navigating international regulatory...

NAVIGATING INTERNATIONAL

REGULATORY WATERS

Greg Haigh - Arup, Global Maritime Business Leader

Julie Ascoop – Arup, Ireland Maritime Leader

Irish Ports Conference 2011

Greg Haigh

Arup, Global Maritime

Business Leader

Julie Ascoop

Arup, Ireland

Maritime Leader


Aims

Some projects in Ireland have had difficulties with consents

Share our experience of other countries

Identify what lessons can be drawn

Consider how the consenting process might develop


Contents

A Cornish Consenting Story

The current Irish Consenting process;

- Shannon LNG on the fast track

- Other project stuck in the slow lane

Marine consenting in the UK

Successful marine consenting in the

Netherlands

Marine consenting in other jurisdictions

How do we manage it better


West Cornwall & Isles of Scilly


RMV Scillonian III


A Cornish Consenting StoryPenzance


Penzance Harbour


The Proposed Harbour Improvement - 2008


The 5000m2 Reclamation Site


The Outcome?

Route Partnership

Save Our Seafront

The alternative proposal

Abolition of Penwith District Council

General election of 2010

Consent recommended subject to final

review by Secretary of State

Government funding crisis

EU funding jeopardised

“not good value for money”


Current Irish consenting process

Shannon LNG:

Strategic Infrastructure Process

Pre application consultation with

ABP to establish if Strategic

Infrastructure Directive is

applicable

EIS Scoping meeting with ABP

Application submitted to ABP

6 week public review

Oral hearing

(RFI)

Decision within 20 weeks from

public review

Shannon LNG


Current Irish consenting process

Shannon LNG:

Foreshore licence/lease timeline

Oct 2007: Pre-application consultation

meetings

Apr. 2008: Applications submitted

Nov. 2008: Instruction to advertise the

applications to the public

Jan. 2009: MLVC review of applications

and public submissions

Aug. 2009: Valuations received

Aug. 2009: Draft licence conditions received

July 2010: Draft licences received

Jan. 2011: Signed licences received

Shannon LNG


Other projects stuck in the slow lane

Dublin Port Greystones Harbour

Doolin Pier Port of Cork – Proposed Container terminal at Ringaskiddy


Southampton


Southampton

Dibden Bay Site

Container Port


Dibden Bay Development

ABP - Dibden Bay

10 Years

£50 million

Application refused


UK Legislation in the Coastal Zone

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/works/controls/documents/geographical.pdf


Marine Spatial Planning


The Dutch Experience

Huge impacts – how do they approve

these large projects?

Manmade environment

Structured approach to consultation?

State planning is possible

Not private ports in competition

Compensation area

(required by Dutch „Nature protection

law 1998‟)


The Dutch ExperienceMaasvlakte 2

Developed by the Port of Rotterdam Authority

2000 hectares

4km breakwaters

25,000 hectares bottom protection area (Compensation)


Maasvlakte 2



Maasvlakte 2, planning process

July 1997: Dutch government agrees to start procedure to solve the

spatial constraints in Rotterdam Mainport

Planologische Kern Beslissing (National Spatial Plan) (1998 – 2003)

- PKB1 + MER 12 weeks public review,

- PKB2 contains all the public input and shows their views and any

advice received.

- PKB3 De ministerraad now prepares PKB3 which will be put for

approval to the cabinet

- PKB4 The plan then needs to be approved by Senate

Appeal from 18 organisations on the impact of the PKB4. (2003)


Maasvlakte 2, planning process

The Dutch High Court agrees that the procedure needs to re-start at

PKB3

PKB PMR agreed (2006)

- EIS and Local area plan agreed by City of Rotterdam Councillors

(2007)

- Public consultation (50 submissions)

- Review by independent EIA specialist comittee

- Further public consultation on local area plans, management

plans, licences etc.

Provincial Council approves the plans (2008)

Further public consultation on minor changes.


Maasvlakte 2



North African Port

Green field port

15 x 400m container berths

Concession agreement

Environmental consent


Sultanate of Oman سلطنة ُعمان

الُعمانية الموانئ دراسة


Why have a consenting process?

Control and enable development

Preventing adverse impacts on other parties

Restraining powers of individuals or single organisations

Reflect views of local community

Reflect regional and national priorities

Prevent unacceptably adverse impacts on environment

Compliance with treaty obligations

Problem: Too many, conflicting objectives


John Donne (1572 – 1631)

“No man is an island, entire of itself”

Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832)

Felicific calculus

“the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the measure

of right and wrong”

Ove Arup (1896 -1988)

Key Speech – 1970

“Total architecture”


What might we want to see?

Varies from country to country but .... you might see the basic

requirements as:

A transparent system

Clarity of requirements

A system with clear timescales

A system with an agreed frame of reference, such as a Marine

Spatial Plan

A system that is fair to both developers and stakeholders

Not open to misuse or abuse


Sustainability

Why?

Mankind‟s power to alter his

environment

Depends on your perspective

and your situation

Evolving agenda

- once, ecology

- now, carbon

Political balance

Sustainability

a much abused word

Balance between:-

Economic imperatives

Societal benefits

Environmental impacts


How do we manage the consenting process better? Do you want a project?

- A project without consent is useless

- Consenting is a major project function

- You must have local knowledge of the country

Where do you start?

- Developing your options

OR

- What do the stakeholders want your project to solve?

When do you start engagement?

- When we know what we are doing and have lots of answers

OR

- Right at the start


What else can we do?

Influence future consenting processes

- National Roads Authority & IFA

- UK - Combined Consents

Acknowledge technological developments

- Power of e-mail, twitter, etc

Create the business environment

- Receptive to the industry

- „the public at large does not appreciate the role of ports in the economic

life of the country‟

- Allows you to manage the outcomes

- Stakeholders not objectors


ConclusionConclusions

• Consenting regime varies between countries

• Driven by national priorities and interpretations of sustainability

• Not a new problem

• Basic requirements for the process

• No consent = no project

• Be brave - engage stakeholders early

• Create a better business environment


Mayo to Galway Gas Pipeline150km, 570 wayleaves, completed 2006

Thank You

navigating international regulatory...

Documents