in wave energy developments in Europe. Information is gathered through a series of workshops, interviews, surveys and meetings.

Within this framework a “Stakeholder questionnaire” was designed to determine what regulatory procedures site developers have gone through in developing their test site and, in particular, to determine how stakeholders are involved and how their concerns are taken into consideration. The survey aimed to capture the experiences from both the formal regulatory process but also the more informal mechanisms, such as awareness raising campaigns and media coverage. The survey was circulated among EU test site developers, including those directly involved with the SOWFIA project, as well as to wave and tidal device developers that have reached the prototype testing phase.

The stakeholder questionnaire was complemented by a “Finance and Authorities Survey” aimed to understand the reason behind funding and approving of test site developments in Europe. This survey was circulated among the six wave energy test sites involved with the SOWFIA project: AMETS in Ireland, BIMEP in Spain, Lysekil in Sweden, Ocean Plug in Portugal, SEM-REV in France and the Wave Hub in the United Kingdom. This survey has been answered for two additional projects with the aim of gather as much information as possible. It is needed to emphasise that in many cases, information on exact levels of funding and by whom is unavailable, private or highly sensitive. Therefore, some of the questions have not been answered.

The layout of the report follows the structure of the questionnaires developed and presents the answers obtained from developers for each topic addressed in the survey. Replies from tests sites are grouped together to allow for a quick comparison of the experiences at different location; and so are the one obtained from wave and tidal device developers. The report does not present text ended conclusions or detailed analysis since it contains the information gathered from the different respondent.

2. General Description of Site

QUESTION: Describe your site/development (i.e. how long has it existed; consents granted when; whether it is in development/construction/operation; distance to shore; what other activities take place around the site; existence of exclusion zones; etc.)

2.1. Test Sites

2.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

The AMETS project is a full scale pre-commercial wave energy test site. It is currently in the consenting phase with an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) completed and submitted in parallel to a foreshore lease application to the Department of Environment.

The proposed site consists of two off-shore test areas in 50 m and 100 m water depths. Each test area will be serviced by two 10kW subsea electricity cables of total capacity 5 MW (10 MW for the complete project). The 50 m test area is ca. 6 km from the landing location while the 100 m test area is ca. 16km from the landing location. Each test area has a safety zone where navigation and other activities are not allowed. On shore there will be a substation situated close to the landing location. This substation will be un-manned and cater for grid connection and metering. In the nearby town (Belmullet, ca. 5 km) an office facility for the project owners and developers will be situated. The AMETS project will be cabled and pre-consented for the benefit of the developers.

2.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

BIMEP, or Biscay Marine Energy Platform, is a facility for the test and demonstration of open-sea wave energy converters, which will be located in the Basque Country (northern Spain, southeast into the Gulf of Biscay). The main goal of the infrastructure is the research, demonstration and operation of offshore wave energy converters in full scale. The BIMEP project started in 2007 with a conceptual design of the infrastructure and a comprehensive research work on the Basque coastline so as to select the most suitable location. A draft was carried out in 2008, as well as the detailed design of the infrastructure and the environmental impact study. Furthermore, the administrative process of permitting was started. All necessary permits were obtained within the established deadlines; the objective is for BIMEP platform to be operational by the end of 2013.

The infrastructure has a total power of 20 MW, distributed in 4 offshore connection points of 5 MW each. Every point is connected to the substation on land by means of a three- phase submarine serial line with a three-phase underground line, both of 13.2 kV, which amounts to a total of four lines. The connection points have been designed to allow the connection of several WECs to the same submarine cable. Their design enables quick connection to and disconnection from WECs, in order to reduce offshore working times as much as possible. Other specifications of the infrastructure include:

Reserved area of 5.3 km 2 on the sea, signalled with navigation buoys. Depth between 50 and 90 m in the site area.

A minimum distance of 1,700 m off the coast. Each junction box is connected to the land substation through a submarine cable and a serial land cable. Electric substation on land for the network injection of the energy generated by the wave energy sensors. Besides, it will include the electrical protections and measurement instruments of the four connection points. The conversion from 13.2 kV to 132 kV will be carried out in the substation. Research and Data Collection Centre related to the infrastructure. It is foreseen to be launched by the third term of 2013, except for the Research Centre, which is expected to be finished at a later date.

The trial site of BIMEP platform will be located off the coast of Armintza, a small village in the municipality of Lemoiz, 30 km from northern Bilbao, in the Basque Country, Spain. The project is currently being processed and the hiring of a great part of the power supply is already under way.

The installation and launching of BIMEP platform requires the granting of exclusive use of an area in the sea. For this purpose, the area must be declared as a “Navigation Exclusion Zone”; a stretch 500 m wide must be marked as well, between BIMEP platform and the coast, as a Forbidden Anchorage Zone. Therefore, some sea-users will possibly be affected by the creation of these zones, as their working area will be reduced.

2.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

Planning started in 2002 and one year later, the first and major application for consent was filled and sent to the local government. Additional applications were submitted after that one in the following years, as more and new equipment was needed. The major consent was granted in 2004 when the first equipment was launched. The site is now operational and its current permits are valid until 2014 with a possible extension for an additional 10 years. This application was filed in late 2011.

The actual consent is for 10 generators. The first generator was launched in 2006 and until 2011 others 8 generators have been tested. Also, small buoys (25) have been launched for marine ecological effect studies. The consent permits a total amount of 30 small buoys within the site. The distance to shore is 2 km with water depths of 25 m, the site is somewhat sheltered by small islets. No restrictions apply to the site, except in relation to fishing activities which are not permitted in 2012 as a new series of fish studies are being carried out.

2.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

2.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

The Portuguese Pilot Zone is a governmental initiative which started in an inter-ministerial commission for maritime affairs for the definition of a National Ocean Strategy established in the national law (Resolution of Ministers Council no. 163/2006 from 12 th December).

The Portuguese Pilot Zone, recently re-named as Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, has been created to:

Attract demonstration and industrial development to Portugal. Create an industrial cluster associated with wave power. Increase renewable energy production (from 39% to 45% of green electricity consumption; a 2010 target); and, Promote innovation supported by R&D.

The Pilot Zone is located in the central part of the country at a distance of about 5 to 8 km off the coast of Leiria district and has an area of about 320 km 2.

2.1.6. WaveHub, England

Wave Hub is the world largest wave energy site developed so far, the site is aimed at project developers whose devices are at the penultimate stage, immediately prior to commercialisation. Devices should have gone through the different phases of testing and could be later installed in arrays. The site is located 16 km from the coast of Cornwall, covering an area of 3 km 2. The project development started in 2003, although the consenting process did not start until 2006 and consent was finally obtained in 2008. Activities in the proximity of WaveHub consist mainly of fishing, commercial shipping, surfing and other recreational activities.

There is a Safety Zone of 500 m surrounding WaveHub. The management of WaveHub has informed the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) that they would require an overall safety zone for the site. However, current international standards, set by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), allow the creation of safety zones only in the proximity of artificial islands.

2.2. Additional Sites

2.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

The EMEC concept was developed in 1999, when the UK ministerial task force responded to a growing need for a dedicated test site for Marine Renewable Energy Installations (MREI) to aid the industry in the development of wave and tidal devices. The site had to be equipped with a cable and a substation to allow for full scale testing device. The Orkney Islands were selected as the site for development of the project in light of five key criteria:

Wave energy flow and tidal currents available in the same area; Resource size appropriate for full-scale open sea deployments; Proximity to the UK national grid; Local expertise in the sea: Range of industries working on the sea; and Local resources.

EMEC, which now comprises a Wave Test Site (WTS), a Tidal Test Site (TTS) and two Nursery Sites (NS), one for wave and the other for tidal, started the development of the WTS in 2000. Priority was given to the WTS due to the more advanced status of wave device technology at that time. WTS was officially opened in 2004, at which time Pelamis

started its testing. The TTS was developed once the WTS became operational. The TTS was ready and operational by 2006 with OpenHydro installing its first device for testing. The nursery sites were developed in 2010 with Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) funding. This project was carried out in recognition of the fact that developers faced significant hurdles in moving from tank-tests to full-scale deployment. The NS provide moorings on the seabed and can be used for the testing of specific components, reduced-scale devices or even full-scale devices for short periods and dedicated trial deployments.

No Safety Zones exist at any of the four EMEC test sites. Consultation, both with local and statutory consultees, specialised in navigational safety, established early on that the sites needed to remain open for navigation. The areas are marked as test sites on the Admiralty and Awareness Charts, last one produced and disseminated by EMEC. Whilst navigation is not excluded in the area, the Chart Notes include clear notices to all mariners to exercise caution and obtain local knowledge when using these areas.

2.2.2. Runde, Norway

The Maren project was a joint project between Vattenfall AB and Tussa AS, where the company Seabased AB was the technology provider and Runde miljöcenter was the environmental consultant, who undertook the site identification work and the contacts with stakeholders. Tussa was the one granted with the consent.

The test site was developed to be used during 2-5 years, is located at 400 m from shore off the island of Runde at the Norwegian west coast, at approximately 50 m water depth. The project was planned to start in 2007, although the consent was applied for May 2008 and subsequently granted in December 2008 by NVE (Norges Vassdrags-og Energidirektorat). The consent was for two wave energy converters, a subsea transformer and the laying of a 2.5 km subsea cable and a 40 m cable onshore. The deployment of the two wave energy converters, sub-sea transformer and cables took place in September 2009. The project is not yet operational.

Fishing and navigation take place in the vicinity of the test site area. Runde is host to important seabird colonies and has received international status as an “Important Bird Area” (IBA) by Birdlife International. The densest aggregations of nests are found alongside the Southwestern cliffs, i.e. approximately 1 km west of Maren test site.

2.3. Wave Power developers

2.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

The 2.4MW Oyster 800 wave array is located at the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) at Billia Croo in Orkney, Scotland. A lease was agreed with EMEC for the use of the site by Aquamarine Power for the testing of its Oyster technology in 2009.

Onshore construction works began in October 2010 and the generator building has been already commissioned, and it is ready for operation. This includes a set of directional drilled pipelines from shore to sea and a hydro-electric power station. The offshore works started in May 2011 with the drilling and installation of 4 piles for the foundations of the Oysters,

which consisted of 2 piles for Oyster 800 and a monopile for Oyster 801 and 802. The installation of the foundation piles was completed by August 2011. The Oyster 800 device was floated into position and installed on the foundation piles in August 2011 and it has been in the commissioning phase since then, it will be operational in spring of 2012. Design improvements are currently being made to the Oyster design and Oyster 801 and 802 are planned for installation on the existing monopiles in 2012 and 2013. The Oyster 800 is located approximately 500 m from shore. Aside from EMEC marine renewable activities, the predominant activity is agriculture (dairy farming). A voluntary action of no taking zones around the offshore wave test site at EMEC is in place.

2.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

Mutriku is a wave energy plant, which uses an oscillating water column (OWC) system integrated in the new breakwater in Mutriku, Spanish Basque Country. The project started in 2002 with the first feasibility study to determine the existence of any possibility of adding a wave energy generating plant into the design that was just about to be implemented at Mutriku harbour and whose consenting procedure was on the verge of completion.

It was put out to tender in 2005 and the construction of the new breakwater was allocated with a design that did not include the wave energy plant. The design was modified in 2006 to include the wave energy plant. It was officially opened up in July 2011 and has been operating successfully since then.

The plant is comprised of 16 air chambers and 16 turbines of 18.5 kW each. The release of electric power is accomplished through a buried line of 13.2 kV and 1 km long.

For the legal processing of this plant, the procedure followed was the standard one for a renewable energy power generation plant. The only particularity in the procedure was the fact that the environmental impact of the plant was analysed by separating the civil works from the electromechanical equipment.

With the purpose of avoiding any further delays at the beginning, a document was drawn up comparing the additional environmental impact entailed by the inclusion of the civil work adding the OWC to the breakwater and the environmental impact caused without the wave plant. The resulting conclusion is that as far as the civil works are concerned, the environmental impact is the same, with the added benefit of generating clean energy. On a second stage, the environmental impact of installing and operating the electromechanical equipment was analysed. In this case, the only impact that required action is noise emission, which needed to be reduced / lessened.

The processing of applications to obtain permits started in 2006 and finished in 2009 with the granting of the authorisation for using the public domain of the port. Although it may seem that has been a long consenting procedure we cannot assert so, since at some point it was necessary to adapt the permit issuing to the progress of the works. For instance, it was not possible to obtain the authorisation for the use of the port public domain before the civil works of the wave plant were completed and the breakwater had been owned by the Port Authority.

2.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

Three different projects are under development by Pelamis Wave Power, namely Shetland, Farr Point and Bernera project. The first one is being developed by a Joint Venture named Aegir Wave Power, which is made from Pelamis Wave Power and Vattenfall. All the projects have been granted with Agreements for Lease from the Crown Estate. The site selection for the projects started either in 2008 or 2009.

The Farr Point Project: is located around 3 – 12 km off the Sutherland coast, close to Bettyhill. It is being developed in phases, with the first phase of a wave farm anticipated to have 15 MW installed capacity (up to 20 Pelamis devices). A Pelamis wave farm of this size would occupy approximately 2 km 2. With a secure grid connection to the mainland of Scotland, the Farr Point project is not reliant on transmission upgrades to the Scottish outer islands.

In April 2011, Pelamis Wave Power initiated a formal scoping exercise as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment process. The purpose of the scoping exercise is to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to highlight any key issues they feel that should be considered, and comment on the approach to site development.

Pelamis Wave Power will be working over the coming years towards making consent applications for Farr Point by completing site survey work, environmental data gathering, upfront engineering designs and impact assessments. In parallel, Pelamis will be engaging with the local communities as well as local and national stakeholders to ensure the right project is developed while maximising the local benefits. Marine Scotland has, as part of the data gathering initiative, collected seabed information around the leasing area.

The Bernera project: is a 10 MW wave farm project off the west coast of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides. It was successful in securing an Agreement for Lease from The Crown Estate in October 2011.The proposed farm will consist of up to 14 Pelamis devices and will be located between one and ten kilometres from the shore. The site itself is 100 km 2 in size, which allows Pelamis to narrow the location for the final wave farm, which will only occupy roughly 2 km 2 once it is built, by conducting site investigations and consultations with local sea users and stakeholders.

Through the project, three wave measurement buoys have been deployed, one in the Bernera area and two to the North West of Lewis. These will enable accurate assessment of the wave resource and inform the layout and position of the Pelamis wave farm.

The Shetland Project: is a commercial wave farm located off the southwest coast of Shetland, near St. Nianians Island, and it is being developed by Aegir Wave Power. The proposed farm will consist of up to 14 Pelamis devices with a combined rated power of 10 MW. The devices will be arranged in rows to form an array, which will be connected back to the Shetland mainland via a subsea cable link.

The farm will occupy roughly 2 km 2 with its exact location being determined on completion of survey work, resource measurements and consultations. The area of 'search' stretches from 2 to 10 km from shore.

The farm is likely to be built in stages with the first devices planned to be commissioned in 2014 with some construction work potentially beginning in 2013. The timing is dependent on a number of things including planning consents for the project and the delivery of the planned High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) connection between Shetland and the Scottish mainland. Aegir Wave Power was successful in securing an agreement for lease from The Crown Estate in May 2011.

2.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

AW – Energy (AWE) has been working in the Peniche site since 2006. The site is not an official test site, but AWE has been testing there its prototype. The site was found good and suitable for the next step of AWE’s wave energy converter (WEC) development: there is a grid connection point near to the site, there is a road access to the onshore area and some industrial facilities in the area. These were also the reasons listed to obtain permits to the site, even though the site is located in a Natura2000 area. The consents were granted in 2010 – 2011.

In the site vicinity, about 400 m to the north of the device location there is one important surfing spot and the area is occupied by small farmers and used by individual fishermen. No one is living within approximately 1 km from the electrical station on shore.

2.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

Two sites are included in this report, Nissum (2006-2010) and Hanstholm (2009 – 2013); both of a total capacity of 100 kW, single units with permits for five years, after this period the devices have to be removed. Both sites were already used as test sites for renewables and other activities; therefore, the consent process was very short and uncomplicated; it includes just one permit from the Coastal Directorate, which is now a part of the Ministry of Energy. The areas were already excluded from other activities so there were no conflicts to be considered.

Nissum Site: The legal procedure took less than 3 months between 2005 and 2006. It was located on a pier close to the coast, at 50m from shore and 3 m water depth, and it was removed in 2009. Hanstholm Site: The legal procedure also took less than 3 months between 2008 and 2009. The site is located on a pier close to the coast, at 350m from shore and in waters 6 - 8 m deep. It has to be removed in 2013.

2.3.6. WestWave Project, Ireland

The WestWave project proposal is to develop a 5 MW wave energy project off the west coast of Ireland by 2015. The project is led by ESB Energy International Limited (ESBI) who will work with a number of wave energy technology partners in order to develop the project. It is a public project, which seeks to attract support from the EU under NER300

funding mechanism as well as from relevant State agencies and departments in Ireland. Moreover, it intends to lead Irish and international wave energy technology developers.

ESBI carried out a site selection study and identified eleven potential candidate areas. Three preferred sites were selected based upon this initial assessment. The site selection process is now focused on collecting more detailed information about the three locations in order to make a final decision. Preliminary ecological and archaeological assessments, in the general locations, have been undertaken to assist in identifying the most appropriate final location for the project.

The three selected sites are the following:

Site off Annagh Head, Mullet Peninsula, Co Mayo: This site is suitable for an offshore technology, deep water converters with mooring depths of 50 to 100 m. The site is located at the Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site (AMETS), which is being developed by Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) and the Marine Institute (MI). Site south of Achill Island, Co Mayo: This site is located at the south of Achill Island from Dooega Point to Croaghmore. This site is suitable for near-shore wave energy converter technology. Sea bed surveying and wave measurements have been on- going at this location since 2011. Site close to Killard, Co Clare: This site is placed at the west of Doonbeg, close to Killard Point, Co Clare. This site is also suitable for near-shore technology. Seabed surveying and wave measurements have been on-going at this location since 2011

Site Possible locations Achill

Killard

Figure 1: Possible locations for the WestWave project.

2.4. Tidal Stream Developers

2.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

Marine Current Turbines (MCT) is currently developing Tidal Current Turbines at 3 different test sites:

SeaGen at Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland (1 device).

SeaGen at Kyle Rhea, Scotland: Site selection, feasibility assessments and environmental scoping were started in 2010 and a newly created development company, SeaGeneration (Kyle Rhea) Ltd, was established to develop the project. Detailed environmental studies have recently started and the possible environmental impacts are discussed further in Environmental Aspects.

The location for the proposed array is north of the ferry crossing between the Isle of Skye and the mainland, in approximately 30 to 35 m water depth. The proposed array will consist of four SeaGen devices and have a total capacity of up to 8 MW.

In addition to the offshore devices, infrastructure including inter-array and export cables would be required to connect the array to the electricity distribution network. An initial grid connection feasibility study has indicated that the grid connection point will likely be on the Isle of Skye side. It is likely that each device will have its own export cable directionally drilled under the seabed from the shore.

It is proposed that the turbine array will be installed and operated for up to 25 years, where it will serve as a test case for the development of the technology as part of a programme of further multiple unit arrays.

SeaGen at Anglesey Skerries, Wales: Site selection, feasibility assessments and environmental studies looking at the site were started in 2006 and a newly created

development company, SeaGeneration (Wales) Ltd, was set up in 2008 as a joint venture between Marine Current Turbines and RWE npower renewables to develop the project. The project, named the Skerries Tidal Stream Array, has also benefited from funding from the Welsh European Funding Office.

The location for the proposed array is in the Sound between the group of rocks and islands known as the Skerries and Carmel Head on mainland Anglesey, less than 1km from the Anglesey coast, in approximately 20 to 40 m water depth. The proposed array will consist of up to 9 SeaGen devices and have a total capacity of up to 10 MW.

The location benefits from good port facilities at Holyhead nearby, proximity to the National Grid facilitating good connection, and good transport links and access, to facilitate construction and maintenance.

A new subsea cable would bring the generated electricity to shore. The landfall location has yet to be decided but is likely to be close to Wylfa. It is proposed that the turbine array will be installed and operated for up to 25 years, where it will serve as a test case for the development of the technology as part of a programme of further multiple unit arrays.

The consenting process for the three test sites has been very different. For Strangford Lough a full EIA application was submitted, requiring an appropriate assessment and an agreement to a monitoring programme. Food and Environmental Protection Act (FEPA) and Coastal Protection Act (CPA) and Electric Works Act (Section 36) licences required. The consent application for the AS site has been in a start-stop process since 2006. FEPA and CPA application were submitted 2011. The KR project was started in 2010.

2.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited (TGL), Scotland

The development of the project started in 2005 and it acquired a berth at EMEC in the beginning of 2006. Just before the installation of the device, TGL applied for the FEPA licence. The initial deployment consisted of a 500 kW turbine installed on a tripod foundation. A revised and updated consent licence was needed for the 1 MW turbine. The device was installed 1 km away from the shore needing a 3.5 km of cable to the on-shore grid substation.

For the development of the project three licences were requested for the device: FEPA, CPA and European Protected Species (EPS). The FEPA and CPA are now coupled together in the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) licence. No safety zones were requested during the operation of the turbine, except for a 500 m radius area requested during the installation of the turbine. This was because the EMEC area is already marked as a test site on the Marine Charts, where the turbine is indicated as well.

3. Consents Required and Stakeholder Engagement in the Consenting Process

QUESTION: What regulatory consents did you need for your development? Outline how the adjoining local authority, general public and specific stakeholders were included in this process.

3.1. Test Sites

3.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

To apply for a foreshore lease the AMETS project was first required to carry out an EIS (the term given to EIA in Irish law). This process took approximately 2 years to be fulfilled and involved extensive consultation with all major stakeholders including: Local authorities, fishing industry, local inhabitants, local businesses, local organisations and relevant government entities.

As AMETS was a very innovative project it was considered important to involve all relevant stakeholders in the process from the very early stages. Information days were held for the local community to ensure they were aware of all stages of the project as well as to get their feedback. Also, extensive discussions were held with the fishing industry to ensure that the final locations of the test areas were agreed in conjunction with their own needs, the local authority and government entities, which have been involved to date on all stages of the project.

3.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

The legal framework for the processing of this type of electricity generating facilities in territorial waters is included in Royal Decree 1028/2007, 20 th July; establishing the administrative procedure for processing applications for the authorisation of electricity generating facilities in territorial waters. This procedure specifies the requirements to comply with the authorisations, permits or licences that must be obtained.

Regarding the electricity generating facility, it is compulsory to contact the General Directory for Energy Policy and Mines of the Ministry of Industry to apply for the following:

Administrative Authorisation. Construction Project Endorsement. Operating Licence.

Given its location, it is also mandatory to contact the General Directorate for Coast and Sea Sustainability (Ministry of Environment), so as to obtain the granting of occupation of the Maritime and Terrestrial Public Domain (DPMT).

To achieve the purpose mentioned above, since the platform occupies an area of the sea on a permanent basis and it may potentially affect maritime, navigation and safety of human life, it will be necessary to obtain the authorisation of the Merchant Navy General

Directorate (Ministry of Public Works). Likewise, in order to deploy buoys in the operating area, consent from the Spanish National Ports & Harbors Authority will be applied for.

Regarding the occupation of the bonded zone of the Maritime and Terrestrial Public Domain, the project will be subjected to the approval of URA (Basque Water Agency), which is a public corporation under the Environmental Department of the Basque Government.

Since the facility is located in the sea, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is requested by the National Government, the Ministry of Environment, and the General Directorate for Environmental Quality and Evaluation. Once all the mentioned requirements have been achieved, the Activity Licence and Works Licence will be submitted to the Lemoiz Town Hall, who plays an important role in the processing of this type of facilities. In those cases in which it is necessary to resort to land expropriation for cable laying or the construction of the substation inland, it will be necessary to turn into the specific regulations on this matter.

Moreover, regarding the applications for Administrative Authorisation, EIA and granting of occupation of the Maritime and Terrestrial Public Domain (DPMT), the project must be subject to public information (a minimum of 20 days). Therefore, it requires most participation from local councils, general public and stakeholders involved in the processing procedure.

3.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

The major consent for the project did not need a full EIA (normally decided by Environment Court) due to the small size of site, and because there was not any commercial activity or opposing interests in the area. However, a short EIA was required. The minor permits requested were:

• Consent for the beach protection was needed because of the sea cable going through a Natura 2000 site. • Building permit for an observation tower and the receiver house on nearby the island. • Special permit for video surveillance. Application was sent on referral to a restricted number of authorities and local businesses and interests.

The local/regional authorities have acted as regulators of the consents. Local authorities were informed at the beginning of the project, and their response was over expectation, they were very supportive and have become even more enthusiastic. The project has gained local business as well, which was a goal. Locals were also informed at early stages and most of them were very positive about it. By summer time the area is crowded by summer visitors, many with their own properties in the area; therefore, a special focus was put on that category.

In general, there were very positive attitudes from most stakeholders. One fisherman was active in the area at the beginning and according to his wishes the project area was slightly shifted without any further problem. Many people liked the project as an alternative to

windpower, which is not very popular in the area, and as a future commercial production located in the area, creating job opportunities.

3.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

3.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

The Pilot Zone has been designated in national law in 2008 (Decree-law nº 5 /2008, 8 th January). In 2008 it was also established (through Decree-law 238/2008 from 15 th December) that the Ocean Plug would be granted by the public company REN (Redes Energéticas Nacionais, S.A.) who has further formed ENONDAS, the company responsible for management and operation of the Ocean Plug. The concept behind the Ocean-Plug is somewhat different from other wave energy test sites in Europe since it will allow the technology to evolve from the demonstration to the commercial scale saving time and money in licensing procedures (there will be no need to move to a new location and start a completely new licensing process). Thus, the Ocean Plug area will be equipped with a test site zone for demonstration projects along with the infrastructures for the installation of commercial projects.

At the moment, the required geophysical characterisation has been carried out and will be finished by the end of August 2012. Collected data will be available through the Ocean Plug website (GIS platform) which will also be available by August 2012. The access regulation to the area is also under development and will be available soon allowing, in a first stage, the installation of demonstration projects without needing grid connection. The grid connection infrastructure (subsea hubs, cables and substation) is planned to be available in the demonstration test site area by 2013. The extension of licensing to offshore wind projects has been under study and a change to the current legal system is expected shortly.

The Ocean Plug has been a governmental initiative anchored in the Economic strategy for the ocean and for the country. Thus the main stakeholders included in the process were ministries and private companies with economic interests in the maritime sector. Until now no formal contacts have been made directly with local authorities or the general public, although the Ocean Plug progress has been accompanied by local and national media coverage.

3.1.6. WaveHub, England

The WaveHub was designed with a maximum capacity of 20 MW. Wave Hub submitted a full EIA to regulators. When the process began WaveHub was not sure about what the EIA scope was and what they had to address. They approached the MFA (now MMO, Marine Management Organisation) to ask for suggestions and information regarding the EIA process. WaveHub received no reply from the MFA and they defined the EIA scope by themselves. WaveHub received guidance during the EIA scoping by environmental consultants and Halcrow, which also have an environmental law division.

The EIA process was divided in four main areas, namely water, cable (seabed), intertidal area and beach (construction of substation). WaveHub mainly approached the DECC, MFA and The Crown Estate as regulators; and statutory consulteers such as Natural England, Cornwall County Council, the Environmental Agency, Perranporth and Hayle Councils for the EIA process.

Several users of the sea were recognised by WaveHub, all of them exploiting the same area, but there is not particular authority that regulates a licence for sea space (e.g. people fishing there, shipping in the area, etc.). Requests were sent to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and copied to the main stakeholders. Other consent application was submitted to the Foreign Investment Protection Agreement (FIPA), which is in charge of the regulation for the cable and its interference with the seabed.

3.2. Additional Sites

3.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

Most of the initial consenting process for EMEC was contracted out by Highland and Islands Enterprise (HIE) regional agency. The expectation was that EMEC would be handed over fully consented for both wave and tidal sites once it was completed. The decision was taken to carry out full EIAs even though it was not necessary for the initial laying of the cables and of the construction of the onshore substation. Discussion was subsequently held by EMEC to verify whether the site could receive exemption under Section 36, but this was not considered possible at the time.

The same thing applies for the TTS, for which the EIA process was contracted out by HIE (Highlands and Islands Enterprise) to an environmental consultancy. They liaised initially with stakeholders with regard to establishing the sites, but EMEC took on quickly all the stakeholders as staff were appointed to the company. The official engagement started when the sites were handed over to the stakeholders. EMEC has worked closely with the Regulator during the consenting process and still liaise in depth with them on regular basis. Regulation in Scottish waters is devolved to Scottish Government, and carried out by Marine Scotland. The only exception is in relation to the decommissioning of the device and installation, which still rests with DECC.

EMEC consults with the statutory consulteers on a regular basis. However, the non- statutory stakeholders are consulted when it is deemed appropriate. With more than 10 years of experience, EMEC is aware of many of the issues that can arise from new developments.

The consenting process for developers is overseen by EMEC, although the responsibility to obtain the necessary licences to deploy remains with the developers. EMEC assists developers during the process, and facilitate and attend stakeholders meetings with them.

3.2.2. Runde, Norway

The consent needed is Konsesjon (Swedish for permission) according to Energiloven (NVE are responsible). The consent application was sent for formal consultation to the local municipality (Heröy kommune), the county administrative board (Möre og Romsdal fylke), 22

Norwegian Friends of the Earth (Norges Naturvernforbund), Norges miljövernforbund, Norwegian Young Friends of the Earth (Natur og ungdom), Bellona, The Norwegian Association of Hunters and Anglers (Norges jeger-og fiskeriforbund), Bergen Maritime Museum (Stiftelsen Bergen sjöfartsmuseum), Directorate of Fisheries (fiskeridirektoratet), Norwegian Coastal Administration (kystverket), Norwegian Public roads administration (Statens vegvesen) and The Directorate for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (Direktoratet for sammfunnssikkerhet og beredskap). Information about the application was also published in the regional and local newspapers at two occasions.

3.3. Wave Power Developers

3.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

The consents applied until now for the project development are listed in the table below. Consents were applied for allowing onshore construction works to begin in October 2010 and installation of the piles in summer 2011 in two separate phases. Onshore planning consent was required for the onshore elements of the project and a CPA and FEPA Licence were required for the installation of the piles and Oyster 800. Moreover, Section 36 consent and Marine Licence were required for the installation of Oyster 801 and 802 and for the operation of the 2.4 MW array.

Consent Consenting Authority Gained Planning Permission for Orkney Islands Council September 2010 onshore works

Coastal Protection Act Marine Scotland October 2010 Licence

Food and Environment Marine Scotland December 2010 and March 2011 Protection Act Licence (amendment)

European Protected Scottish Government May 2011 Species Licence

Marine Licence Marine Scotland February 2012 Section 36 Consent Marine Scotland February 2012 (Electricity Works Act)

Consultation has been integral to the development of the project and stakeholders and the local community have been involved throughout. A scoping opinion was sought from the Scottish Ministers (Marine Scotland) in January 2010. This included consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, for example Orkney Islands Council, the County Archaeologist, Northern Lighthouse Board, Orkney Surf Club and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation.

Since the project is located at the EMEC, Aquamarine Power built on consultation from the one already undertaken by EMEC and did not duplicate consultation which had already taken place. Aquamarine Power engaged with Orkney Islands Council planning authority and held several meetings and discussions regarding the onshore works and design of the hydroelectric power station. Regular meetings with Marine Scotland and Scottish Natural

Heritage ensured that information was communicated and any queries or issues discussed prior to submitting the applications for consent.

3.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

The legal framework for the processing of this type of electricity generating facilities on land is included in Royal Decree 1955/2000 and, owing to its being a project concerning renewable energy use, also in RD 661/2007.This procedure specifies the requirements to comply with and the authorisations, permits or licences that must be obtained. The specific basic regulations of every step are basically the same as the Bimep project.

Regarding the use of the Port Public Domain, it is mandatory to contact the Directorate of Ports and Maritime Affairs of the Basque Government in order to apply for a specific authorisation, since Mutriku harbour is within their jurisdiction. As the plant is located in a newly built breakwater and it is necessary to modify its original design, it is mandatory to apply for the specific authorisation of the General Directorate for Sustainability of the Coast and the Sea, body depending on the Ministry of Environment. To obtain the environmental authorisation the Department of Environment of the Basque Country has to give its approval.

As with the Bimep project, once all the above mentioned requirements have been granted, the Activity Licence and Works Licence will be applied for at Lemoiz Town Hall. In those cases in which it is necessary to resort to land expropriation for cable laying or the construction of the substation inland, we will turn to the specific regulations on this matter.

Regarding the application for Administrative Authorisation, the Project must be subject to public information (a minimum of 20 days). This is the aspect that requires most participation from local councils, general public and stakeholders involved in the processing procedure. Furthermore, the Town Hall is the body where two licences are processed; therefore, it clearly plays a part in the processing of this type of facilities.

3.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

Within Scottish waters the consents currently needed are:

Marine License: This includes the Electricity Act consent (Section 36) for an offshore power station over 1 MW, CPA consent (Section 34) for navigational safety and FEPA license for deposits on the seabed. These consents are issued or granted by Marine Scotland. Deemed planning for the onshore works, granted by the local planning authority. Various other potential licenses/consents depending on the project such as European Protected Species License and Electricity Act Section 35 for onshore power lines.

Whilst only one commercial project has been granted with all consents (Siadar Wave Power Station in Scotland), the rest of the project are yet under-going through the EIA. The Siadar Wave Power Station project was granted with the necessary consents for a grid connected commercial development.

3.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

The regulatory consents needed for the project development were: the deployment consent, the grid access consent and the building permit for the land structure. The environmental assessment was carried out according to the Portuguese law, and it meant Environmental Incidence Assessment, which do not require stakeholder/public announcements. Though, the project has been presented to the local public and on the Portuguese television on purpose. There will be a dissemination room for the public where the project will be presented. Contacts to harbour captain have been regular, his permission is needed for the deployment and he has given his acceptance to the signalling plan.

3.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

The Nissum and Hanstholm sites were already sites in use for other activities and therefore with restricted access for the public. Due to this the consenting process was very short and uncomplicated; it included a permit (procedure lasting less than 3 months) from the Ministry of Energy. The other only agreement needed was with the local utility company.

The process for the forthcoming Horns Rev project, which is just beginning, anticipated being somehow more complicated and timing consuming, although it can rely on much of the extensive documentation gathered for the Horns Rev wind farm.

3.3.6. WestWave Project, Ireland

In Achill and Killard Sites, the development of the project requires a foreshore lease from the Foreshore Licensing Unit of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and planning permission from the respective County Council. At this time, foreshore licences have been granted for survey activities related to the EIA screening and scoping requirements.

3.4. Tidal Stream Developers

3.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

For each test site where MCT has deployed its technology, different regulatory entities were involved during the various consenting processes:

Northern Ireland: MCT worked along with Northern Ireland Government and Northern Ireland Environmental Agency. Scotland: Marine Scotland is the main regulator in conjunction with Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). Wales: Wales Government. Electric Works Act (Section 36) granted by MMO covers England and Wales.

The list of stakeholders and authorities involved varies for each of the development sites. The Scottish system appears to be more pragmatic compared to the Anglo-welsh and Northern Irish system. In general it can be said that MCT have engaged with a wide list of

stakeholders, and they aimed to involve as many as possible. Some examples are the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) and Northern Lighthouse Board in Scotland.

3.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited (TGL), Scotland

To deploy a technology in the EMEC Site by TGL, 3 licences are necessary, including the EIA, FIPA, CPA and the EPS. This test centre site holds a list of statutory stakeholders that need to be consulted; it also provides a list of non-statutory stakeholders to the developer suggesting the engagement with sea-users, harbour authorities and recreational divers groups.

4. Stakeholder Engagement

QUESTION: Aside from formalised procedures, did you engage stakeholders in the development planning process? How was this carried out? Will this engagement continue for the duration of the project?

4.1. Test Sites

4.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

As the project is only in the consenting phase now, the focus of consultation was to ensure that the local stakeholders were involved in all stages of the project, thus the final product put forward for consenting had the backing insofar as possible from all stakeholders. To achieve this, a local liaison officer was permanently employed on site to provide a direct interface to all stakeholders. Informal and frequent discussions were the mainstay of the consultation process and enabled all parties to be involved to the degree they themselves wished. This process will be continued throughout the public consultation phase, which will accompany the foreshore lease application process as it has proven very successful to date.

4.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

Since the very beginning of the project, after its layout and location were decided, EVE was in contact with Lemoiz Town Hall. Having signed two agreements between the Town Hall and EVE, regular quarterly meetings EVE - Town Hall are being held to monitor the project. EVE has also met a coalition of environmental groups and opposition parties in the Town Hall to explain them the project and subsequently monitor it.

In the summer of 2009 an exhibition was opened up to the public to inform the population of Armintza and neighbouring areas about the project. An opinion box was installed for three months so visitors could submit questions or comments, which were subsequently answered one by one.

Several meetings have been held with Armintza Fishermen´s Guild in an attempt to reach an agreement about the impact caused by the presence of Bimep platform on their economic activity and the compensation they require because of this. Meetings are still being held with them at the moment.

Several meetings have also been held with Bilbao Port Authority to specify the risks that the presence of Bimep facility entails for sea navigation and which measures will be taken so as to minimise them as well as the procedures to follow in case of incidents during its operation.

Finally, and from a different view, a Work Team of Marine Energy has been created with the participation of more than seventy companies. This group aims to aid the Basque industrial fabric to develop its capacities in this new market. The group holds meetings four times a year maximum, depending on the Bimep project’s development pace.

4.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

The engagement was sufficiently realised by the formal procedures and besides the amounts of information given there was not any other further method followed. Many stakeholders have showed high interest and are currently following the project closely via home pages and media.

Project information has been updated continuously, including websites, for keeping every stakeholder and others who might be interested in the project informed. Furthermore, when local public has contacted the project, time and effort has been given to provide satisfactory answers to all of them. The local community can also take advantage of the project/site data instantaneously via internet, where it is available.

4.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

4.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

The main reason why informal contacts with stakeholders have not yet been carried out is related to the uncertainties regarding the Ocean Plug development plan for the whole area. It is intended that formal contacts with local authorities, concurrent users and residents will only be fruitful (to avoid misunderstanding aspects) when there is a clear idea on the details of what and where the Ocean Plug infrastructure will be placed (e.g. cable and substation location, exclusion areas). It is also known that locals usually ask for counterparts or benefits from the project to the region; since the Ocean Plug budget and human resources are still under discussion this is also a constraint for a possible discussion/negotiation with the local community regarding for example job creation. However, a plan for public/stakeholders outreach is under development taking into account the direct involvement of the local authorities and the socio-economic characteristics of the region.

4.1.6. WaveHub, England

Local groups were approached by WaveHub. Different types of meetings and stakeholder engagement events were held by WaveHub. Around one hundred meetings were held with stakeholders, also a public consultation meeting advertised and a specific open meeting for specific categories of user such as fisheries associations (CFPO) regarding issues of fishing gear and anchors, and reduction of fishing areas.

Informed stakeholders such as Surfers Against the Sewage (SAS) approached WaveHub. They raised concerns on how coastal processes were going to be affected by the presence of the device, and the impact they would have on local beaches.

A strategic mitigation phase was developed to look into the potential impact of WaveHub on the fishing community. As a result WaveHub created a monetary fund for the development of fishing activities in the Cornish north coast. Exchange with stakeholders is still on-going, e.g. with SAS and fisheries (through the institution of a liaison officer).

4.2. Additional Sites

4.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

For both WTS and TTS talks were held with different stakeholders and are still on-going as necessary to correctly mark the sites and minimise risks to navigation and other sea-users.

• WTS: Four cables were installed reaching out to sea in 50 m water depth. A fifth cable was laid in 2010 to a 70 m water depth (with funding from DECC). Consultation with local stakeholders, including fishermen, as well as with statutory advisors on safety, established that the near shore area should be left open to navigation and for creel-fishing. The UK Hydrographical Office (UKHO), MCA, and Northern Light House (Scottish version of the Trinity House) were all involved in the discussion for marking of the areas. • TTS: AS for the WTS, the site is open to Navigation. The local ferry industry uses the tidal area for transport when the weather conditions are adverse. For the TTS site, local Fishermen and the local Ferry Company (Orkney Islands Council (OIC) Marine Services Department) are always consulted. Initial discussions over the location of the site resulted in the request by OIC to move the location of one of the cables in the TTS to aid navigation activity. This was agreed by EMEC. Parallel discussions with fishermen using the area resulted in EMEC reducing the area of TTS to follows the contour of the 30 m bathymetric line, and thereby free up access to inshore fisheries to local fishermen. • NS: The 2 NS are not grid connected, largely due to the nature of the testing to be carried out at these sites (and to funding constraints at the time of establishing the sites).

For reasons of practicality, EMEC and many Stakeholders believe that there is not necessarily any benefit to creating Safety Zones around the test sites. If EMEC could show that other activity (industrial, transport, fishing and recreational) can take place in the proximity of the site this would be beneficial to all and would generate a positive attitude towards the industry.

Stakeholder engagement is on-going. Each time a new developer contracts with EMEC to deploy a device at one of the test sites, the relevant stakeholders are consulted. With very high levels of such activity in Orkney, his has led to some stakeholders being overloaded, and this issue is now being addressed at Government level. Some stakeholders who were initially consulted have expressed no interest in the sites, and declared little relevance in future consultation (due to the lack of sensitivities in their areas of coverage).

4.2.2. Runde, Norway

Continuous dialogue was held with Kystverket (Norwegian Coastal Administration), local inhabitants, individual fishermen and fisheries organizations, and kelp trawling organizations throughout the site identification phase as well as the consent application phase as well as the duration of the project. The views from the stakeholders were taken into account when evaluating different sites and identifying the most appropriate site and its specific location.

4.3. Wave Power Developers

4.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

Engagement with the local Orkney community has been on-going throughout the development of the project. Since the activities commenced in 2009, information has been provided to the local community through public events as well as issuing regular updates via the local press, radio and through letters to local residents.

A public event was held in Stromness in February 2010, which consisted of a series of information boards, a PowerPoint presentation and an informal drop in session where the project team was available for questions. Aquamarine Power has also attended to the Orkney Science Festival, which has been running for the past 3 years, providing information on the Oyster technology and the project developed in Orkney. During the onshore construction works the local community were kept informed of works via letter and press release in the local press.

4.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

Once a decision to add a wave energy plant to the design of the breakwater was made, an informative meeting was held with the Town Hall to present the project. Their main concerns were about delay of the works already undergoing, and the possible adverse effects on the village, such as noise. Later on, an informal meeting was organised in a council assembly hall to present the project to the general public. Once again, the biggest concern was avoiding further delay to the project. There were also some comments against the new idea, but they came mainly from a population sector already opposed to the very breakwater. These people saw in the wave plant project nothing but an attempt to clean up the image of a breakwater project that was beyond any logic in their view. EVE has been in contact with Mutriku Town Hall all along the project, albeit not systematically.

4.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

Through legal requirements (of the EIA Directive and national translation of those obligations through the EIA Regulations (Scotland)); this is typically done through the Regulator, who has a list of statutory stakeholders that are engaged directly by him to assess the project at scoping and final consents application. It is also a legal requirement to make copies of the Environmental Statement available locally to the public to view following consents application.

Stakeholder engagement in the development planning process through project level activities, include:

Public workshops; Fisheries liaison groups; Distribution of project information (leaflets, posters, reports) within stakeholder groups); Wider distribution of Scoping Report; Press releases; and Websites.

On-going engagement will depend on requirements and mitigation measures, but typically there will be on-going engagement in many various different forms.

4.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

Local community is involved in the project; hence the Peniche town hall is one of the project partners. The town hall gives information on its web site, in a dissemination room within its building and in meeting reports. The dissemination activities will continue after deploying the device in the sea.

4.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

The local community were not formally included in the consent process. However, there was a great local engagement with local authorities, businesses and public in general, which were very positive and enthusiastic about the planning of a wave centre in their region, and hoping for considerable business and job opportunities in the future.

There were large efforts to engage and show the facilities to the community, such as flyers, homepages, social networks, guiding tours, etc., which have been really appreciated.

4.3.6. WestWave Project, Ireland

The project is still in development, although consultations with relevant authorities, organisations and stakeholders have already begun and will be continued throughout the EIA and site design process. A Local Community Consultation and Communications Plan have been drawn up. At this point, some meetings with Mayo County Council, Doonbeg Community Group, local marine businesses and local fishing organisations have been held.

4.4. Tidal Stream Developers

4.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

Stakeholders were engaged at different stages, and still are, at the 3 test sites. In particular, starting from the Strangford Lough test site, different stakeholder groups were created such as a science group, which provided support and feedbacks on the environmental programme, and a liaison group. Events were organised to update the groups on the on-going monitoring activities. Recently stakeholders were invited to a meeting where the results of environmental monitoring at Strangford Lough were presented.

4.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited, Scotland

For the TGL project, the EMEC suggested how to approach some stakeholders, one of which, Ferry Providers for Orkney, was consulted in a series of open meetings. These meetings took place in several times, generating useful comments that brought to a reduction of the risk for navigation. However, this process consumed plenty of time.

5. Public and Stakeholder Awareness

QUESTION: Were the general public and other stakeholders already aware of the proposed development (e.g. early media coverage; outreach events)?

5.1. Test Sites

5.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

Interested stakeholders such as the fishing industry and the marine users have been aware since the AMETS project started, when initial exploratory seabed surveys were being carried out for site selection purposes. The general public were formally informed of the project when the site had been selected and more comprehensive surveying was being planned. In general though every effort was made to ensure awareness of the project, which was widespread from a very early stage. With the project formally underway a large open day event was held to enable the general public to first-hand meet the project team and pose any queries they had.

5.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

Once the BIMEP project was clearly defined (both the location and architecture of the infrastructure and the engineering albeit at a very basic level), contacts with the interested parties started. The steps taken so far, from the deployment of an oceanographic buoy to the allocation of the different supply packages of the facility, have had media coverage, whether by means of press releases or the official opening of some element (buoy).

5.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

As it took 2 years from the initiation to the time when equipment actually was deployed into the water at the Lysekil test site, there was sufficient time for information to sip down. Media coverage became widespread in newspapers, on TV and radio, which helped to extend the information to the general public. In early 2000, an increase in the interest of renewables also enhanced general interest.

5.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

5.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone

In order to achieve the awareness of the general public, there has been some successful media coverage regarding the designation of the Ocean Plug (Portuguese Pilot Zone). However, outreaches events have been avoided until a clear definition of some project details were established.

5.1.6. WaveHub, England

The general public and the other stakeholders were aware of the WaveHub project since the beginning. The South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) kept informing local councils, and publishing the development through a series of public meetings, open days and media coverage on local press. Flyers were sent out to the local population around the site area; presentations were held in local schools and clubs in the area. WH has a public relations agency updating news and spreading local information. Social media is employed to provide an easy access to the information.

5.2. Additional Sites

5.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

Stakeholders are aware of what is going on at EMEC, which provides regular updates at both local and national level. When a new developer proposes a new installation at EMEC, they submit a project summary, which is delivered to the relevant stakeholders. A three parties meeting is organised by EMEC involving the stakeholders, EMEC and developers. In most cases external environmental consultants and navigation experts are hired by developers to join the consultations on environmental sensitivities and the navigation discussions respectively. EMEC know the relevant stakeholders very well and initiates the consultation process with them.

When a development of 1 MW or less is proposed, there is no EIA requirement to fulfil, although developers are expected to provide supporting documentation (environmental report, navigation risk assessment, and third party verification documents). EMEC is working very closely with Marine Scotland to ease the consenting process by introducing further streamlining and simplification.

5.2.2. Runde, Norway

At the Runde test site the local stakeholders were involved very early in the process, via direct contacts from the consent application team.

5.3. Wave Power Developers

5.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

The general public was involved in the same process of stakeholder’s engagement in the project developed in Scotland by Aquamarine.

5.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

Once the Mutriku project was well defined, contacts with the interested parties started. This has been one of EVE´s flagship projects, which is why it has been subject of conferences and references in many of the public speeches of EVE´s management, as well as the Department of Industry, Innovation, Trade and Tourism of the Basque Country.

5.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

The general public in the regions within which Pelamis Wave Power is developing its current projects are aware of the developments, and the stage which they are at.

5.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

The representatives of the Peniche town hall, the harbour captain, teachers in the local university and many subcontractors have been aware of the WaveRoller testing all the time. The Peniche town hall has arranged wave energy seminars and has a web page where the project is explained. This new step (demonstration unit) has been introduced in local newspapers and on Portuguese television. The demonstration project is a continuum to an earlier prototype project in the site.

5.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

For the Nissum project developed by the Danish company WaveStar, the Folkecenter has taken care of informing the public. Meanwhile, the local ministry was the one in charge of promoting the Hasntholm project. Information meetings have been held several times to different audiences and target groups. There was a large media interest for every new project move; national media is always very interested in huge events.

5.3.6. WestWave, Ireland

The WestWave project is still in the leasing process and there is no final location decided yet; therefore, there has been no information spread to the general public. However, meetings with some stakeholders have been held to assure their awareness.

5.4. Tidal Stream Developers

5.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

Stakeholders and the wider publics were aware of the project. The Strangford Lough project is now world-famous and has received worldwide attention. Public is aware of the developments. Marine Current Turbines (MCT) organised public exhibitions and press releases to promote the development.

In Anglesey, MCT is part of a consortium called Energy Islands, which promotes energy development in the north Welsh area and different stakeholders including representatives from the offshore wind industry and nuclear power form it.

5.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited, Scotland

The public were aware about the proposed Tidal Generation Limited (TGL) project development in EMEC. The taken solution was publishing information regarding business opportunities, investments and jobs creation by EMEC. TGL did not organise any open public meeting because they felt it was not required; however, they were ready to organise one if demanded.

6. Stakeholder Engagement in the Consultation Process

QUESTION: What stakeholders (a) responded to the consultation process and/or (b) did you specifically target (independent of formal requirements)? Why? Were these stakeholders contacted at the local level or through national/regional representative bodies? Did some of them approach you of their own volition?

6.1. Test Sites

6.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

The formal consultation process on the AMETS project began with the scoping report to determine the extent of the investigation required for the project. On publication of the report a public consultation process was opened up to which a range of stakeholders (general public, local organisations and statutory bodies) replied. Beyond this process, an active on-going informal consultation was operated during the entire EIA process. All relevant stakeholders from general public to government entities were approached and are still keeping up on proceedings.

Depending on the type of stakeholder (e.g. local or national) they were approached accordingly through their main representative on that level. A number of individuals and some organisations approached the project team on their own before the project could start engaging them. An example of this is the group of local surfers.

6.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

Regarding environmental issues, since this type of facility is not envisaged in the Environmental Law or amongst the cases in which an EIA is compulsory, or amongst the cases in which there is an exemption, a consultation process has been started based on whether such process is necessary or not.

To this purpose, and starting with the documentation about the Project drawn up by EVE including the technical specifications of Bimep platform, its location and its potential impact, the General Directorate for Environmental Quality and Evaluation, in an attempt to determine the need for some EIA, requested a report from a total of 33 entities, of which the most relevant are shown below:

Bilbao Port Authority, Ministry of Public Works. Lemoiz Town Hall. Spanish Oceanographic Institute-IEO Central Headquarters-Madrid. Ministry of Science and Innovation. WWF/ADENA. S.E.O. (Bird life organisation) Greenpeace. Sub-Department of Innovation and Energy, Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, Basque Government.

General Directorate for Planning, Evaluation and Environmental Control, Sub- Department of Environment, Department of Environment and Spatial Planning, Basque Government. Government Delegation in the Basque Country. National Federation of Fishermen´s Guilds. Merchant Navy General Directorate, General Sub -Directorate for Traffic, Safety and Marine Pollution, Ministry of Public Works.

Once the consultation period finished, some of the parties provided feedback, which confirms that no habitat or protected species will be affected at all, and no significant environmental impact is foreseeable in the environment as a consequence of the implementation of the project. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Department pointed out the possible effects of the project on the professional fishing activity because they collide over the same space, thus mentioning the need for economic compensation of the fishermen in accordance with trade loss in the area occupied by the platform.

Regarding the industrial and granting procedure, as part of the mandatory public information process, announcements were published in the following sites:

Spanish Official Journal (BOE). Bizkaia Official Journal (BOPV). El Correo newspaper.

Furthermore, offprints of the project were submitted to the following Governments and organizations so they are aware of this matter:

Lemoiz Town Hall. Coast Demarcations of the Basque Country (Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs). Bilbao Port Authority from the Merchant Navy General Directorate (Ministry of Public Works). Fishing Ministry. Department of Territorial Planning of the Basque Country. Merchant Navy General Directorate, Department of Housing, Public Works and Transport of the Basque Government. Fisheries Department of the Basque Government. Basque Water Agency “URA”. Road Service Department of the Regional Government of Bizkaia. Bilbao Bizkaia Water Consortium. Iberdrola.

Reports and comments have been submitted by the following entities:

Iberdrola, which granted its consent. Bilbao Port Authority (General Secretariat of Transport, Merchant Navy General Directorate), which submitted a negative report for safety reasons and lack of precision in terms of buoyage.

A person, who requested the analysis of the impact of the Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) on his property, claims that no alternative plan has been proposed yet. Coast Demarcations of the Basque Country (dependent on the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs); this entity requested the data to be sent on digital format, EVE has already submitted this information to them; they also required an explanation and justification of the final plan, since they claim there are two different possible solutions. Road report from the Regional Government of Bizkaia regarding the land infrastructure of the underground electric line and the substation. Report from Bilbao Water Consortium regarding the electric lines planned.

Other groups have been approached such as:

The General Public: EVE voluntarily contacted this group by means of the exhibition mentioned above. Fishermen: Were contacted by EVE, both on a local level (Armintza Fishermen’s Guild) and a regional level (Federation of Fishermen’s Guilds of Bizkaia and Federation of Fishermen’s Guilds of Gipuzkoa) Environmental Groups: There are two local groups and one regional. They contacted EVE by sending their requests about some concerns raised.

Besides these groups, meetings have been held with several bodies of the different public entities involved in the processing of Bimep project. The meetings took place before the beginning of the processing phase; their main goal was the presentation of the project and the monitoring of the process.

6.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

No private persons did any approach. The only organisation that raised some concern was a fisherman organisation. However, they did not have any contact with the only local fisherman active in the area. The issue with the local single fisherman was solved properly; he even retired after a year. No NGO responded, however other entities replied without any criticism. It has been very helpful for the project goal to also follow up marine environmental concerns. A considerable part of the success of the project has been due to the environmental studies performed and to be done in the future.

6.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

6.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

The statutory consultation process, which has not been carried out yet, should only involve a number of public regulators at the national level on energy and geology, water use, environment, fisheries and maritime transportation and harbours. The recent changes made by the government on the public administration agencies provided an integration of maritime affairs authorities in a unique ministry. This will join decision-makers and, hopefully, avoid high bureaucratic consultation processes promoting an efficient

coordination amongst authorities. However, these administrative changes are still being implemented.

6.1.6. Wave Hub, England

Some of the stakeholders like Fisheries association, Maritime and Coastguard Agency or the Surfers group (SAS) expressed their opinions and concerns. Regulators had to decide based on scientific data provided by WaveHub and some concerns raised by stakeholders. WaveHub often approached stakeholders to discuss issues with them and reduce the uncertainty for the regulator in order to ease the labour of the decision makers. If issues between WaveHub and stakeholders were solved, regulators would have fewer problems about giving consents. English Heritage showed interest and asked for high standard quality images, and they made sure that monitoring of the seabed was improved.

6.2. Additional Sites

6.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

Different stakeholders were approached, both at local and national level. Some Stakeholders are now becoming very busy with consultation responses due to other developments in the area. There were no cases of stakeholders approaching EMEC, having not been consulted. A wide consultation was done to find out which stakeholders were more relevant, some of which did not require involvement with the consenting process. There were no cases of stakeholders approaching EMEC.

A lot of time has been consumed identifying the right level of stakeholder engagement for all device deployments at EMEC, because of the agreement context given for these sites to be used for the testing of marine energy devices.

The Crown Estate is now leasing other areas of Orkney seabed and this affects the sensitivities of stakeholders, who may now tend to be less supportive. EMEC engaged people and stakeholders with a high degree of respect and was always prepared to listen to comments and concerns. This stimulates positive interactions between EMEC and stakeholders, who are always encouraged to discuss and participate actively in finding the right solution of any issue.

6.2.2. Runde, Norway

The stakeholders that responded to the consultation within the formal consent process are: MöreogRomsdalfylke, Stiftelsen Bergen Sjöfartsmuseum, Fiskeridirektoratet, kystverket, statensvegvesen. The site developer specifically target the local fishing organisations, kelp trawling organisation and birds organisation because these stakeholders have the highest interest in the site area. These approaches were generally at a local level.

6.3. Wave Power Developers

6.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

All stakeholders with a direct interest in the project responded to the formal EIA consultation. The stakeholders that were considered to have a specific interest in the project were consulted directly at a local level. Since the Oyster 800 Array development has taken place at EMEC, most stakeholders were aware of EMEC’s existence and that various technologies would be tested there. Therefore, there was awareness amongst stakeholders and the local community, and contact with both of these groups was made quite easily.

6.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

In the processing of Mutriku wave power plant, there was a single procedure of public information prior to the granting of Administrative Authorisation and the granting of Activity Licence. That was the only action taken for these two purposes.

With reference to the Administrative Authorisation, the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism of the Basque Government received the following allegations and reports: Mutriku Town Hall. They issue two favourable reports of the construction and launching of the plant, albeit setting certain conditions regarding the noise and vibration produced by the plant; and regarding the network interconnection electric line, setting certain conditions in this matter. The Directorate of Ports and Maritime Affairs of the Basque Government issue a positive report and refer to the project´s future and mandatory Authorisation to set their conditions. NaturgasEnergía, Iberdrola and Telefónica issue their usual conditions regarding crossings and parallelisms. The Environmental Defence Association (MutrikuNaturTaldea) puts forward an allegation requesting the non-authorisation of the network interconnection electric line until the permits and authorisations for the wave plant have been granted.

In the case of the public information procedure to obtain the Activity Licence, Mutriku Town Hall received the following allegations: The Environmental Defence Association (MutrikuNaturTaldea) put forward an allegation in the following terms: - The non-existence of an Environmental Impact Declaration, which they understand is mandatory. - Risk of floods in the facilities of the plant in case of storm. - They reported the promoters of the project to the Environmental Public Prosecutor´s Office in Gipuzkoa because of an alleged environmental crime against the promoters of the breakwater and the public entities involved, in which they requested, as a precautionary measure, the immediate interruption of the works. - They also requested a report from the Health Department which guarantees the harmlessness of the electromagnetic field created by the transformers and the electric line of the wave plant.

- The part of the breakwater that has been in construction has already had electrical conductions pre-installed, which, in their view, distorts the allegations process. - They demand part of the layout to be modified so that the buried line is as far as possible from some trees in the area and thus prevent damaging their roots.

Two more allegations were received from private citizen groups, who insisted on the possible effects caused by the overexposure to electromagnetic fields, noise emissions and the absence of an environmental impact declaration.

EVE responded to these complaints by proving that the EIA is not compulsory, being replaced with an application for Activity Licence, procedure framed precisely in the allegations process currently under way; the compliance with the existing regulations in terms of electromagnetic fields and the compliance with the existing regulations in terms of noise pollution were also proven. No further contacts were made in this project other than the ones concerning legal procedures.

Later on, and owing to a problem EVE could define as social alarm with respect to the wave plant in Mutriku, EVE started an information campaign addressed to the general public and, more specifically, the population of Mutriku. This campaign included the upload of videos to the network so everybody could have the chance to know about it everywhere. The reader is invited to type the key words "Mutriku" and "olas" (waves) on YouTube: the videos will be shown reporting the actual noise emitted by the turbines in Mutriku. These videos were uploaded to the net in December 2007.

A storm occurred when the first air chamber was half finished (the upper part of the chamber was cast in concrete and the shuttering in place). During that weekend, a loud noise could be heard caused by the waves as they reached the structure. The noise came from the shuttering of the first chamber. The strength of the air passing through the upper hole of the chamber caused a vibration of some metallic plates that were causing the noise. A picture of the chamber in construction at that moment can be seen below.

Figure 2: Upper holes of the mentioned chamber.

Those against the breakwater immediately uploaded videos and reported the noise caused by the wave energy plant to the media. They even claimed that only one turbine was operational, therefore, the noise will get much worse. When the storm abated, those plates were taken out and the snorting sound ended. As there had not been any turbine put in place by then, the news was clearly false. However, the truth was that the people of Mutriku had not been told what exactly was being done and what the construction schedule of the project was. Therefore, a communication campaign was launched in the town in order to provide thorough

information about what was being done and communicate the stages updates, in order to deny what was being said by environmentalists and avoid further media intoxication. The lesson learned was simple, if sufficient information about our project is not provided by the developers, others will inform on their behalf.

6.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

These projects have only completed the scoping phase of development. However, beyond statutory bodies, which were contacted (including directly by the regulator), there are usually a wide selection of other stakeholders approached for opinion. These are identified through the scoping process and via workshops and local consultation meetings; many of which are local groups and individuals, some of which are national organisations.

There is no legal requirement as to the extent of this consultation, so the inclusion/exclusion of groups and individuals is largely a developers choice influenced by their view on the level of potential interaction/conflict the project could represent for a particular individual or group, or the level of baseline data/knowledge a particular group or individual may have relating to the project and/or interactions.

It would be sensible to expect that stakeholders who may experience a level of economic disruption either to their livelihoods or existing assets as a potential result of the project would be included as a priority within consultation, as would those who may be impacted through navigational safety.

6.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

There was no formal participation on public, but comments about the permit were asked from several institutions. No one contacted the developer because of the need for additional information. Some negative comments from individual surfers have been heard (not directly from them), they are afraid that the surfing waves would get smaller due to wave energy devices.

6.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

Stakeholders were not formally needed to be included within the process. The explanation could be that only a single unit was going to be deployed at each site and the fact that the areas were test sites before for other renewable energy. Furthermore, the general positive views from authorities and the public helped, although there have been occasional negative views, expressed in most cases by non-believers in wave power.

6.3.6. WestWave Project, Ireland

The formal consultation process has not yet begun as it will be associated with the development of the EIAs. A number of meetings with Mayo County Council, Doonbeg Community Group, Local marine businesses and local fishing organisations have been held to ensure awareness of the project.

The coastal zone around the proposed sites is an important resource for coastal communities with inshore fisheries and aquaculture, which provide important incomes. No

detailed analysis on the fisheries in the area has been published yet. However, consultation was carried out with both the West Mayo Fishermen Development Co-op and the West Clare Lobstermen’s Association, which identified that the rocky seabed areas along the proposed locations coasts are used for lobster potting by local fishermen.

Early consultation with National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) will be undertaken to confirm sea bird data and obtain any updates for existing information. Consultations will be held with the relevant local authority roads and transportation department and traffic surveys will be undertaken. The assessment will: • Identify access routes to be used for the site, particularly for abnormal loads. • Identify the increase in traffic numbers resulting from construction and operational phase. • Identify existing (baseline) traffic flows. • Identify potential environmental effects arising as a result of traffic flows changes, i.e. possible disruption or congestion, noise and air quality.

6.4. Tidal Stream Developers:

6.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

Many stakeholders responded to the consultation process, especially the statutory consultees. Responses were wide spread at the various sites. Most of the stakeholders were approached by MCT, who aimed to involve the wider stakeholders groups. MCT approached the stakeholders with the intent to show the programmes and reduces uncertainties and negative impression of the developments. In most cases, MCT would approach stakeholders, groups and organisations at a national level; afterwards, they would get in contact with the local representatives for consultations.

6.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited, Scotland

In the case of the TGL project, the stakeholders replied immediately after the scoping report was sent out. These stakeholders were the local navigation bodies and ornithological groups. Their interest and opinions raised questions about navigational risks, blade effects and diving birds. All of the public engagement was carried out within the legal requirements.

7. Stakeholder Concerns

QUESTION: Which stakeholders group were more concerned in your site? What were their key concerns? How were these concerns/objections dealt with? (e.g. noise, visual/scenic impact; disruption of species, impact on existing activities, associated onshore development; etc.)

7.1. Test Sites

7.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

Typically the fishing industry would have been very concerned about the impact of the test site on their fishing grounds. The way in which concerns were dealt with, was via a proactive consultation process with the fishermen about the design of the final test area.

7.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

From the most general to the most specific, we can identify the general public as one of the interested parties concerned about the project, mainly because of their ignorance of what this project entails and its possible impact. These fears are usually easily dispelled, since they have to do with issues that we, as promoters, have also considered along the development of the project.

Environmental groups are also one of the parties to show concern, but EVE’s experience has shown them that these fears usually end up more in quasi philosophic issues than practical ones. In the end, they seem to quite agree with the project, but they oppose it on the grounds that it is part of an insufficiently ambitious energetic model, lacking social awareness, etc.

A third group is the one composed of technicians from the different public bodies that have a say in the process. In this case, they are truly interested in the project, but they sometimes raise any uncertainty to the category of proven risk, leaving the promoter to prove the inexistence of such hazard. In Bimep platform case, the General Directorate for Environmental Quality and Evaluation (body responsible for Environmental Authorisation) displayed great common sense trying to make a distinction between proven risks and the uncertainties.

Armintza Fishermen´s Guild and the two Guild Federations contacted are also concerned groups, albeit on a different scale. Their main concern is getting to know the project in time to be able to make their own contribution before it is too late to reverse whichever actions are taken. In the case of Armintza´s Guild, their logic concerns how the project is going to affect them and the economic compensation they are going to receive. It is advisable to underline the word “economic”, since they pursue no other compensation but the financial one.

Finally, Lemoiz Town Hall is understandably interested in getting to know the project in depth, attempting to integrate it into the municipality in the best possible way and trying to make the most of its positive impact on the economic development of the municipality.

7.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

There were no major concerns about the development of the project in that area. However, a Fishermen Organisation raised some complaints about the project. Their concern was mostly about sea life in the area and the repercussions that the device could cause on it and a general tendency of dislikes of new competing activities at sea. However, there were mostly positive attitudes towards the project development.

7.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

7.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

The more concerned stakeholder groups are:

The environmental authorities, which often exaggerate in the number and detail of the studies that have to be carried out to license projects. The legal context of the Ocean Plug (through the access regulation under development) could help establishing limits to the required environmental studies. Local fishermen due to the potential exclusion areas for fishing. The local community. Stakeholders have to understand that the ocean is one of the most important (not to say the highest or the only) Portuguese natural resource. Therefore, there is a need to take advantage of it, especially in the current economic crisis scenario.

The Ocean Plug project has the support of the two major political Portuguese parties and for that reason the context could not be better to promote technologies which will also contribute to a better environment (climate change mitigation). A strategy is being prepared to inform/engage stakeholders on/in the planning process.

7.1.6. WaveHub, England

Four main concerns arose during the installation procedure, which concerned stakeholders:

Maritime safety: The Trinity House and the British Chamber of Shipping thought that the presence of WaveHub in the proximity of the traffic separation zone near Scilly Island and Land’s End would cause an increasing risk of a naval accident in the area. It was solved moving the traffic separation zone near Scilly and Land’s End to a northern location to avoid navigational risks. Fishing: The installation of WaveHub supposed a reduced of the fishing areas. Conversations are still on-going with the fisheries bodies to create a liaison officer and then a fund for development. This is tougher to solve due to the presence of different organisations and independent fishermen. Surfing: This concern was raised because of the extraction of energy from surfing waves and the coastal impacts. WaveHub released studies on the impact of four types of WECs on the surfing wave. The SAS did not question the report, although adverse critics arose from A1 Surf Magazine and the news spread to The Sunday Times and other newspapers. Three studies were conducted on the effects of WEC

devices on the waves and it was shown that reductions of the wave heights due to the presence of WECs were negligible. Safety zone: It was in discussion with Trinity House and MCA; however, this is regulated by an international standard. WH requested the extension of the safety zone to the full site; however, that would require changing the international standards. Each developer would have to apply for an exclusion zone close to their installation; this could generate continuous changes to the navigation maps.

Monitoring of the benthos is a potential issue, CEFAS has asked for a ground survey; however, the monitoring would be difficult due to the presence of a rock-ground. This creates a shadow area that makes scientific monitoring of the zone more difficult.

7.2. Additional Sites

7.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

Scottish Natural Heritage has raised concerns regarding the potential for negative environmental impacts of devices deployed at the test sites. Other concerned stakeholders were RSPB, Sea Mammals Research Unit, divers and some leisure interests. The list of stakeholders initially consulted was extensive; however, on-going consultation over individual devices deploying to the agreed sites is now routine including 8/9 stakeholders (both statutory and non-statutory).

EMEC would not classify stakeholder concerns as worries, since all issues are always being discussed and addressed early in the licensing process, in order to ensure that all the issues are adequately addressed as the project is being developed. Concerns about the potential for negative environmental consequences of the small amount of EMF that might be produced by deployments at EMEC were discounted earlier, given the small number of devices to be installed in the area. Impacts in this area were considered negligible.

Potential concerns were:

Risk of underwater collision between devices and marine mammals and diving birds; Displacement of sensitive wildlife species due to presence of OWC devices; Underwater noise generated by devices and during installation, which might cause displacement or harm to sensitive species; and Few impacts on benthos were expected, at the scale of operations in EMEC.

In socio-economic terms, the major concerns were the navigation risks, such as clearance between devices and hulls, correct marking of the areas and devices, effects on the economics of the area (mainly positive), and the potential impact on fisheries (both positive and negative). Basic navigational risk is assessed on a generic basis; it is updated by device developers, and a generic approach to environmental risk assessment and mitigation is in progress.

7.2.2. Runde, Norway

The most worried stakeholders in this site were some local fishermen because they would be excluded from using this sea area. Local fishermen and the coastguard agency have to

navigate through the area; therefore, it is very important to place the test area away from the shipping lanes and the lighthouse zones, and to mark the zone properly and according to the existing regulations. These concerns were mainly dealt with during the site identification process. Some concerns about the scenic impact were raised by local individuals. Concerns about cultural heritage on the seabed were raised and the development should immediately stop if anything likely was found. The county administrative board also highlighted that the test site is close to a bird protection area, and from March 15 th to August 8th it is not allowed to visit the area.

7.3. Wave Power Developers

7.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

No stakeholder group was particularly concerned with the development. Only one objection was received on the section 36 application from a local resident, who was concerned about the potential landscape and visual impacts caused by the project development.

7.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

In the case of Mutriku facility, the stakeholder to show most concern about the project has possibly been the general public, and their fundamental concern has been the problem of noise. This type of plant can emit a rather high level of noise and it is only natural that people may worry about it. Mutriku Town Hall has complied with their duty of safeguarding the interests of the inhabitants of Mutriku specifically stating in their Activity Licence the noise emission levels that must be respected in accordance with the current regulations.

Another interested party that proved to be clearly concerned about the project were environmental groups, albeit their main concern was the very existence of the breakwater and they never judged the wave plant in itself but on the grounds of what it really meant for them: an attempt to make a good project out of a bad one. And the conclusion was fairly clear: the wave energy facility does not justify the construction of the breakwater. And EVE does agree in this respect, but the breakwater construction was already under construction before anybody ever contemplated the idea of placing a wave energy plant.

7.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

To date there is an obvious focus of concern on ecological interactions from environmental bodies, but there is additional concern from the existing fishing and aquaculture stakeholders. Their key concerns centre around navigational safety and economic impact of removed or displaced fishing activities. However, none of these issues have been fully resolved since projects are still undergoing development, which includes mitigating interactions and resolving areas of conflict.

7.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

Surfers were the only non-statutory stakeholders group that have release some negative opinions about the project. Among the statutory consultees there were some concerns

regarding protected species using the site on land and also with the habitat destruction regarding the substation installation on the dunes. However the project has been accepted for installation, though with some monitoring recommendations.

7.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

The only strong concern about the realisation of the projects was showed by the Fishermen organisations, although they were not affected by either the Nissum or the Hanstholm sites. There was no concern related to environmental issues due to several reasons such as the small and local impact that one device could cause, locations being used from earlier and the fact that the installations will be removed after five years.

7.4. Tidal Stream Developers

7.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

Most of the concerns were focused on environmental impacts and navigational risks. In order to respond to the concerned stakeholders, MCT created a science group, which holds meetings 4 times a year, and a liaison group. The science group monitored and provided feedback to the environmental monitoring programme.

They implemented an adaptive management plan to evaluate the impacts and assets, which were scaled afterwards; and an emergency plan to reduce navigational risk. The implementation was drafted through consultation with the local RNLI, Coastguard association and local navigational group and authorities (lighthouses).

7.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited, Scotland

Four main concerns about the proposed TGL project development were raised by different groups; these four concerns are shown below:

Navigational risk: TGL commissioned a consultant to carry out a navigational risk assessment. The main issue was the clearance of the device at low tide, and the possible damage a boat can suffer and the following potential failure of the blades or moorings. TGL liaised with Trinity House specifying that the device was fixed at the seabed instead of being moored. Sea mammals: SNH required information with regards to the impact of the turbine on sea mammals. TGL explained that based on literature and speed of rotation of the blades, effects should be minimal on mammals. SNH required more information on the impacts of the turbine on mammals and in–service monitoring. TGL proposed the installation of a sonar camera on the turbine to monitor mammals approaching the device. Subaqueous noise and impact on small fishes: TGL commissioned under water acoustic studies. Bio-fouling: It was requested that only biodegradable oils were being used within the mechanical compartments of the turbine. However the manufacturer of the gear-box and TGL showed that there was no risk of spillage from the mechanics of the device to the sea due to a 3 layers collection system.

8. Public and Environmental Groups Support

QUESTION: Were there any specific sectors / groups etc. that were particularly supportive of your development? Why (e.g. local employment opportunities, mitigation of climate change; cheaper electricity etc.)?

8.1. Test Sites

8.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

In general, there was widespread support for the AMETS project from all sectors of the local community and industry. This would have been primarily due to the potential of job and industry opportunities that could come out of the project.

8.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

With roughly 1,000 inhabitants, Lemoiz is a small municipality whose economy is mainly based on the primary sectors of agriculture and fishing, on a low scale in both cases. Lacking any industrial activity and relying on a marginal service sector, Lemoiz Town Hall considers Bimep project an opportunity to create economic activity in the municipality. The Town Hall is even more interested, if that is possible, given the fact that this activity is linked to renewable energy and research and development. Likewise, all governmental bodies EVE approached have proved manifest interest in the project. However, this interest has not resulted in a faster processing, possibly owing to the complexity of the project and its being the first offshore marine energy project processed in Spain. Finally, it is important to point out the nearly unanimous support from political parties, something evident from the fact that the project has not raised any controversy in the Basque Parliament at all after information being requested in plenary meetings.

8.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

There was a high support from local politicians and commercial interests, who liked very much the Lysekil project future plans, particularly because a future wave power factory could be a great innovation for the area. Moreover, most locals have been very positive with the idea of the project development, many also see wave power a better alternative than windpower (NIMBY). Climate change or a cheaper electricity bill, per se, was never an issue due to the high contribution that Swedish renewables are already making, mainly hydro power.

8.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

8.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone

For the Ocean Plug (Portuguese Pilot Zone) the main supportive groups are developers and a number of Portuguese industries (e.g. shipyards, tugboat companies, electrical components). It is expected that a number of business opportunities can be created for

local communities, for example for fishermen, who may want to offer their services in terms of boat facilities to the wave energy developers, and local communities that are dependent on the nearby harbours development (e.g. maritime equipment stores, hotels, shipyards). It is possible to propose that a part of the taxes paid by the developers could return to the local progress ensuring a number of local services, which in other conditions would have to be contracted abroad, when commercial projects were installed; this will benefit the projects and the local communities in terms of the creation of job opportunities.

8.1.6. WaveHub, England

Country, local councils and local population were aware of the project and the benefits it could bring to the community, and they were hoping that the economy can pick up from the investment and interest in the WaveHub; therefore they were supportive about the development of the installation. Furthermore, fishermen are now supportive too and collaborating with WaveHub.

8.2. Additional Sites

8.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

In Orkney there is a wide support for renewable energy installations. The local community is very supportive about the EMEC project, which uses media/press and meetings to be in touch and provide updates of the positive effects of the site in the local area.

8.2.2. Runde, Norway

In Runde, the County administrative board and the local municipality expressed their support on the project as being a positive development project contributing to the public welfare.

8.3. Wave Power Developers

8.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

Aquamarine Power found local businesses such as construction firms very supportive of all the proposals discussed during the project development in Scotland.

8.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

Since the Mutriku plant is part of a bigger project (the new breakwater in Mutriku’s harbour), the plant per se has not raised much public debate. The project has both inherited the enemies the breakwater already had and received support from the general public, who seemed to be in favour of searching for synergies amongst different projects. The most enthusiastic support has come from the maritime section of APPA association. This group is the Association of Renewable Energy Producers; therefore, since the Mutriku project is the first wave energy power plant in Spain, APPA has put all the possible emphasis to set an example and prove that this sector is making progress too.

8.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

Pelamis Wave Power considers that within Scotland and the UK, marine energy receives broad public sector and private sector support as well as strong support from the general public. This is for the primary reasons of:

These are largely indigenous business at the leading edge of a potentially significant global industry; so a degree of pride that UK/Scotland can still lead in new engineering opportunities. Good awareness that a successful industry could generate substantial economic and social benefits to the nation, this is particularly acute in the regions where projects will be sited as these are on the peripheries geographically and economically and as a result have experienced continual de-population and weak economic growth and prosperity. Marine renewables are seen as a real light of opportunity to reverse some of these negative trends. There is a strong opinion against the subsidies levelled at renewable energy generation from a section of the public. However, this is not as strongly felt when it comes to marine renewables, since much of the CAPEX, OPEX and resultant jobs following from the subsidies, will be retained within the UK economy; whereas a large amount of subsidy for wind energy directly benefits economies outside the UK. An acceptance that offshore wave energy could be a route to generating significant amounts of low carbon electricity with very low environmental impacts. Some stakeholders prefer the lower visual impact of offshore wave energy vis-á-vis wind energy.

8.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

AW – Energy found that local authorities were supportive of the WaveRoller project development. The mayor of the city is very much willing to have wave energy companies in the city because it would bring work to local people.

8.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

Local politicians and commercial interests were really supportive about the development of the WaveStar projects in Denmark, particularly with the idea of a future offshore industry being located in the area, which would create jobs opportunities, if the trial is successful. Moreover, other organisations such as the National Government and local inhabitants have been very positive and supportive of the project. Entities such as Aalborg University have collaborated with the project and have been really helpful. The facilities at Nissum and Hanstholm have served as study sites for several studies done in cooperation. The collaboration with universities is considered to be of paramount importance to achieve success.

8.4. Tidal Stream Developers

8.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

For the Marine Current Turbines projects in United Kingdom, public was receptive and supportive widespread. In particular, big support is being experienced in Anglesey, where the local council is supporting the initiative and has instituted the Energy Island consortium.

8.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited, Scotland

Tidal Generation Limited found that many stakeholders in private would be supportive and positive about the project. However, their opinion in public was often constrained by their activity, job and interest in the area. The Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) was supportive once its concerns were solved.

9. Stakeholder Knowledge of Socio-economic Benefits

QUESTION: Did you highlight the potential socio-economic benefits of your development to stakeholders? How?

9.1. Test Sites

9.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

The potential socio-economic benefits played a big role in the interaction with the relevant stakeholders. Overall, the AMETS project is being developed for the benefit of the Irish industry with the hope of creating the foundation for a new and innovative indigenous Ocean Energy industry in Ireland. Being at the starting point of such a new industry is an attraction in general to the relevant stakeholders.

9.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

Bimep platform is presented as a strategic project for the development of a new economic sector in the Basque Country. Since it is a testing and demonstration site of wave energy converters, we wish to highlight the fact that apart from the goal of generating energy, there is also the goal of generating knowledge, the latter being even more important than the former.

9.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

The socio-economic benefits were absolutely highlighted at the beginning of the Lysekil project development. Moreover, the creation of new job opportunities in the area, where work had disappeared largely and where seasonal tourism has become a very seasonal issue, was pointed out since the beginning to engage the general public and public organisations. This was mainly done during public meetings and through the press and media.

9.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

9.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

Although no formal and specific public outreach has been carried out, the socio-economic benefits of the Ocean Plug - Portuguese Pilot Zone Project have been highlighted in several public events, where a brief presentation on the project has been required. The position of the Ocean Plug management body is to be open to give support/information on the development progress of the site as completed as possible.

9.1.6. WaveHub, England

The potential benefits of WaveHub were highlighted at every meeting and open day, and shown in flyers. Moreover, people who went to ask whether the electricity bill decreased or not thanks to the WH received the information too.

9.2. Additional Sites

9.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

There was no need to mention the benefits of the development, although there have been subsequent reports of the high positive benefit to the local community resulting from EMEC’s presence. The site was established using public funds, and engaged a strong political support in Scotland, partly driven by national obligations, which is pushing towards green energy and carbon reduction aims. SNH has shown huge support for the test site. SNH is in favour of Marine Energy as a potential clean energy source, as long as the potential for negative effects on the environment can be low. It has being helping EMEC to assess the risks of unknown environmental effects.

9.2.2. Runde, Norway

The Maren project at Runde is very small and with a short duration period of 2-5 years, thus the socio-economic benefits of this particular project are not judged as important. In general it has been informed that the project potentially might act as an artificial reef and attract fish, and it could be a local attraction for tourists.

9.3. Wave Power Developers

9.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

Aquamarine Power highlighted the project socio-economic benefits through an independent socio-economic study and press releases stating how much money had been spent in the local economy.

9.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

In the case of Mutriku wave powers plant and given the fact that it is a low power (300 kW) and high investment (more than 6 million euro) facility, the socio-economic benefit is not related to the plant itself, but to the strategic framework in which it is classified.

Mutriku´s plant as an isolated project fails to offer much interest. However, it has great value as an example of one more step within a strategy aimed at creating and accelerating the development of an industrial and energetic sector revolving around marine energy. And this is the value is has been granted, together with some other undertakings such as Bimep project, the celebration of conferences on marine energy in Bilbao, ICOE 2010 in Bilbao, etc.

9.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

The Pelamis Wave Power projects have not reached this phase yet. However, they have already planned it. This is an indirect requirement under the EIA Regulations).

9.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

The socio-economic benefits of the WaveRoller project in Portugal have been reviewed in the Environmental Incidence Study which has been available for public consultation for a period of time.

9.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

The socio-economic potential benefit was absolutely highlighted during the WaveStar projects. Create job opportunities in an area where those opportunities are decreasing is a strong tool to use. The promoters estimate a creation of 40,000 new jobs from the green power industry. This was pointed out on the internet, flyers and in every meeting.

9.3.6. WestWave, Ireland

For both the landfall and offshore components of the proposed WestWave project development, a desk based assessment and consultation with key stakeholders will be carried out taking in consideration the following:

• Socio-economic effects of the proposals, primarily related to any potential job creation or losses. • Proximity of the works to the areas of recreational use and interest for tourism. • The effects of the project and any safety zone, both during construction and operation, on the access to inshore and offshore fishing grounds, and recreational pursuits. • The experience gained from deployment of the Oyster WEC at Orkney and Lewis.

Consultations will be undertaken with local fishing communities, surfers, leisure clubs and local communities coupled with a desk-based assessment. The impacts will be predicted with reference to published research, consultations with relevant authorities and bodies, and through other technical assessments relevant to the proposed development, e.g. the landscape, archaeological, navigation and biological assessments.

9.4. Tidal Stream Developers

9.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

When the Strangford Lough development started, Marine Current Turbines were not fully aware of the socio-economic benefits that the development would bring to the area. However, MCT soon noticed that positive socio-economics impacts took place by getting local companies involved (by means of surveys and installations). Their model now consists of contracting local firms for to carry out O&M operations, installations and surveys of the test site. MCT experienced these socio-economics benefits on the local communities:

Rise in local employment through contracting local companies, especially during installation of the devices. Increase of the use of local infrastructures and business through scientific tourism, benefitting the local food and hospitality industries.

The local subcontracting model has proved to benefit the local communities, and it is MCT intention to employ the same model in the Scottish and Welsh sites.

9.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited, Scotland

The first thing Tidal Generation Limited did was publishing the socio-economic benefits of the project installation. The benefits were highlighted in the scoping report in terms of carbon reduction, job creations and investments in the local economy. A total of five local companies were contacted by TGL, stressing the importance of “living” at the test site and checking the local business directory.

10. Opinion and Suggestions on the Stakeholder Consultation Procedure

QUESTION: Do you feel the formal procedures in place are sufficient to address stakeholder concerns? What lessons have you learned from this process and what changes would you suggest?

10.1. Test Sites

10.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

Experience has shown that the formal procedures in place seem sufficient to address the stakeholder concerns. The main lesson learned from the overall process to date is the value of an informal consultation process involving all parties concerned. Furthermore, approaching relevant stakeholders individually is very important and key to a successful outcome. Also, a good line of media communication is vital for demonstrating the openness of the project.

The main changes to be suggested would be to have a more updated website, a regular newsletter and perhaps more information days for the local public.

10.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

The legal proceedings offer enough guarantees for any stakeholder that might feel affected by a project of this scale, having the opportunity to express their concerns. EVE admits that it is unlikely to fully please every party, which means that the procedure cannot start until a full satisfaction is achieved. On the other hand, given that legal proceedings already guarantee the possibility of intervention of all interested parties, all the raised concerns will be informed in meetings during the process easing their participation, which will thus become the path for amendments on projects once the processing has begun.

The only recommendation given by EVE on this matter is to hold informative meetings with the interested parties as soon as the project is defined in order to save some time at the beginning of the process.

10.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

In Sweden the procedures are sufficient to address the concerns of the stakeholders, who have a strong say during all the phases of the process. It has to be mentioned that the project was considered small, thus the consent process was much easier and fast than for a larger or commercial project. Also, being a research project might have helped in the process. The application process for such a relatively small project as the Lysekil project was quite acceptable and could smoothly be handled with a small number of officials, referrals and locals involved.

It can be assured that the best way to engage stakeholders is openness and to give widespread information about the project from the beginning, which always will be very helpful. 56

10.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

10.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

The stakeholders outreach on the project has still to be implemented. The scarce and informal contacts that have been realised with local authorities suggest that a good level of communication can be expected. However, it is possible that problems can arise with some local groups such as fishermen regarding the lack of information on the project.

A good communication plan with the local groups will help to solve possible misunderstandings that can arise during the procedure.

10.1.6. WaveHub, England

WaveHub and EMEC have opened the way through the EIA process for marine parks. The procedure was not clear at the beginning, although now WaveHub is an example of EIA for biological, visual, coastal and socio-economic impacts. The consenting process does not take into account the length of the monitoring process and does not provide full methodologies for monitoring activities. Annual monitoring of the cable is requested. Furthermore, the consenting process is too long and expensive. WH obtained consenting in 27 months. Moreover, this is not the end of the consenting process; each developer has to submit an application to the MMO, adding costs to the process. Although WH will help the developer through the stages of the consent, it will be specific for each device. The feeling is that the people involved in the consenting process and stakeholder engagement dealt with it very well. In general, it can be said that it is important to be pro-active and engage non-statutory stakeholders immediately.

WaveHub believe that some improvements could be done to ease the procedure: Devices should go through MMO licence and Environmental statement. The monitoring of the devices should be defined according to the type of each one. The period of the monitoring programme would have to be defined; it could become a high cost for the developer. Developers would not have to apply to the Crown Estate for the lease of the land. Devices would have to be able to carry out additional monitoring. Consenting process should be shorter in order to reduce costs.

10.2. Additional Sites

10.2.1. EMEC, Scotland

A liaison group with regulators was held to aid the procedure; it considered that the monitoring should be carried out by EMEC, and provided a forum of discussion between regulators, statutory stakeholders and EMEC. In 2008, EMEC began to work on an Environmental Standard, funded by DECC, this was attended by regulators and other key parties from across the UK, and was a very successful event. Unfortunately, the funding of the project was cut and the Environmental Standard could not be finished. Some recommendations to improve the procedure for the future are:

Speak to the right people earlier, treat their opinions with respect and be ready to change your plan. Be open-minded and flexible. Ensure early communication with all relevant regulators and the appropriate consulters. Establish sensitivities early on and put in place any data from collected projects that will be needed.

10.2.2. Runde, Norway

In addition to the formal process, it is very good to have good local contacts and the possibility to talk and discuss with stakeholders informally, in order to gain acceptance of the project and to make sure that the concerns from stakeholders are really forwarded to the development team. This applies to fishermen and local organisations as well as the people living nearby the area, which could potentially be affected by the development (e.g. visual impact, etc.). It is important to use local people to handle the informal consultation because they know the area and the people better and can build up a confidence much easier than an external project developer. In summary, it can be said that it was a very quick and smooth process, and only a limited amount of concerns were raised, which were efficiently dealt with.

One lesson learned in the process is that transparency of the project development from the early beginning and throughout the life time of the project is important and that people in general are very interested in learning more of the project. A well thought through communication plan is very important to have. Public exhibitions and information events are very welcomed by the locals and the stakeholders, but it is important not to raise the public expectations too much about the project outcomes when it is a development project and a test site, because the purpose of the testing could be just to allow mistakes to take place and learn by doing it. This must be very clearly communicated so the public is aware that there are uncertainties and that sudden changes can take place, which are a natural part of the development process. The consenting process and the approach from authorities on environmental requirements differ very much between countries, thus unified procedures into one model would be easier. In Norway the approach was very pragmatic and smooth.

10.3. Wave Power Developers

10.3.1. Aquamarine Power, Scotland

Aquamarine Power thinks that the formal procedures are sufficient to address the stakeholders’ concerns. It also considers that the procedure has to improve in the following aspects:

Consultation: It has to be done earlier and wider within the process; and People engagement: The procedure needs to engage people as much as possible.

10.3.2. Mutriku, Spain

From the processing point of view, Mutriku project follows the same procedure as any other projects that entail generating electric energy from renewable energy; and this

procedure can be fast enough, if the public entities let it be so, or a real time consuming. Regarding the stakeholders unrelated to the promotion of the project, legal procedures offer enough guarantee so any party that may feel affected by a project of this kind is entitled to be heard.

EVE recommends providing wide information about the project in order to avoid other groups to publish mistaken information with the only purpose of damaging the project image and confusing the local organisations and the local population. EVE issue the statement: if we do not provide sufficient information about our project, others will inform on our behalf.

10.3.3. Pelamis Wave Power, Scotland

Pelamis Wave Power thinks the procedures are more than sufficient. There are suitable procedures, the best industry practice and precedence has been set regarding how to manage stakeholder engagement. This does not mean that project developers might fail to implement appropriate approaches and may manage these processes incorrectly through either negligence or inexperience; therefore, it may suffer delays. Budget increases or failure receiving regulatory consent.

Nevertheless, this is a business risk common across any development. Good developers will understand constraints and select the best sites for development whilst conducting the right level of stakeholder engagement and management of interest, which is the key for a successful business. There are some suggestions to improve the procedure, such as: Higher focus at a strategic level should go into management of industries at a regional and national level through good constraint mapping and spatial planning; and National and regional government should take clearer ownership of managing priority generic industry interactions to assist in mitigating and reducing interactions which manifest at project levels.

10.3.4. WaveRoller, Portugal

Authorities did not handle permit applications quite clear, they did not cooperate with each other. Changes in their responsibilities caused the developer some extra costs and jeopardised the deployment schedule. But in general, Portugal’s laws relating to this kind of installations are quite clear, and the way of working of the authorities was very cooperative. Though, the permitting procedure could be clearer.

10.3.5. WaveStar, Denmark

Pragmatic legislation for a small scale concept test sites, without unnecessary bureaucracy. No changes are recommended for the legal procedure of small scale projects. Need of an open and communicative relationship with the general public, special stakeholders, governmental institutions, etc., in order to create a good atmosphere around the project.

10.4. Tidal Stream Developers

10.4.1. Marine Current Turbines, United Kingdom

MCT feels that the consenting process can still improve and finds it very difficult when there are different and non-uniform processes in the UK. In terms of stakeholder engagement MCT noticed that the model of targeting stakeholders developed during the SL deployment has proved successful and it will be replicated during other deployments. MCT found that creating science and liaison groups helps in reducing the uncertainties of concerned stakeholders, and the local approach helps in demonstrating the positive socio- economic impacts of the deployment.

MCT hoped that once consent was granted for the SL case this would translate for both the Scottish and Welsh deployment, which it did not; therefore, they think that the licensing system could be improved in this aspect. Furthermore, they have also noticed that the licensing teams in the UK are under-resourced, which is creating issues of timing for consents and applications. It takes a long time (months) to see the licensing teams. This is something that really needs to be improved in the future.

10.4.2. Tidal Generation Limited, Scotland

TGL feels that the formal procedure was sufficient enough, because any further procedure would be restrictive. Consultation and demonstration are fair processes, projects are publicised and meetings will be held where no one is excluded. Some issues need to be solved for tidal farms, such as: The community should receive a payment/compensation for using the resources of the area; It should be clear to the developer who is responsible for granting the licence(s); There is ambiguity surrounding who is the ultimate decision maker, which may give the stakeholders the right of vetoing permission for the project development; and The award of a licence should not be dependent on the local benefits. Developers should be able to find competitive contractors and not use local ones.

11. Financing Process: Reasons and Uncertainties

QUESTION: What were the main reasons why you funded this project? Did you have any uncertainties about financing the project before, during or after the procedure? In that case, how did you manage to deal with those uncertainties?

11.1. Test Sites

11.1.1. AMETS, Ireland

The Atlantic Marine Energy Test Site (AMETS) is funded by the Irish Government through the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) and Marine Institute. The Ocean Energy Programme facilitates the maximisation of the economic benefit to Ireland from the progressive utilisation of Ireland’s marine energy resource. The rationale for Government expenditure in this area is that “by enhancing and developing R&D infrastructure, and providing targeted support for companies in this sector, Ireland can attract the emerging technology companies and multi-national companies developing new business competence capabilities in marine energy, and build an industry cluster in the field of marine energy” (Department of Finance, 2011).

The current ocean energy programme aligns with the over-arching Programme for Government in providing a basis for industry investment, job creation and exports of electricity and goods and services. In addition it can also lend particular support to regional development, in peripheral coastal areas along the western seaboard. Similarly there are significant North-South economic opportunities given the operation of the electricity market on an all-island basis (Department of Finance, 2011). There are also complementarities in resource potential and support industries in both jurisdictions. The current proposal for a full scale, grid connected test site at Belmullet is expected to cost in and around €24 million, however, this figure is very dependent on changes in copper price for cable, etc.

11.1.2. BIMEP, Spain

The Basque Government is pushing through EVE the Ocean energy acceleration Strategy in the Basque Country. The base of this strategy is established in:

The Energy Strategy for The Basque Country 2020; The Science and Technology Plan for The Basque Country 2015 in which the strategy for technology and industry in energy is enshrined (the so-called “EnergiBasque”); The Renewable Energy National Plan 2020; and The European Strategic Energy Technology Plan 2008-2020/2050: SER-Plan.

The Energy Strategy for The Basque Country for 2020 (3E2020) puts efforts into the renewable energy and into the research, innovation, technological and industrial development, and at the same time it proposes the acceleration of the technological and commercial development of the marine energy.

The EnergiBasque Strategy is the strategy of technological and industrial development of the Basque Country and looks for the consolidation of a scientific and technological supply and a value chain in Marine Energy with a proposal of equipments, components and services that will profit from the tractor effect of Bimep. In order to move forward in the achievement of the proposed objectives in the plans mentioned above, EVE is pushing the construction and the start-up of Bimep (Biscay Marine Energy Platform), an infrastructure of test and demonstration of marine energy convertors.

As the Bimep’s financing has been promoted with EVE’s own funding it has never been a problem. The principal uncertainty for EVE was the technological risk involving the possible fact that the wave energy sector could not move forward once the inversion was made. Considering this possibility, EVE thought about another possible application for the Bimep’s infrastructure and it was considered the use of Bimep for the offshore wind energy basically based on the following reasons: on the one hand, this offshore wind energy sector is using deeper and deeper foundations and on the other hand, the floating foundation moves forward steadily. Once the wave energy technological risk uncertainty was solved, EVE decided to undertake the project.

11.1.3. Lysekil, Sweden

Over the years around 30 financers have been involved in the project development, although only a handful of larger contributors. Research funds likely have helped out because they believe there is a good scientific value in the project (one major contributor). Utilities and the Swedish Energy Agency have supported the project with other reasons (several large contributors, but several have left or been supporting temporarily). A common reason is that the project is believed to have promising chances to succeed and be a way of tapping ocean energy, for the profit of society, and utility companies. Moreover, future job opportunities are a common argument.

It should be noted that in the majority of contributors the persons in charge during the application period are not in place today. Some large contributors remain until today, whereas others have stopped contributing. There are several reasons for particular withdrawal of funding, such as lack of funds, changed priorities, etc. Some smaller contributors still remain, and some are hoping to contribute more in the future. Smaller grants have usually focused on particular equipment or specific questions.

11.1.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

11.1.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

As part of the national strategic integrated policy for the ocean, the Ocean Plug - Portuguese Pilot Zone project is considered as public investment and, therefore, the start- up funding would be covered by the direct costs of the State (this process is similar to the public electrical grid funding). After the installation of the site the Ocean Plug would be managed by a private company (ENONDAS), although regulated by a public entity (ERSE: Energy Services Regulatory Authority).

11.1.6. WaveHub, England

The Wave Hub project has been funded by the Southwest Regional Development Agency (SWRDA, closing in 2012), European Regional Development Fund Convergence Programme for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and the UK government. Wave Hub project was awarded with £12.5m from the South West RDA, £20m from the Convergence European Regional Development Fund and £9.5m from the UK Government. The main reasons for the financing of the project are:

Wave Hub is a cornerstone of the South West RDA’s strategy to create a world-class marine energy industry in the region. It will be a catalyst for a fledgling global industry that could be worth up to £190bn a year within the next 20 years. An independent economic impact assessment has calculated that Wave Hub could create 1,800 jobs and inject £560m in the UK economy over 25 years. Almost 1,000 of these jobs and £332m could be generated in the South West.

Financing of the Wave Hub project was dependent on European, local and national Government funds. In 2010 part of the funds from the UK government (£5 M) was subject to the successful agreement of £2.8M funds from the European Convergence Funds. However, it was granted and the process continued. The BIS (Department for Business Innovation and Skills) has now taken over the project, with the SWRDA being shut down. BIS took over the Wave Hub’s ownership in January 2012.

11.2. Additional Projects

11.2.1. WestWave Project, Ireland

The WestWave project is seen as a flagship project for ESB in the ocean energy sector. It is in line with the Irish Government’s strategy for ocean energy and is enjoying significant support from various partners and stakeholders within Ireland.

WestWave is a pre-commercial project in that the expected returns would not cover the cost and risk involved. Final decisions around project financing will be made once all the permits have been granted and prior to entering the project construction phase. It is acknowledged that capital grant and tariff supports will be required to make the project feasible. ESB is currently funding the concept phase of the project with assistance from the Ocean Energy Development Unit of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI) and has applied for the European Commission’s New Entrants Reserve 300 (NER 300) funding mechanism. A decision on this funding is due in 2012. If successful this funding will cover up to 50 per cent of the out of market costs (Net REFIT). In 2008, the Irish Government announced a feed-in-tariff (under the REFIT scheme) of €220/MWh for wave energy. This is an important part of the project funding for WestWave, however, it still requires full implementation by the Government. ESB will continue to apply for applicable grant support (at national and EU level) and also seek equity partnership as the project develops.

11.2.2. NER300 Project

“NER300” is the name given to a financing instrument managed jointly by the European Commission, European Investment Bank and Member States. This name is derived from

Article 10(a) 8 of the revised Emissions Trading Directive (2009/29/EC) which contains a provision to set aside 300 million allowances (rights to emit one tonne of carbon dioxide) in the New Entrants’ Reserve of the European Emissions Trading Scheme for subsidising installations of innovative renewable energy technology and carbon capture and storage (CCS).

Categories of renewable energy technology that are eligible for support have been defined (biofuels, concentrating solar power, photovoltaic, geothermal, wind, ocean, and hydropower) in Annex I A II of the NER300 Decision. The ocean project subcategories are:

• Wave energy devices with nominal capacity 5 MW; • Marine/tidal currents energy devices with nominal capacity 5 MW; and • Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) with nominal capacity 10 MW.

The EC anticipates making final Award Decisions in the second half of 2012. In practice this means that all NER300 projects will need to be operational by the second half of 2016. NER300 money will be paid out to renewable energy installations as they produce energy, supplementing whatever other support they might benefit from, for example, green certificates or feed-in tariffs. The justification for the additional subsidy is that it will hasten the deployment of new technology and that it will ensure that knowledge about the functioning of this new technology is put in the public domain.

An innovative technology project, however, carries risk: the project might fail to meet its production schedule, therefore meaning that it does not receive the entire NER300 subsidy it had expected. NER300 allows for some underperformance. This is reflected in the rate of disbursement of the subsidy. Renewable energy installations need only achieve 75% of the total energy production that they bid for the first five years of operation in order to receive their subsidy in full.

To be able to use NER300 to cover a project’s investment costs, a body would need to be prepared to lend to the project against the future income from NER300. This body could be a bank. It could also be a Member State: NER300 allows the host Member State to make available all the NER300 grant at the investment stage providing it agrees to refund the EIB if the project underperforms excessively.

12. Authorities: Consenting Reasons and Concerns

QUESTION: What positive impacts or reasons were fundamental for giving your approval to the project? What was your main concern about the project?

12.1. AMETS, Ireland

This questionnaire was not answered.

12.2. BIMEP, Spain

This questionnaire was not answered.

12.3. Lysekil, Sweden

The application process followed what is stated in the Environmental Law. Given that a project has acceptable impact or non-foreseen conflicting interest, authorities had no reason to stop a project. Being a project on renewable energy certainly helped. For the Lysekil project the officials in charge have moved on to other jobs, or got retired, therefore, there no information related to the authorities that have been involved in this project.

12.4. SEM-REV, France

This questionnaire was not answered.

12.5. Ocean Plug – Portuguese Pilot Zone, Portugal

The Ocean Plug project has been strongly supported by the last two Portuguese legislative governments, i.e. there is an implicit agreement on the importance of the project by the two major political parties on this matter. Given this political context the time could not be better to promote the development of offshore renewable energy technologies.

The main concern of the Ocean Plug project relates to the economical maturity of offshore renewable energy costs. The technology should be competitive but also economically sustainable. The economic viability and sustainability of commercial scale developments will be crucial not only in Portugal but in any other country.

12.6. Wave Hub

The main reason for giving consent by the authorities was the generation of renewable energy. The UK Government’s goals, as from Energy White Paper 2007, are focused on pushing for renewable energy projects as the Wave Hub project. Adequate information was provided to the authorities by the Wave Hub regarding environmental level because WH identified mitigation methods to reduce the impacts. Furthermore, authorities were vehement given consent thanks to the good decommissioning plan proposed by WH.

However, there were some uncertainties shown by the authorities, which delayed the consenting procedure, such as:

Safety of navigation: Reduced area, shipping routes and below surface structures were requirements to be marked. Fishing activities: Limited fishing areas during the development brought out the creation of a fishing liaison. Surfing and tourism: The concerns of these groups caused the obligation of wave monitoring. Moreover, arrays will need another MFA licence.

13. Conclusion

The aims of this report were to presents the replies obtained from a survey of site and device developers in the EU. The questionnaire was designed to gather the experience of the regulatory procedures and to investigate how stakeholders were involved in the process and they concerns were taken into account, and how the consenting process could be implemented through the lesson learned thus far.

From the replies obtained it is possible to draw an overview of how the consenting process is experienced by developers in the EU, despite state-specific and location-specific issues:

• Consenting procedures: The type of consent required varies among the different State. Even within the same County consenting procedures may be different according to local legislation. The way each country has implemented the Natura 2000 directive and the EIA 85/337/EEC directive has a direct effect on the consenting process.

• Formal and informal stakeholder engagement: Many site and device developers have approached stakeholder using informal settings aside from legal requirements. Informal approach has allowed for open and proactive discussions between developers and stakeholders.

• Stakeholder awareness: In most of the cases the general public was aware and informed of the proposed test site or device installation. These were often widely covered in local and national media; or presented directly from the developers through open meetings and other outreach events.

• Response from stakeholders: A variety of Stakeholder groups responded to the consultation initiated by site and device developers. Respondents were location specific and represents different sea-user group. A common stakeholder group among the different developers approached by SOWFIA was formed by local fishermen and fisheries representatives.

• Concerns raised: Different concerns were raised by the various stakeholders. Predominantly issues involved the creation of non-navigation and non-fishing areas affecting the shipping and fishing industry, concerns over maritime safety and effects on marine mammals. Different approaches were employed by developers to address and mitigate these concerns.

• Benefits of wave energy: Site and device developers highlighted the positive impacts that the local communities could receive from the development of test sites in the area or through the installation of wave and tidal energy devices. Positive feedbacks received from developers are often used in discussions with concerned stakeholders.

• Opinion of the consenting process and lessons learned: Most of the developers have found that the consenting process in place in their legislation is fit for purposes, however many have found there is room for improvements of the procedures. In terms of stakeholder engagement it has emerged that many developers found useful

approaching stakeholders from the early stages of development and to establish an open and proactive dialogues aimed to reduce their concerns.

In addition to the responses obtained from the “Stakeholders Questionnaire” a survey aimed to understand how Financers and Authorities have supported the development of test sites was circulated among the 6 wave energy sites investigated by the SOWFIA project. The answers obtained can be summarized as follows:

• Financing: The financing of test site for wave energy developments around Europe have often been supported by either local or national government in conjunction with EU funds. Wave energy developments are included in the strategic plans to accrue energy from sustainable sources, which has become a priority for EU member states. Extra funds were given to support the development of a new industry.

• Authorities: Test sites were given approval based on the existing regulations and once concerns raised by stakeholders were deemed to be fully addressed. Governmental aims towards renewable energy goals were taken into account by the regulating authorities in the consenting process.

14. Annexes

14.1. Project Developer Questionnaire

The questionnaire developed for the realization of this deliverable, which is focused on the developers points of view is shown below:

Questionnaire: “Engaging stakeholders - formally and informally”

Wave Energy Test Site (and device if it applies):______Name and affiliation (person interviewed): ______Relationship with Wave Energy Test Site:______Email:______Tlf.:______Name and affiliation of interviewer:______Place:______Data:______

1.1.1. Describe your site/development (i.e. how long has it existed; consents granted when; whether it is in development/construction/operation; distance to shore; what other activities take place around the site; existence of exclusion zones; etc.).

2. What regulatory consents did you need for your development? Outline how the adjoining local authority, general public and specific stakeholders were included in this process.

3. Aside from formalised procedures, did you engage stakeholders in the development planning process? How was this carried out? Will this engagement continue for the duration of the project?

4. Were the general public and other stakeholders already aware of the proposed development (e.g. early media coverage; outreach events)?

5. What stakeholders (a) responded to the consultation process and/or (b) did you specifically target (independent of formal requirements)? Why? Were these stakeholders contacted at the local level or through national/regional representative bodies? Did some of them approach you of their own volition?

6. Which stakeholders group were more concerned in your site? What were their key concerns? How were these concerns/objections dealt with? (e.g.

noise, visual/scenic impact; disruption of species, impact on existing activities, associated onshore development; etc.)

7. Were there any specific sectors / groups etc. that were particularly supportive of your development? Why (e.g. local employment opportunities, mitigation of climate change; cheaper electricity etc.)?

8. Did you highlight the potential socio-economic benefits of your development to stakeholders? How?

9. Do you feel the formal procedures in place are sufficient to address stakeholder concerns? What lessons have you learned from this process and what changes would you suggest?

14.2. Project Financers and Authorities Questionnaire

The questionnaire developed for the realization of this deliverable, which is focused on the project financers and authorities points of view is shown below:

Questionnaire: “Financers and Authorities”

• Project Financers:

1. What were the main reasons why you funded this project?

2. Did you have any uncertainties about financing the project before, during or after the procedure? In that case, how did you manage to deal with those uncertainties?

• Authorities:

3. What positive impacts or reasons were fundamental for giving your approval to the project?

4. What was your main concern about the project?