spatially significant planning tasks, measures and projects. Corresponding rules are
provided for the Baltic Sea.
There are also other sites where mariculture is not allowed. In Natura 2000 areas,
which are protected areas under national law, mariculture facilities are prohibited. 2005 the
Eastern German Bight became a nature conservation area under German law, other sites—
Dogger Bank, Sylt Outer Reef and Borkum Reef Ground—were nominated to the
European Council. In Sect. 4 subsection 2 no. 1 of designating ordinance mariculture
facilities are prohibited. It is likely that other ordinances will have the same regulation.
11.8.2 Approval procedure of offshore multi-use
installations
Changing marine utilization patterns represent considerable challenge to society
and governments. Indeed, the ongoing intense competition for ocean space leads
and has led inevitably to disputes. As a case in point, the somewhat private ownership of ocean space, which usually is assigned via central government authorities,
has fostered the raise of “client mentalities” of the ocean pioneers. This has resulted
in a complex mix of ownership, associated commons and private property. Thus,
the central question remains how to operationalise the multi-use dimension of
offshore installations within marine spatial planning?
Centralized authority planning, such as showcased by the existing permitting
procedure in the offshore realm in Germany that is charged by one lead agency
(Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency) has given way to new forms of
governing—tendency to define issues at only one scale and only one installation at
time. Indeed, in the case of Germany, a highly comprehensive regulatory framework for offshore wind energy, but only a weak and uncertain framework for
offshore aquaculture installations is in place. For the latter, technological as well as
ecological standards are yet needed. In Fig. 11.45 we present a permitting procedure that possibly integrate multi-use installations within the same suite of permitting process. This is showcased by the integration of offshore wind farm
installations and open ocean aquaculture. By acknowledging throughout the process
the different demands, potential impacts and outcomes of each partner within a
multi-use system, the permitting process could be streamlined and efficient. By this,
the permit process would become more specific articulating societal choices about
goals and their related social values in a multi-use context. Open issues pertain to
e.g. who should be included in a balanced jurisdiction and what should that
jurisdiction do? What criteria are relevant to opt for open ocean aquaculture and
what are the implications of such criteria and how to include cross-border users? E.
g. regions, where offshore wind farms are planned, are also important fishing
regions of German, Belgian, Danish and Dutch fishermen.
In summary, the current gap between oceans as commons and ocean as private
property as well as diverging views and pictures leads to a contested sea space.
342
B.H. Buck et al.
provided for the Baltic Sea.
There are also other sites where mariculture is not allowed. In Natura 2000 areas,
which are protected areas under national law, mariculture facilities are prohibited. 2005 the
Eastern German Bight became a nature conservation area under German law, other sites—
Dogger Bank, Sylt Outer Reef and Borkum Reef Ground—were nominated to the
European Council. In Sect. 4 subsection 2 no. 1 of designating ordinance mariculture
facilities are prohibited. It is likely that other ordinances will have the same regulation.
11.8.2 Approval procedure of offshore multi-use
installations
Changing marine utilization patterns represent considerable challenge to society
and governments. Indeed, the ongoing intense competition for ocean space leads
and has led inevitably to disputes. As a case in point, the somewhat private ownership of ocean space, which usually is assigned via central government authorities,
has fostered the raise of “client mentalities” of the ocean pioneers. This has resulted
in a complex mix of ownership, associated commons and private property. Thus,
the central question remains how to operationalise the multi-use dimension of
offshore installations within marine spatial planning?
Centralized authority planning, such as showcased by the existing permitting
procedure in the offshore realm in Germany that is charged by one lead agency
(Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency) has given way to new forms of
governing—tendency to define issues at only one scale and only one installation at
time. Indeed, in the case of Germany, a highly comprehensive regulatory framework for offshore wind energy, but only a weak and uncertain framework for
offshore aquaculture installations is in place. For the latter, technological as well as
ecological standards are yet needed. In Fig. 11.45 we present a permitting procedure that possibly integrate multi-use installations within the same suite of permitting process. This is showcased by the integration of offshore wind farm
installations and open ocean aquaculture. By acknowledging throughout the process
the different demands, potential impacts and outcomes of each partner within a
multi-use system, the permitting process could be streamlined and efficient. By this,
the permit process would become more specific articulating societal choices about
goals and their related social values in a multi-use context. Open issues pertain to
e.g. who should be included in a balanced jurisdiction and what should that
jurisdiction do? What criteria are relevant to opt for open ocean aquaculture and
what are the implications of such criteria and how to include cross-border users? E.
g. regions, where offshore wind farms are planned, are also important fishing
regions of German, Belgian, Danish and Dutch fishermen.
In summary, the current gap between oceans as commons and ocean as private
property as well as diverging views and pictures leads to a contested sea space.
342
B.H. Buck et al.