Citizens consulted on the four maritime fronts of France managed to reach a consensus on the development of offshore wind energy, the protection of biodiversity and the sharing of planning governance.
The large public consultation Il mare in debate has allowed a certain consensus, but a certain doubt remains. During this debate, the state asked the public where offshore wind turbines should be located. The public, for its part, responded how and according to which criteria, summarizes Ilaria Casillo, one of the vice-presidents of the National Commission for Public Debate (CNDP) and author of the report (1) of this debate published on 26 June.
Maritime planning
The sequence begins on November 20, 2023, aimed at updating the strategic documents of the four maritime fronts of France (DSF). Please remember that the latter organize the implementation of the National strategy for the sea and the coast (SNML), required at European level. A first version was developed in 2019, following an initial public debate. Their update, in light of the new SNML (presented nine months late, well after the start of this debate), was also foreseen by the Renewable Energy Acceleration Act (ARE) from March 2023.
With this, the DSF was given two further major challenges: guiding the development of offshore wind energy, no longer park by park but by façade; and plan environmental and maritime policy until 2050. In this sense, the referral to the Government on the revision of the strategic documents of the front responds perfectly to the previous recommendations of the CNDPattests Ilaria Casillo, echoing the numerous calls from the public contribute more widely to the energy strategy at sea. Please note that the Overseas Sea Basins Strategic Documents (DSBMs), also supervised by the SNML, will be the subject of their own public consultation in a second phase.
Wind energy, yes, but as far away as possible
With his postponement (2) and its new SNML, the government primarily sought public opinion on the geographic distribution of future wind farms and upcoming Strong Protection Zones (PFZs). It plans to install between 18.5 and 30.5 gigawatts (GW), counting 2.5 3 GW of extensions of previously planned parks, distributed between the four facades by 2035 or even between 73 and 146 GW by 2050. Similarly, with regards to the protection of biodiversity in metropolitan waters, it is intended to move from a ZPF surface area of approximately 0 .1 to 12%.
Strong protection and non-exclusion zones for offshore wind energy favored in the Mediterranean.©CNDP
The participants in the public debate were unable to agree specific areas offshore wind energy development. Except in the case of the Mediterranean facade, which benefits from a map global bring together the different spatial recommendations (3) citizens consulted (and an area of not exclusion of wind energy), have not developed any consensual map. The probable consequence of the delay taken by the State in transmitting its proposal papers. If the maps of the Mediterranean and the southern Atlantic coast arrived at the CNDP last December, the other two (East-North Sea Canal, or MEMN, and North Atlantic Western Canal, or Namo) were only delivered to it in March. The State did not provide any justification for this late publication, which was strongly criticized by the local elected officials concerned., indicates the vice president of the CNDP. This, however, did not prevent the public from reaching two consensuses.
Awards, the fact of representing wind farms at the same time as other marine activities (fishing) and the implications of environmental protection (biodiversity) have given rise to various concerns which have come together around a fairly clear consensual solution capable of keeping them together: l exclusion of potential parks in the 12 nautical mile range (i.e. 22.2 kilometers from the coast, ed.) pay 2035, that is, within the limits of territorial waters, testifies Ilaria Casillo. Going beyond this limit would have the effect of further distancing the land connection from the parks and, in fact, increasing production costs. The CNDP therefore recommends that the government provide it to the public further clarifications on the different connection possibilities and the costs of moving away from the coasts. Even more so, even if the consensus seems to have been shared by everyone stakeholders, including fishermen, the construction of wind farms below the 12 nautical mile limit paradoxically remains a controversial resource for the fishing sector, which benefits from a better redistribution of the wind tax, as raised by NGO Blooms.
Furthermore, in the report of the debate (4) , the CNDP reports some specific responses on some fronts. Thus, on the South Atlantic side, the question of the development of wave energy has arisen, as an alternative solution to wind turbines regularly mentioned. The inhabitants of the Namo facade have, for their part, heavily criticized state proposal papers, which include the most important offshore wind target by 2050 of all DSFs (from 17 to 25 GW). As for citizens consulted along the Mediterranean coasts, the concern was focused on the integration of wind energy at sea without violating the rules extension of activities according to current logicwhich would lead, according to them, to a saturation of maritime space. And the CNDP relaunches its request: Pressure (exercise on the center) they should be eased, either through incentives or regulations, but also, if necessary, through bans or stronger constraints.
Shared governance to better protect?
This question also concerns the second theme, the creation of new ZPFs and a second consensus. While the public sometimes wants to protect offshore areas, it is well known that this is the 3 nautical mile zone (5.5 km, NDLR) which best corresponds to this criterionnotes the CNDP in its report. But this area is full of activity: public ambition for biodiversity conservation should lead to choices in these areas, in the framework of in-depth consultation with maritime stakeholders. A consultation that should be able to clarify the dilemmas raised by this debate, but left unanswered. Should we protect and sectorize them? protected air or authorize certain activities by regulating or transforming them to reduce their impact? In this sense, should we limit, or even ban, some tourist activities?
And, above all, what governance should we consider for marine environments directly affected by terrestrial pollution? Should we integrate watershed management with DSF? In other words, choose whether to continue to implement territorial and maritime planning that are disconnected from each other, in terms of the combination of knowledge and actors, or whether to move towards common and integrated governance, writes Ilaria Casillo. In its report of the debate, the CNDP states that, for the majority of participants, such shared governance appears to be a condition for the effectiveness of protection. The feedback from citizens consulted around the Namo façade, especially in Brittany, is proof of this. They were able to observe the poor ecological state of marine environments. However, although the situation is largely the result of land pollution from agricultural sources, they did not have the opportunity to discuss it with the agricultural world, which remained outside this debate relating exclusively to the DSF.
Will the public debate have been useful?
Required by law, the notice of public debate must now receive a response from the Government within three months. This must precede the assessments of the Environmental Authority (Ae) necessary for the definitive adoption of each updated document. firstduring 2025. However, at this time, there is no guarantee that the responding government will be supportive of the development of offshore wind energy. As anticipated by the vice president of the CNDP, the dissolution of the National Assembly and the consequent legislative elections will involve,most likely, the installation of a new Government whose orientations in terms of maritime and energy planning are not known today. (Moreover) This strong public mobilization deserves responses commensurate with its commitment.
