《全球風能理事會：2024年韓國海上風電與漁業共存機遇探索報告（英文版）（47頁）.pdf》由會員分享，可在線閱讀，更多相關《全球風能理事會：2024年韓國海上風電與漁業共存機遇探索報告（英文版）（47頁）.pdf（47頁珍藏版）》請在三個皮匠報告上搜索。

1、1GWEC.NETEXPLORING COEXISTENCEOPPORTUNITIES FOR OFFSHORE WINDAND FISHERIES IN SOUTH KOREAGLOBAL OVERVIEW AND BEST PRACTICES FOR SOUTH KOREADisclaimerCopyright May 2024Permissions and UsageThis document contains forward-looking statements.These statements are based on current views,expectations,assum

2、ptions and information of the Authors.The Authors and their employees and representatives do not guarantee the accuracy of the data or conclusions of this work.They are not responsible for any adverse effects,loss or damage in any way resulting from this work.The Global Wind Energy Council(GWEC)is t

3、he global trade association for the wind power industry,with over 1,500 members responsible for 70%of the worlds wind capacity.Our members include major turbine manufacturers,energy companies,developers,and technology providers.GWEC advocates for the wind industry globally,collaborating with organis

4、ationstions like the IRENA,IEA,local associations and development banks to help governments and policymakers unlock wind energys full potential.GWECs mission is to ensure that wind power fulfils its role as one of the key technology solutions to todays energy and climate challenges,forming the backb

5、one of a new clean energy system and enabling trillions of dollars of investment while providing substantial economic and social benefits to host countries.This work is subject to copyright.Its content,including text and graphics,may be reproduced in part for non-commercial purposes,with full attrib

6、ution.AttributionAcknowledgementThis report was change to produced and commissioned by the Global Wind Energy Council(GWEC).The Carbon Trust described international experiences regarding coexistence and conflict between commercial fisheries and offshore wind development.aSSIST University/Korean Ener

7、gy Institute to contributed specific challengesexperienced in Fisheries coexistence with the offshore wind industry in South Korea and highlighted ongoing efforts that have enabled successful engagements.The report was edited by the Global Wind Energy Council team:Rebecca Williams,Mark Hutchinson,Ja

8、nice Cheong and Thoa Nguyen.Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea.Global Wind Energy Council.2024.The lead authors of this report were Dr.Hyosook Yim from aSSIST University,Dr.Kongjang Cho and Dr.Jongmun Park from the Korea Environment Institue(KEI)team,a

9、nd Kalyani Basu,Ivan Savitsky from the Carbon Trust team.aSSIST University,located in Seoul,South Korea,focuses on integrating science,technology,and management education,leading the development of corporate environmental,social,and governance(ESG)strategies.It offers advanced programs such as MBAs

10、and doctorates,aiming to cultivate leaders capable of addressing contemporary industrial challenges.The university serves as a bridge between academic rigor and practical application,encouraging sustainable business strategies and ethical governance.https:/www.assist.ac.kr/Lead AuthorsThe Carbon Tru

11、st has a mission to accelerate the move to a decarbonised future.We have been climate pioneers for more than 20 years,partnering with leading business-es,governments and financial institutions globally.From strategic planning and target setting to activation and communication-we are your expert guid

12、e to turn your climate ambition into impact.We are one global network of 400 experts with offices in the UK,the Netherlands,South Africa,China,Singapore and Mexico.To date,we have helped set 200+science-based targets and guided 3,000+organisations in 70 countries on their route to Net Zero.https:/ C

13、oexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaRebecca WilliamsGlobal Head of Offshore Wind,Global Wind Energy CouncilForewordSouth Korea,through its 10th National Electricity Supply and Demand Plan,is targeting to generate 21.6%of its electricity from renewable sources by 20

14、30.Although the national government recognises the potential of renewable energy,including offshore wind,to provide reliable,scalable and sustainable sources of electricity,the commercial development of offshore wind remains gradual.Local acceptance issues,especially the perceived clashes of interes

15、ts between fshers and the offshore wind industry,has given rise to legitimate concerns within the fshing community,which has in turn contributed to a negative perception of offshore wind among some stakeholders.Under the current policy framework in South Korea,fsheries engagements often occur only p

16、ost-siting,a practice which has inadvertently bred distrust.Inadequate consultation methods further undermine the fshing industry,exacerbating concerns and hindering the potential for collaborative solutions.Recognizing these urgent issues,the Global Wind Energy Council commissioned this report:“Exp

17、loring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea-Global Overview and Best Practices for South Korea”.The purpose of this report is to signal the need for a systematic and inclusive approach for collaboration between the fshery industry and the offshore wind industry.By

18、 distilling global best practices and highlighting successful coexistence models,we strive to offer a blueprint for South Korea.Through a systematic approach to engagement,we aspire to bridge the gaps that currently undermine trust,ensuring that the interests of both industries are not only recogniz

19、ed but actively safeguarded.4GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea Table of ContentsTables 6Exhibits 6Acronyms 7Executive Summary 9Background and Aims 12Relationship Between the OFW and Fisheries Sectors in South Korea 15International Experience on F

20、isheries Coexistence with OFW 22Latest Developments in South Korea 37Recommendations 445GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaGlobal Wind Energy CouncilGLOBAL WIND ENERGY COUNCILRue de Commerce 311000 Brussels,BelgiumT.+32 490 56 81 Table 1:Key milest

21、ones in the Tongyeong example of conflict between OFW development and commercial fisheries 16Table 2:Summary of key concerns between the fisheries and OFW sectors in South Korea 20Table 3:Summary of international approaches towards coexistence.35 Exhibit 1:Offshore wind project status in South Korea

22、 13Exhibit 2:Tongyeong fishers opposition to offshore wind development 16Exhibit 3:Location of proposed offshore wind farms and anchovy catch in waters off Tongyeong 17Exhibit 4:Opinions of fishers documented in Tongyeong workshop hosted by KEI(2020)18Exhibit 5:Comparison of current developer-led pr

23、ocesses with the new government-led model to be established under the Offshore Wind Promotion Act.40Exhibit 6:Locations of Incheons offshore wind projects(2022)41Exhibit 7:Fisheries workshop to select preferred areas of OFW development.42Exhibit 8:Offshore wind sites identified through engagement wi

24、th fisheries(2.7 GW)42 TablesExhibits6GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaEBL Electric Business LicenseFLOWW Fishing Liaison with OFW and Wet Renewables Group GW GigawattsKEI South Korea Environment InstituteMSP Marine Spatial PlanningMW MegawattsOR

25、JIP Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme OFW Offshore windOWF Offshore wind farmsUK United Kingdom Acronyms7GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaEXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summaryCoexistence between OFW development and commercial fsheries re

26、quires enhanced multi-stakeholder collaboration to achieve,and this should be the objective in South Korea to enable renewable energy deployment targets,whilst mitigating risks to the commercial fshing sector.Offshore wind(OFW)is a reliable,scalable sustainable source of electricity,and many countri

27、es around the world are pursuing commercial deployment to support the transition towards their carbon neutral goals.The South Korean Government has set a target of reaching 14.3 GW of OFW before 2030,and as of 2023,the country has 140 MW of installed capacity across six windfarms.Despite this ambiti

28、ous target,commercial development is experiencing delays,due,in part,to opposition from the commercial fshing sector.The fshing industry is concerned about the potential impacts of OFW development on livelihoods and economic viability.Perceived issues such as displacement from fshing grounds and pot

29、ential changes in fsh population distribution from OFW development increase the uncertainty facing fsheries.To date,engagements with fsheries on OFW development in South Korea have taken place only after projects have been sited,due to the regulatory framework that sets the process for project devel

30、opment.The dynamic has potentially contributed to increased feelings of distrust from the fshing sector,expressed in local protests.In addition,insuffcient consultation methods mean that fsheries can feel they do not have an opportunity to infuence decision making.The lack of a systematic approach t

31、o compensation for potential economic losses in South Korea results in inconsistencies or inadequacies in how it is determined and distributed among affected parties,ultimately limiting its effectiveness.The negative perception of OFW development may be driven by limited understanding of the goals,r

32、isks,and benefts of the OFW sector,or the spread of misinformation and disinformation.Further,perceived conficts are sometimes amplifed by pre-existing distrust between fshers from previous negative experiences with infrastructure project developers.In many countries,there are approaches employed by

33、 different actors in the OFW development process,such as developers,governments,statutory agencies and bodies to support harmonious before coexistence between the two sectors.These include:Based on these approaches,we outline main recommendations for the South Korean Government and its agencies to e

34、nable of coexistence and to address key concerns of the fshing sector.Developing best practices on coexistence through ongoing collaboration and the provision of appropriate forums to enhance such collaborationUtilising marine spatial planning to balance interests of multiple sectorsDeveloping regul

35、atory frameworks and guidance on acceptable fshing practices compatible with OFW developmentPromoting buy-in through consultationsDeveloping regulations to support multi-use options of OFW farms,including for food production,marine ecosystem,restoration,transport storage and othersThe provision of a

36、pplicable and appropriate compensation schemesInvolvement of fsheries with employment and service provision opportunities.Similar challenges have been observed around the world in countrieswith OFW providing potential solutions.9GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisherie

37、s in South KoreaThe simultaneous use of government and developer-led OFW project schemes South Korea requires clarity and coordination to avoid confusion among stakeholders.The passing of the Offshore Wind Power Promotion Act should be prioritised to allow clear guidance of future projects.The Offsh

38、ore Wind Power Promotion Act is expected to streamline licensing and improve consensus-building with fsheries,emphasising the urgency on its implementation.Post-legislation discussions are crucial to address issues facing projects with EBLs,defning government roles,and incorporating community coexis

39、tence plans as bid requirements.Clear government guidance and improved clarity on EBLs are crucial for South Korea OFW projects.The Central Government should enact the Offshore Wind Power Promotion Act with a clear implementation plan.They should increase coordination and provide local governments w

40、ith necessary resources in the siting of OFW farms and continue to work with key stakeholders,implementing programs to positively change perceptions of OFW development.Local Governments,including municipality and provincial governments should operate public-private councils,establish wind master pla

41、ns at the regional level,identify win-win solutions that are mutually benefcial to different stakeholders and provide clear guidelines on assessing the local communities and fshers that are directly impacted.They should also continue to work with civil society organisations and other key stakeholder

42、s to build social support and capacity build.The Offshore Wind Industry is recommended to prepare both technical and social aspects for its future tenders,standardise the conduct of environment and social impact assessments and create an information-sharing system that is transparent and open.Projec

43、ts that are developer-led should consider establishing local councils,and also ensure suffcient information sharing.The industry should focus on technological innovation measures to ensure offshore wind can coexist in harmony with nature.Institutional improvements:legislation of government-led plann

44、ed siting and bidding system for business developers Recommendations on the role of each actor1.2.3.4.5.10GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaExhibit 1:Offshore wind project status in South Korea 13Exhibit 2:Tongyeong fishers opposition to offshore

45、wind development 16Exhibit 3:Location of proposed offshore wind farms and anchovy catch in waters off Tongyeong 17Exhibit 4:Opinions of fishers documented in Tongyeong workshop hosted by KEI(2020)18Exhibit 5:Comparison of current developer-led processes with the new government-led model to be establ

46、ished under the Offshore Wind Promotion Act.40Exhibit 6:Locations of Incheons offshore wind projects(2022)41Exhibit 7:Fisheries workshop to select preferred areas of OFW development.42Exhibit 8:Offshore wind sites identified through engagement with fisheries(2.7 GW)42BACKGROUND AND AIMS Offshore win

47、d(OFW)provides cost-effective,sustainable and secure electricity,as countries continue to decarbonise and aim for net-zero.The South Korean government aims to have 21.6%of its electricity generation derived from renewables by 2030,and to achieve this,it plans to deploy 14.3 GW of OFW by 2030.Despite

48、 these targets,South Korea has seen slow growth in OFW deployment.Currently,only six fxed-bottom OFW farms are in operation,generating approximately 140 MW.OFW can provide a range of benefts such as creating local employment,economic opportunities for the wider local supply chain and the development

49、 of infrastructure such as ports.A key objective for the OFW industry in South Korea is to identify ways to progress the development of OFW and deployment of offshore wind farms.During planning stages,it is vital to consider the risks and benefts for local communities and industries such as fsheries

50、,to ensure overall long-term success of the projects.One of the reasons for South Koreas stalled OFW deployment is the lack of consultation and agreement with fshers during the siting and permitting phases.OFW projects can be delayed or halted for long periods of time due to opposition from fsheries

51、.To help address this,there is an intention to implement a new government-led centralised development process to replace the current developer-led decentralised approach.This process will frst establish public-privatepartnerships during the siting phase to identify concerns and challenges for fsheri

52、es.After site selection,operators will be selected through competitive tenders.It is hoped that this process will help overcome the opposition of fshing communities to OFW.Whilst future updates may be positive from the perspective of engaging with fsheries,it is important to note that there are many

53、 developer-led projects that are already in development in the country.In these projects,it is unclear whether the above-mentioned government-led centralised approach will be adopted.OFW projects can have lengthy development timelines which typically exceed seven years from concept to construction.G

54、iven this,the vast majority of projects with the potential to be deployed before 2030 are following the developer-led development model.Therefore,for shorter-term deployment targets,it is of great importance to consider how these projects may also engage fsheries,in addition to those that will follo

55、w the government-led approach.12Fisheries acceptance of offshore wind is a key challenge in South Korea.The current offshore wind development process in South Korea is a developer-led open-door system,i.e.where the project developer is responsible for development activities such as site investigatio

56、n.2012GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea12Background and aimshttps:/www.iea.org/policies/6569-korea-renewable-energy-3020-planhttps:/www.ofshorewind.biz/2023/10/30/plans-unveiled-for-new-multi-gigawatt-ofshore-wind-project-in-south-korea/12The cur

57、rent permitting process can take between seven to ten years and operators must obtain various licences,such as the Electric Business License(EBL),through 29 laws and more than ten government organisations.The licence entitles the operator to conduct a preliminary investigation before proceeding with

58、 the project.A total of 84 projects representing 27.67 GW have acquired EBLs up to the end of 2023,with the majority of the planned projects located in the areas of South Jeolla province,followed by Busan and Ulsan.As these projects are already underway on a developer-led basis,it is crucial to iden

59、tify the best ways for developers to work with fshers to address their concerns and explore opportunities for mutual beneft,but also avoid unnecessary delay.Exhibit 1 shows the status of South Koreas OFW projects by stage of development through the end of August 2022.The cumulative capacity of proje

60、cts that have received EBLs,which is considered the initial stage of development,is 19.7 GW.The cumulative capacity of projects that are considering applying for an electricity business licence or are under review for an electricity business licence is similar at 19.4 GW.In comparison to these proje

61、cts,only 140 MW of offshore wind farms are in operation.In January 2023,the South Korean government announced the 10th National Electricity Supply and Demand Plan(2022-2036),which aims to secure a 21.6%share of renewable energy generation in total electricity generation by 2030.To achieve this,it pl

62、ans to promote 14.3 GW of OFW power generation by 2030,an increase from the previous target of 12 GW.South Koreas current OFW projects in operation stands at 140 MW.This means the country is less than 1%of the way to its 2030 target at present.OFW targets and progress Exhibit 1:Offshore wind project

63、 status in South Korea .20Offshore wind project status(2022.8)In operation(132.5MW)EBL obtained(19.7GW)Considering application for EBL orEBL review in progess(19.4GW)Wind measurement(184 locations)13GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea34Examine and

64、summarise the main challenges that OFW projects in South Korea need to address with respect to conficts with fsheries and other stakeholders.Learn from international experience to identify best practices for working alongside local stakeholders,particularly in the fsheries sector.Provide recommendat

65、ions for coexistence strategies for both government-led and developer-led OFW projects based on analysis and fndings within this report.The objectives of this report are to:34https:/ between OFW development and commercial fsheries requires enhanced multi-stakeholder collaboration to achieve,and this

66、 should be the objective in South Korea to enable renewable energy deployment targets,whilst mitigating risks to the commercial fshing sector.RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OFW AND FISHERIES SECTORS IN SOUTH KOREA For long-term sustainable and successful development of the OFW industry,it is necessary to

67、ensure that stakeholders outside of the industry can understand the benefts of OFW development,and that development is pursued in a just and collaborative way.Whilst the benefts of OFW in providing low carbon electricity generation and economic opportunity are well-known,it is vital to acknowledge t

68、he concerns and potential challenges faced by affected communities such as the fshing industry.Fisheries may have concerns about OFW developments for two key reasons:Ultimately,the concerns pertain to the potential impact of OFW development on the economic value of fshing and the livelihoods of the

69、communities it affects.While not the primary focus of this report,it is important to note that there are opportunities for addressing both issues mentioned,including fostering coexistence and sustaining fshing operations around OFW infrastructure where possible.In addition,there is the potential for

70、 increased fshing yields near OFW developments due to positive population impacts of OFW infrastructure.These concerns and impacts can be mitigated through careful considerations and collaboration during the OFW planning phase,which will be further explored in this report.In South Korea,there is con

71、cern amongst commercial fsheries about these potential impacts on the marine environment and fshers livelihoods arising from OFW development.These concerns have manifested in protests and challenges across numerous regions in South Korea.This opposition from the fsheries industry is not confned to a

72、ny specifc region,but prevalent across many coastal areas in South Korea.This suggests that conficts to OFW development are relatively pervasive among fshing communities,and thus require urgent remediations.There is potential displacement of fshing activities.If developments are sited in prime fshin

73、g areas without suffcient mitigation,diffculties with continuing fshing activities around OFW infrastructure,or exclusion zones,may lead to displacement.There are potential impacts on marine ecosystems,which could affect nearby fshing activities and yields.Relationship between the OFW and fisheries

74、sectors in South Korea Conflicts between the OFW and fisheries sectors1.2.15GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaThe root causes of the conficts identifed between fsheries and OFW development in South Korea often include delayed engagement with the f

75、shing community,insuffcient trust-building,limited compensation,and negative perceptions of OFWs impact due to misunderstandings or past challenges.From the perspective of the OFW industry,opposition from local stakeholders poses a signifcant risk to project development through potential delays,perm

76、itting issues,and disruption of development activity.Moreover,strong opposition and discontent from local stakeholders risks reputational damage to the OFW sector,which could result in reduced governmental interest or ability to support OFW if unaddressed.This would compound the challenges faced by

77、South Korea in reaching its renewable energy and OFW targets.It is thus paramount to understand the specifc concerns from local stakeholders and the fsheries sector,as a starting point to develop mitigation actions that alleviate such conficts.Tongyeong is a representative fshing town located on the

78、 south coast of South Korea.Opposition to offshore wind by Tongyeong fshers began in earnest in 2019,shortly after it became known that a private energy operator had obtained a licence to operate in local waters.They had organised a signature drive,held several rallies on land and at sea,and fled a

79、lawsuit to revoke the EBL.They have also expressed their opposition to the project at the environmental impact assessment public hearing(Table 1 and Exhibit 2).Case study:The response of the fishing sector to OFW development in TongyeongMarch 2019June 2021December 2021Throughout 2022September 2023De

80、cember 2023The frst electricity business licence(384 MW)was granted,sparking widespread opposition from fshers.Fishers testifed at a public hearing on the draft environmental impact assessment for the frst offshore wind project to be licensed.Another operator obtained a second licence(224 MW),which

81、intensifed the opposition.Local fshing associations fled a lawsuit against the government to revoke the licence.Local fshers continued to rally against offshore wind.Another operator applied for the third licence(340 MW).Exhibit 2:Tongyeong fishers opposition to offshore wind development 16GWEC|Expl

82、oring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaTable 1:Key milestones in the Tongyeong example of conflict between OFW development and commercial fisheries 56Source:Busan Ilbo(2023.09.24);The Chosun Daily(2021.11.22);Kyongnam Shinmun(2019.09.30);Newsis(2023.12.13);Kyon

83、gnam Shinmun(2022.02.16).Source:Media coverage(KN news and Chosun Ilbo)56As of 2023,about 1.2 GW of OFW development is underway by four different operators in Tongyeong.Two operators have already obtained EBLs for approximately 600 MW in total.However,fshers in Tongyeong have consistently opposed th

84、e projects,demanding the cancellation of OFW development.The main reason for the fshers opposition is that the proposed site of the OFW includes one of South Koreas most important anchovy fshing grounds(Exhibit 3).Exhibit 3:Location of proposed offshore wind farms and anchovy catch in waters off Ton

85、gyeong In recognition of the growing conficts between fsheries and the OFW industry,the Korea Environment Institute(KEI)invited fshers from Tongyeong to participate in a public dialogue program in 2020 to discuss key issues related to OFW projects.Of those who participated,56%mentioned that accurate

86、 assessment of potential impact on fsheries is needed for OFW and fsheries to coexist,and that substantial public consultation is needed prior to planning.48%also said that information about the project needs to be disclosed”.Exhibit 4 provides a full breakdown of the responses captured from partici

87、pants during the session.17GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea77Source:Gyeongsangnam-do&Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries(2019);Busan Ilbo(2023.09.24).Based on the results of the Tongyeong workshop,and further industry analysis,the key concerns rais

88、ed by the fshing sector regarding OFW development are detailed below.Most fshers are concerned that OFW farms will reduce the size of areas available for fshing and cause economic losses due to reduced catches.Concerns about the impact of OFW development on the marine environment,and associated impa

89、cts on fsh populations and distributions,add to these economic concerns.Ultimately,these lead to concerns about potential job losses and substantial changes to livelihoods,with fshers having limited options for alternative sources of income.The fshing industry is particularly concerned about these n

90、egative impacts in circumstances when the industry feels that OFW farm planning has failed to account for existing users of the sea area.There have been no impact assessments to gauge how OFW will change fshers incomes or livelihoods in South Korea,and this uncertainty creates concern for the fshing

91、 industry.In South Korea,OFW operators often offer fnancial compensation to individual fshers who express opposition to projects.There is anecdotal evidence that local fshers have chosen to express their concerns more emphatically,possibly with the aim of securing larger compensation payments,or hav

92、e reached out directly to operators to discuss compensation.At present,compensation measures from OFW developers and operators are limited to individual engagements with fshers,with no broader systematicapproach or best-practice framework guiding the interactions between both sectors.There is a lack

93、 of information and knowledge among South Korean fshers,operators,and the government regarding how to design win-win solutions that encourage coexistence between the fsheries and OFW sectors,and how to establish a system to streamline such long-term solutions.Alternative existing efforts to alleviat

94、e livelihood concerns have mostly been limited to beneft-sharing schemes between local stakeholders and OFW farms,which have not been very effective in practice.Currently,South Koreas beneft-sharing schemes focus on investment returns,which is not very effective in establishing stakeholder acceptanc

95、e.The Act on the Promotion of the Development,Use and Diffusion of New and Renewable Energy has introduced a“resident participation system”,where qualifying residents and fshers voluntarily invest in power plants and receive dividends or interest in return.However,the effectiveness of beneft-sharing

96、 schemes in terms of promoting local acceptance is dependent upon the projects wider social,environmental,and economic impacts on the localcommunity,and the schemes ability to account for this context.Exhibit 4:Opinions of fishers documented in Tongyeong workshop hosted by KEI(2020)Understanding spe

97、cific concerns from fisheries regarding OFW developmentConcerns with economic impact,compensation offerings,and long-term impactsCompensation measures and benefit-sharing schemes areinsufficient and ineffective in changing negative perceptions ofOFW development.OFW development can have negative impa

98、cts on livelihoods and economic outcomes.Substantial public consultation is needed prior to planningAn accurate assessment of the fisheries impacts is neededInformation about the project needs to be disclosedThere is a need to build consensus on climate change responseFishermen and residents need a

99、way to share the benefitsConsider the impact on the marine environmentPromote enquity in electricity planningEnsure local government are fair and empoweredAbility to provide continuous input throughout project developmentThe project should be for the sustainable develoment of TongyeongEnsure that ge

100、nerators do not monopolize the profits56%56%48%37%26%22%19%15%15%7%7%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%18GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea89Examine and summarise the main challenges that OFW projects in South Korea need to address with respect to conficts with

101、 fsheries and other stakeholders.Learn from international experience to identify best practices for working alongside local stakeholders,particularly in the fsheries sector.Provide recommendations for coexistence strategies for both government-led and developer-led OFW projects based on analysis and

102、 fndings within this report.89https:/forourclimate.org/hubfs/%5BENG%5D%2012%20Key%20Issues%20That%20Will%20Defne%20Ofshore%20Winds%20Success%20in%20Korea.pdfAs OFW development proceeds,the individual displacement risk for fsheries from individual OFW projects is compounded by cumulative impacts from

103、 multiple developments,leading to an increased spatial squeeze.Fisheries may be concerned regarding increasing and long-term impacts that are uncertain at present.At present,OFW development planning within regions in South Korea has been led by individual operators.There are signifcant economic bene

104、fts from OFW that will drive regional development,so comprehensive plans for related industries,jobs,infrastructure,are needed in addition to individual project power generation and transmission plans.Such efforts can help to build consensus for the project in the local community and potentially hav

105、e a positive effect on fshers acceptance.To this end,local and central governments,local fsheries,and industries should participate in the development of regional master plans to effectively identify inter-sectoral linkages and related measures.In most OFW projects in South Korea to date,which follo

106、w the developer-led development model,engagement with fsheries has occurred too late in the process.The site has been chosen,and early implementation planning has commenced before fsheries were informed about the projects.This delayed involvement has often resulted in strong opposition from the fshi

107、ng community.Delaying engagements and relevant disclosures can undermine the sense of transparency and collaboration between the two industries.Transparency and collaboration are crucial for gaining social acceptance for the development of OFW and other major infrastructure.This is important for all

108、 stakeholders,especially those most affected by development,such as fsheries stakeholders.Delaying engagements and withholding relevant information undermines project transparency,leading to heightened tensions between stakeholders.South Korean fshers are concerned that consultation methods utilised

109、 to date have focused on communicating updates to fshers,rather than seeking their input.For example,developers have organised one-sided briefng sessions and public hearings to provide details of already established projects,with little opportunity to gather feedback fromfsheries.As previously noted

110、 in Exhibit 4,the fshing industry has highlighted that there is a lack of adequate information sharing that takes place between the OFW stakeholders and local fshers,which may create confusion around the planning process or exacerbate distrust between stakeholders.Consequently,fshers do not perceive

111、 themselves to be primary stakeholders within the OFW planning processes and thereby are not empowered to raise perceived conficts to relevant authorities in time for them to be adequately addressed within OFW planning.Concerns with current engagement procedures and opportunities to input into OFW f

112、arm planning Lack of a long-term regional plan for OFW development increasesuncertaintyof long-term impacts.Engagements with fishers on OFW planning often take place too late into the projectdevelopment cycle,which can exacerbate feelings of distrust between sectors.Existing consultation methods do

113、not sufficiently foster trust and collaboration between fishers and the OFW industry.19GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaNegative perceptions of the OFW sector may sometimes be increased by limitedunderstanding,and previous issues with government

114、agencies and the private sectorSummary of key concerns from fisheries towards OFW development in South KoreaIn new OFW markets,the goals,risks,and benefts of OFW projects are often not communicated or inaccurately portrayed to local fshers.This is also the case in South Korea.In the absence of clear

115、 and accessible information,there is uncertainty over the expected impacts,which fuel apprehension and potentially opposition to OFW development.In addition,the spread of misinformation and disinformation within fshing communities further contributes to the negative perception of OFW.Such misconcept

116、ions can circulate rapidly at scale and can spillover across borders,especially where there are pre-existing perceptions of the negative impacts of OFW farms on local livelihoods.In many cases,communities in areas with proposed OFW farms have previously experienced a loss of trust in dealings with c

117、ompanies and governments,often due to incidents unrelated to OFW.Initiating a dialogue with fshers in these areas becomes challenging for operators as a result,as fshers already hold distrust with existing authority bodies and private sector actors.There are several concerns from fsheries in South K

118、orea towards OFW development resulting from potential economic and livelihood impacts,present inadequate mitigation and compensation,engagement failures during OFW planning to date,and negative perceptions more generally.In South Korea,it will be important that remedies to support coexistence betwee

119、n fsheries and OFW development respond directly to these identifed concerns.A summary of the major concerns discussed above is included in Table 2.Concerns due to pre-existing distrust between fishers and relevant government agenciesand private sector,which are unaddressed.Uncertainty driven by limi

120、ted understanding of the OFW sector may sometimes drive negative perceptions of OFW development.Table 2:Summary of key concerns between the fisheries and OFW sectors in South KoreaOFW development can have negative impacts on livelihoods and economic outcomes.Uncertainty driven by limited understandi

121、ng of the OFW sector may sometimes drive negative perceptions of OFW development.Concerns due to pre-existing distrust between fshers and relevant government agencies and private sector,which are unaddressed.Compensation measures and beneft-sharing schemes are insuffcient and ineffective in changing

122、 negative perceptions of OFW development.Lack of a long-term regional plan for OFW development increases uncertainty of long-term impacts.Engagements with fshers on OFW planning often take place too late into the project development cycle,which can exacerbate feelings of distrust between sectors.Exi

123、sting consultation methods do not suffciently foster trust and collaboration between fshers and the OFW industry.Summary of key concerns20GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaINTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE ON FISHERIES COEXISTENCE WITH OFWConfict between O

124、FW development and commercial fsheries is not unique to South Korea.Similar challenges have been experienced in many OFW markets,including those with greater capacities of OFW installation.These markets have implemented strategies to alleviate confict and support coexistence.This section frst descri

125、bes the case for coexistence,before outlining approaches that have been implemented in international OFW markets to mitigate confict between the two sectors.Typical approaches to enabling fsheries coexistence with OFW projects are provided in this section based on international experiences and recom

126、mendations from literature.The approaches are categorised based on whether they are typically developer-led or government-led.However,there may be opportunities to incorporate developer-led approaches into a government-led development model,and vice versa,for South Koreas consideration.As outlined p

127、reviously,to date the OFW project development process in South Korea has been led by developers,and it is these projects that are expected to be constructed frst in the country and are therefore most relevant for shorter-term deployment targets.However,discussion around enactment of the Wind Power P

128、romotion Act could bring in a more government-led model.In international OFW markets,both developer-led and government-led development approaches exist.For the South Korean context,given that developer-led approaches will be very relevant to projects currently in development,and it is possible that

129、government-led models will be relevant to future projects,there are opportunities to learn from actions under both models regarding engagement with fsheries.Coexistence in the case of commercial fsheries and OFW development would mean a system by which both industries can exist harmoniously despite

130、previous confict and concerns.In this system,OFW development would be able to proceed,but in a way that enables continued fshing activity.Achieving coexistence is challenging for a number of reasons,including:-Fear of exclusion and displacement;-Lack of data on potential impacts;-Cumulative impacts

131、of OFW farms;-Context-specifc factors,such as the size and type of wind farm,the nature of the fshing activity(e.g.,method and gear type),and environmental conditions;-Exacerbation of impacts on marine life through OFW impacts and habitat stress caused by fshing activities;-Changing fsh behaviour du

132、e to industrial activity and climate change;-Accidental damage;and-Inadequate mitigation and compensation for lost earnings.Various countries have initiated strategies to address specifc challenges related to coexistence,emphasising stakeholder inclusion,habitat preservation,and confict resolution m

133、echanisms.There is need for further research and comprehensive strategies to optimise coexistence while addressing the diverse range of issues impacting the relationship between OFW and commercial fshing.Co-location refers to the opportunity for fshing activity to continue in areas of OFW developmen

134、t,as has been experienced internationally,for example Westermost Rough Offshore Wind Farm in the UK .Co-location has often been cited as a way to avoid confict altogether,but there are diffculties with accommodating active fshing operations within OFW farms regarding safety concerns and risk of dama

135、ging infrastructure.Opportunities for co-location are context-specifc,and will depend on environmental conditions,fshing gear type,and wind farm characteristics.Current insights into opportunities and obstacles stem largely from international experiences with older installations,although future wind

136、 farms are anticipated to offer better conditions for co-location.Furthermore,co-location may be increasing-ly necessary in future as deployment increases and there is an increase in spatial squeeze for developments.The following international approaches can help move towards coexistence between OFW

137、 and the fshing sector.Coexistence could offer a solution to conflictbetween commercial fisheries and OFW development 22GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea10111011https:/ Experience on fisheries coexistence with OFWEstablishing consultation groups

138、early in the planning process to encourage dialogue can be useful to identify and resolve potential issues quickly.Given that this has been highlighted as a specifc concern in South Korea,leading to signifcant distrust within the fshing community towards the OFW sector,the following case studies pre

139、sent approaches for industry to actively seek input from local stakeholders.This proactive engagement aims to address concerns related to the impact of fshing activities and potential design modifcations,thereby fostering a more collaborative and transparent relationship.Consultations with fshers ca

140、n be targeted towards adapting the design and siting of OFW farms and infrastructure to enhance the potential for coexistence.This approach is developer-led as fnal design decisions will be taken by the developer,based on this input from fshers.The following design adaptations are provided from lite

141、rature on adjustments that OFW farms can make to better support fshing activities.Advantages:Inviting views from fshers can provide useful information on how OFW farms can be modifed to reduce the impacts on fshing activities and mitigate concerns about existing design features so that fshers are mo

142、re receptive towards OFW projects(increased stakeholder buy-in).Challenges:It may not be possible to accommodate all suggestions from fshers(due to technology,cost,lack of understanding,etc.),which could lead to further disagreement and/or confict.Adapting the design of OFW farms based on project-sp

143、ecific consultations with fishers.Approaches that are typically developer-led23GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea1212Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and Swedish Energy Agency(2023).Coexistence ofoffshore wind power with commercial f

144、ishing,aquaculture and nature conservation.The layout of wind farms needs to ensure that there is enough space for fshing gear to be operated at a safe distance from the wind farms fxed installations.For example,fxed bottom turbines require shorter safety distances between fshing vessels and wind tu

145、rbines than wind farms with foating turbines due to additional challenges from mooring lines,which pose signifcant risks of fshing gear entanglement or snagging.In addition to the distance,turbines can be positioned in straight rows and avoid pointed corners at the edges of the wind farm.For fshing

146、that follows depth curves such as shrimp trawling,turbines could be positioned alongside the depth curve to facilitate coexistence.Protruding elements of the foundation that are close to the sea surface may cause damage to fshing vessels if there is a collision.Foundations could also have a smooth s

147、urface and the number of parts and attachment points should be minimised to reduce the likelihood of fshing gear becoming entrapped.Enabling fshing with bottom gear,particularly bottom trawling,requires burying the cables from the wind farm at a depth of 1-2 metres.This is based on literature regard

148、ing fshing gear penetration.Work by Linnane et al.(2000)indicates that fshing gear penetration is limited to a maximum of 0.3 metres penetration even in soft sediment.More recent studies also validate this fgure.In Germany,cables are identifed in the marine spatial planning process and are gathered

149、in cable corridors by coordinating and co-locating cables and pipes for different purposes.However,further cable protection measures such as prohibiting anchorage within a certain distance may be required.This is the case in Denmark where there is a decree protecting marine cables and underwater pip

150、elines by prohibiting fshing with gear with seabed contact within 200 metres of underwater cables.However,the burying of cables in OFW farms depends on ground conditions.A rocky seabed may necessitate laying cables on the seabed with protective measures like rock armouring or concrete mattressing.Fu

151、rthermore,cables that have been buried may become unearthed during operation with seabed movement etc.,and so cable positioning and safe operation of fshing activity over cables cannot be guaranteed,even if the cables were originally buried to a suffcient depth.Technologies are available to support

152、monitoring of OFW assets during operation.For example,cable monitoring technologies exist to provide real-time insights on the depth of cable burial,exposure,impact detection and environmental monitoring.Whilst this data is useful for operation and maintenance of the wind farm,there is potential tha

153、t sharing such data with fsheries may increase available information for decision-making.The integration of offshore multi-purpose platforms is a novel concept aimed at managing conficts between offshore renewables and aquaculture systems.Pilot projects in China are looking to demonstrate the use of

154、 multi-purpose platforms.The benefts evident in these pilot projects include cost reduction through shared infrastructure,spatial utilisation,optimised marine spatial planning,and offering sustainable energy,food and employment opportunities for remote communities.However,there are expected legal,so

155、cial,environmental,and technical challenges affecting the likelihood of such projects to scale,and further research is required on the development of a unifed regulatory framework to support the shared use of infrastructure.OFW design adaptations Key Elements Discussed in LiteraturePositioning turbi

156、nes to allowfishing and navigationbetween turbinesFoundationstructures could be designed to promote coexistenceBurying cables to minimiseexposure to fishing activityInstallation of asset monitoringtechnologies centralised monitoring and safety service for OFW farmsMulti-purposeplatforms 24GWEC|Explo

157、ring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea1314151613141516https:/ approaches can offer an effective means of formalising the involvement of the fshing community in key OFW development decisions.In addition,governments can play a role in clarifying the rights of all

158、 parties involved,which could include safeguarding livelihoods or seeking compensation for potential damages.Formalising the involvement of the fshing industry in OFW development ensures that stakeholders are well-informed about their entitlements and the repercussions of non-compliance.The followin

159、g case studies outline strategies that can be tailored to the South Korean context,where the governments responsibility to protect stakeholder interests can play a pivotal role in cultivating trust within the fshing community.MSP processes can be designed to incorporate consideration of social and e

160、conomic impacts of OFW developments on fshing activity,so that its output on suitable sites for OFW development support coexistence with fsheries.MSP is usually undertaken by governments for the purpose of balancing interests in the marine area,including commercial fsheries and OFW development.Advan

161、tages:Using MSP as an approach to managing coexistence is useful as stakeholder engagements may be built into its process.Most MSP involves engaging various marine stakeholders about current and future marine activities.Further,MSP can allow for clear integration of ecological data to support decisi

162、ons.MSP usually results in the development of a plan or designation of areas for specifc marine activities,such as OFW development.Challenges:There is an expectation that MSP involves balancing the needs of multiple industries including OFW,fshing,shipping,military,recreation,etc.Therefore,promoting

163、 coexistence may be only one of many aims.Other diffculties can include the availability of data to support MSP decision-making,which can add challenges into the effective designation of areas for specifc marine activities.Utilising Marine spatial planning(MSP)to balance interests of multiple sector

164、s.Approaches that are typically government-led25GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaIn Poland,proactive measures were taken to involve artisanal fshers by conducting initial in-person interviews as part of developing the MSP framework.The frst round

165、 addressed overarching issues faced by fshers,while the second focused on collaboratively exploring solutions for harmonising fshers activities with OFW farms.These initiatives provided valuable insights to planners,contributing to the creation of MSP solutions(interviewing fshers during the process

166、 to identify solutions for coexistence and identifying important fshing sites)tailored to support fsheries,thus fostering a more fshery-friendly approach within the planning process.Marine Scotland initiated ScotMap,a collaborative fsheries mapping initiative to enhance understanding regarding fshin

167、g activities among smaller vessels lacking Vessel Monitoring Systems.Through engagement with over 1,000 fshers,the project aimed to pinpoint specifc maritime zones utilised for fshing endeavours.The interviews also provided insights into the economic signifcance of these areas,estimating their contr

168、ibution to vessel earnings between 2007 and 2011.The data served as a foundation for generating maps showcasing the intensity of fshing activities and the socio-economic relevance of diverse sea regions to the fshing community.International examplesBest practices Acknowledging the special status of

169、fishers in the MSP processes,Poland Drawing on fishers knowledge to create an evidence base,ScotlandDeveloping regulations to support coexistence This is a government-led approach where regulatory frameworks can be created to facilitate the shared use of marine spaces by fsheries,ships and OFW simul

170、taneously.Ensuring coexistence as a prerequisite for OFW developers to secure permits is also a potential approach to regulation.Advantages:If well-designed,regulations can reduce market uncertainty on the use of marine areas and support cooperation among stakeholders.Challenges:There is a risk of d

171、eveloping regulations that are too complex and time-consuming to adhere to,and risk confict if not properly enforced.Regulations that do not appropriately account for the economic and ecological impacts of allowing sites to be used for multiple requirements may also do more harm.161726GWEC|Exploring

172、 Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaInternational examples of the use of MSP processes to promote fsher coexistence is provided below:1011https:/ guidance on acceptable fishing practices to support compatibility with OFW farms,potentially supported by regulationO

173、pportunities for co-location can be increased with particular fshing practices and activities,including selection of gear type.Certain gear types and avoidance strategies can increase the potential for coexistence and co-location by reducing the risk of damage to OFW and fshing infrastructure.It is

174、sensible for such guidance to be government-led,as this will appear more independent than if produced by OFW developers.A government-led approach can be to develop guidance for this implementation,potentially supported by regulation to mandate specifc practices in and around OFW farms.In 2015,the Du

175、tch government sought to provide fshing vessels with access to wind farms within the Dutch Exclusive Economic Zone,prompting a comprehensive risk assessment.Collaborating with stakeholders,including wind farm owners,a set of regulations was proposed,allowing vessel transit and specifc fshing activit

176、ies within safety zones,contingent upon adhering to government-specifed gear and safety criteria.Pilot initiatives in 2016/2017 aimed to open three wind farms for vessel transit and multi-use.However,disagreements arose over cost-sharing and liability between wind farm operators and stakeholders,hin

177、dering consensus.Concerns regarding infrastructure adaptation costs,operational disruptions,and potential reputational damage to the wind energy sector persisted.The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy commissioned an independent review of risk studies,uncovering additional hazards posed

178、 by certain fshing methods to wind farms.Despite this,in 2018,the government implemented the proposed restrictions,agreeing to monitor,manage incidents,and conduct policy evaluations in collaboration with wind farm owners during a two-year pilot,extendable based on new insights.Plans for future wind

179、 farms include designated transit corridors for vessels up to 45 meters,scheduled for construction between 2019 and 2023,aiming to provide a long-term solution for coexistence.Within the Polish Marine Spatial Planning(MSP)process,designated blue corridors were created to facilitate the safe migratio

180、n of diadromous organisms.These corridors strictly prohibit any construction that might impede this crucial migration process.Interestingly,OFW farms in Poland are situated beyond these corridors and remain unaffected.However,these spaces are accessible to fshing vessels,presenting a notable model f

181、or resolving conficts between fshing activities and offshore energy ventures.In Denmark,wind power developers are required to have initiated a dialogue with affected fshers in order for a permit to be granted.For example,in draft decisions on permits for specifc sites in Denmark,the Halland County A

182、dministrative Board proposed conditions for the developer to maintain a dialogue with the commercial fshing organisation and work with them to establish and maintain a cooperation plan to enable commercial fshing in the wind farm.While the contents of the coexistence plans were not specifed,the regu

183、lations set up conditions for regular evaluation and auditing to strengthen cooperation between all stakeholders.International examples Recommendations Piloting multi-use solutions,NetherlandsSupporting fisheries with designated migration corridors,PolandRequirements for coexistence plans between de

184、velopers andfishers,Denmark16161627GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea16https:/ of lessons learned from international approaches to regulating coexistence include:GWEC.NETBest practices Passive gear has greater potential for coexistence,specifcally

185、 with cages,hooks,and gillnets,as they pose a lower risk to wind turbines compared to active gear.Generally,smaller gear and gear with less contact with the seabed are better suited for co-location.However,the possibility of changing gear is very limited for most fshers and vessels due to fshing lic

186、ensing and costs.International experiences show that a greater number of fshers choose to stop fshing,or fsh in other areas rather than switching to other types of gear.Further innovation of fshing gear suitable for wind farms is therefore considered necessary going forward.Limits regarding in which

187、 conditions fshing should and should not take place are based on the type and size of vessels,and this guidance should be developed in consultation between local fshers and the wind farm operator.In the UK,the Kingfsher Information Service Offshore Renewable and Cable Awareness project developed a b

188、ulletin system that reminded fshers to be particularly cautious when fshing near various wind farm structures and their associated cables.The development of monitoring systems and industry standards can help increase preparedness and minimise technical failures of vessels.Adaptation of fishing activ

189、itiesRecommendations from literatureFishing with passive gearRestrictions on when fishing may take place in the wind farm Advantages:Clear guidelines can reduce the risk of confict and provide greater certainty to both fshers and OFW developers on the type of activity that is safe and permissible ar

190、ound OFW farms.Challenges:Monitoring compliance will be an issue and requires feasible enforcement measures that are not administratively onerous for fshers to abide by.Regulations will also need to keep up with technology advancements,which can be challenging.28GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunit

191、ies for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaThe following recommendations are taken from literature on how encouragement of certain types of fshingactivities that are less risky towards OFW operations can support coexistence.1618Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and Swedish Energy

192、 Agency(2023).Coexistence of OFWpower with commercial fishing,aquaculture and nature conservation.Compensation schemes Best practices In Denmark,where cable protection regulations effectively exclude all fshing using gear with seabed contact from wind farms,monetary compensation to the fshers affect

193、ed has so far been the most common measure for managing the confict with wind power.In the UK,the use of a Fisheries Management and Mitigation Strategy has become a standard part of the permitting process.The strategy includes fnancial compensation to fshers affected by the construction and maintena

194、nce of a wind farm and its infrastructure.The compensation is paid to offset the loss of income and is typically calculated based on catch and income history.It is designed through joint agreements between the actors concerned,usually without direct involvement of the state and in most cases at an e

195、arly stage of the planning or permitting process.CompensationexamplesDescriptionUsing compensation where regulations create a loss of incomeCompensating for the impacts of OFW farm construction Where the development of OFW farms has resulted in a loss of income or increased expenditure for fshing,co

196、mpensation has,in some cases,been paid to the fshers affected.This is typically government-led in terms of incentivising or mandating OFW developers to provide compensation where negative economic impacts are identifed.International examples of compensation paid to fshers as a last resort are provid

197、ed below:Advantages:Clear guidelines can reduce the risk of confict and provide greater certainty to both fshers and OFW developers on the type of activity that is safe and permissible around OFW farms.Challenges:Monitoring compliance will be an issue and requires feasible enforcement measures that

198、are not administratively onerous for fshers to abide by.Regulations will also need to keep up with technology advancements,which can be challenging.29GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea1919Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and Swedish

199、Energy Agency(2023).Coexistence of OFW power with commercial fishing,aquaculture and nature conservation.FLOWW was set up in 2002 to foster good relations between the fshing and offshore renewable energy sectors and encourage coexistence of the industries across the UK.The Crown Estate provides the

200、secretariat services to the group which comprises 40 organisations across developers and fshing industry bodies.Its best practice guidance has been developed through three OFW leasing rounds,and includes the following recommendations:International examplesBest practices Fishing Liaison with OFW and

201、Wet Renew-ables Group(FLOWW),UK Coordinating joint efforts between fshers and OFW stakeholders can enable the development of shared resources to guide coexistence and establish best practices.The requirement for leadership,facilitation,resource allocation and long-term commitment to support ongoing

202、collaboration will primarily lie with OFW stakeholders,making it a suitable developer-led approach.These may be industry-led or centrally-led.The following examples are taken from international best practices on how collaboration has been used by OFW developers and other stakeholders to promote coex

203、istence with fsheries.Advantages:Collaborative approach that can build trust and experience of the sectors working together.This approach can reduce the risk of confict between stakeholders and enable the development of solutions that consider both parties needs.Challenges:This can be a time-consumi

204、ng process to achieve consensus and may be challenging to implement if there are no means of holding stakeholders accountable for abiding by the best practices.Approaches that can be led by government and developersEstablishment of collaborative platforms with the objective of supporting coexistence

205、,and creation of best practiceBest practices.The following approaches utilised internationally can work either as developer-led or government-led approaches.2030GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea20https:/www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our-business/marin

206、e/the-fshing-liaison-with-ofshore-wind-and-wet-renewables-group Developers must undertake formal consultation with fsheries stakeholders,allowing them to submit their views on the OFW projects and provide data on the possible impacts on fshing activities as part of the Environmental Impact Assessmen

207、t.Developers can identify relevant fshers by making port visits at the earliest opportunity,and work with fshing federations to promote local relationships.Developers should be responsible for sharing necessary information on the project such as its position,size,safety zone proposals and associated

208、 submarine cable routes and landing points with the local fshers at the earliest opportunity.Project design must consider spatial constraints planning and mitigation efforts around array cabling layout or burial,foundation design,safety zone application,and decommissioning plans.A Company Fishing Li

209、aison Offcer and a Fishing Industry Representative are key roles that should be appointed by the developer to ensure that the fow of information and discussion between developers and the fshing industries is maintained.During the planning phase,the offcer should ensure that the developer benefts fro

210、m industry knowledge and feeds this into site selection and the assessment of potential impacts where possible.During the construction phase,the offcer can ensure timely provision of information regarding programmed vessel movements or delays and act as the main 24-hour point of contact for the fshi

211、ng industry to get in touch.The fshing liaison plan should be updated during the planning and construction phases of development,and then again during operation.If coexistence is not possible,then mitigation for disruption and displacement of fshing activity should be considered as the priority,with

212、 commercial compensation only being used as a last resort where signifcant residual impacts cannot otherwise be mitigated.The Netherlands set up a Community of Practice to stimulate the development of multi-use pilots by bringing interested parties together,sharing experiences and learning from each

213、 other in a context of existing and developing spatial and social claims.This development is part of the governments strategy aimed at fnding a balance between OFW energy development,nature conservation and seafood production.Representatives worked together to support multi-use pilots related to lic

214、ensing procedures or the use of fshing gear in OFW farms for example.The activities supported knowledge exchange and built a shared understanding around marine multi-use approaches between stakeholders in an informal setting.The lessons from the Netherlands suggest that the Community of Practice app

215、roach can act as a participatory action-oriented tool if participants share a joint defnition of what it is about,allow for suffcient time to get to know each other and build trust,make sure that the agenda equally allows for views from the fshing industry as well as the OFW industry,and promote tra

216、nsparent communication.Communication transparent and effective communication of activities.Collaboration development of mitigation and operation strategies with input from the fsheries sector.Coexistence understanding conficting viewpoints and achieving a synergetic approach to coexistence.Communiti

217、es of Practice North Sea,Netherlands SSE Renewables Principles for Coexistence with Commercial Fisheries.222131GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaSSE Renewables outlined their plans to better coexist with fsheries when building and developing OFW p

218、rojects.The plan focuses on The Three Cs:2122https:/maritime-spatial-planning.ec.europa.eu/practices/combining-ofshore-wind-farms-nature-conservation-and-seafood-lessons-dutch-communityhttps:/ Employment:A Company Fishing Liaison Offcer is employed to maintain timely communication with fshers regard

219、ing project development activities.In addition,fshing vessels may be employed to support survey works,and act as guard vessels.Cooperation agreements:Offer support and guidance to fshers who may lose access to their regular grounds temporarily during pre-construction and construction works or face l

220、oss or damage of gear.In such cases,SSE Renewables has established a claims process for affected fshers who can work with the Fishing Liaison Offcer to be appropriately compensated.Access to data:Sharing geophysical survey data prior to construction,and timely survey data during operation to fsherie

221、s to aid decision-making.Service requirements:Requirements for services including scouting surveys and post-construction trials(including over trawl),fsheries impact assessments,acting as guard vessels,amongst other opportunities.Fund research to improve our understanding of the effects of OFW on th

222、e marine environment;Reduce the risk of not getting or delaying consent for OFW developments;Reduce the risk of getting consent with conditions that reduce viability of the project.The programme pools resources from the private sector and public sector bodies to fund projects that provide empirical

223、data to support consenting authorities in evaluating the environmental risk of OFW.Projects are prioritised and informed by the ORJIP Advisory Network that includes key stakeholders such as statutory nature conservation bodies,academics,non-governmental organisations and others.One of the projects f

224、unded under this programme aims to improve the evidence base for coexistence between commercial fshing and offshore renewables with a focus on cabling.The project aims to understand the operational risk of fshing over subsea cables considering seabed conditions,geology and seabed morphology.This res

225、earch will provide practical evidence to support risk assessments and improve safety of fshing activity near OFW cables.Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme(ORJIP)for Offshore Wind.Promoting buy-in through targeted consultations Lack of engagement during OFW development decision-making has b

226、een highlighted as a key concern.Promoting buy-in through consultations involves engaging the fshing community in discussions and decision-making processes as a way to address concerns and build trust.This can be general engagement and ongoing consultation,but is most effective when there is targete

227、d consultation for specifc decisions to be made.Government or industry can take the lead role depending on existing relationships between stakeholders and the level of openness from the fshing community to engage with the OFW industry.2332GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind an

228、d Fisheries in South KoreaThe plan aims to allow the developer to deliver multiple benefts:The Offshore Renewables Joint Industry Programme(ORJIP)for Offshore Wind is a developer-led collaborative initiative that aims to:https:/ practices Toda Corps OFW farm was initially faced with concerns from th

229、e Fukue Fisheries Cooperative Association regarding impacts on the community and ecology.Specifcally,the Association was worried about the possibility of fsh distribution changes due to the noise,and the potential harm on the local bird population.However,the Ministry of Environment collected data a

230、nd shared this with the Association,convincing them of the projects benefts.For example,the data found that fsh appeared to be attracted to the foating turbines,making the local fshing grounds more productive.ExampleDescriptionGenerating evidence-based buy-in,JapanAdvantages:Consultations led by dev

231、elopers or the government can ensure that concerns facing fshers regarding OFW development are alleviated early on and mitigate the likelihood of confict.Challenges:Consultation processes can be lengthy and resource intensive,and if the reasoning for this is not clear,or views are ignored,then there

232、 is a risk of further aggravating stakeholder concerns.Consultation without a clear rationale or outcome can cause stakeholder exhaustion,which can increase confict.Advantages:Clear economic opportunity for service providers or employed individuals.Challenges:Scale may be restricted to specifc indiv

233、iduals or services.Value of services will vary in certain markets and be dependent on specifc policies.Additionally,alternative employment does not necessarily mitigate impacts to livelihoods and changes in lifestyle.Providing economic opportunities for fsheries through OFW design,installation,and o

234、peration can enable additional benefts.The creation of economic opportunities for fsheries through OFW projects can involve both developer-led initiatives like guidelines or government-led mandates like regulatory requirements.It is important to note that,in the examples below,the job opportunities

235、may differ from those affected by OFW development,may not be as extensive,and may not be attractive to current fshers.Moreover,whilst these are new job opportunities,they may not be captured by the fshing industry.24Involvement of fisheries with employment and service provision opportunities33GWEC|E

236、xploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaBelow is an example where consultations have supported fshery acceptance of OFW projects include:24https:/ In some cases,fshing gear and vessels may be required to support OFW site surveys and trials.For example,over-tr

237、awl trials have been proposed in Scotland to industry as a method to verify whether it is safe to undertake demersal trawling or dredging over a subsea cable or deployed external cable protection.Local fshing services would be required to undertake these trials.However,on a practical level,these tri

238、als may only provide a view of a snapshot in time and there is debate as to their effectiveness.It has been suggested that OFW farms could become eco-tourism attractions.There is limited evidence available,but small-scale opportunities have been observed in the UK,where boat trips to visit wind farm

239、 sites are available.Local fshers may beneft in utilising vessels for such purposes,providing a secondary source of income.OFW farms offer opportunities for alternative employment for fshers such as guarding and safety roles.As fshers have valuable maritime expertise and local knowledge,they can ser

240、ve as crew members on board guard vessels which monitor the perimeters of wind farms to prevent entry of unauthorised vessels and ensure that safety protocols are adhered to.Due to their familiarity with the local marine environment,fshers can also gain employment in environmental monitoring efforts

241、,recording sightings and behaviour patterns of birds and marine mammals and noting potential impacts of OFW farms on these aspects.This survey data can also be used to ensure compliance with environmental regulations where relevant.It has been suggested that OFW farms could become eco-tourism attrac

242、tions.There is limited evidence available,but small-scale opportunities have been observed in the UK,where boat trips to visit wind farm sites are available.Local fshers may beneft in utilising vessels for such purposes,providing a secondary source of income.Developers will often employ fsheries lia

243、ison offcers to act as a direct link between their activities and the fshing sector in order to provide them with access to necessary expertise during the project planning phases for site selection and impact assessments,and assist in generating buy-in for new OFW developments from the fshing commun

244、ity.The roles not only represent employment opportunities,but also provide a link between two industries,fostering cooperation and maximising benefts of OFW development while addressing concerns of the fshing industry.Fishing gear required for OFW development surveys and trialsBird and marine mammal

245、 surveys/monitoringEmployment of a fisheries liaison officerOFWeco-tourismGuard vesselsExampleDescription262734GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaExamples where economic opportunities can be created include:25262725https:/windeurope.org/newsroom/ne

246、ws/ofshore-wind-and-fsheries-a-win-win-relationship-is-essential-for-the-energy-transition/https:/ Adapting the design of OFW farms based on project-specifc consultations Utilising marine spatial planning(MSP)to balance interests of multiple sectorsDeveloping guidance on acceptable fshing practices

247、to support compatibility with OFW farms,potentially supported by regulationEstablishment of collaborative platforms with the objective of supporting coexistence,and creation of best practicePromoting buy-in through targeted consultationsInvolvement of fsheries with employment and service provision o

248、pportunities.Compensation schemesDeveloping regulations to support coexistenceSummary of international approaches towards coexistenceThere are numerous approaches taken internationally to support coexistence.For South Koreas status and context,it is important to consider what has worked well elsewhe

249、re,and which of these approaches would best address the specifc concerns of local fsheries.Developer-led approachesGovernment-led approachesDeveloper-led or government-led approachesTable 3:Summary of international approaches towards coexistence.35GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshor

250、e Wind and Fisheries in South Korea Fund research to improve our understanding of the effects of OFW on the marine environment;Reduce the risk of not getting or delaying consent for OFW developments;Reduce the risk of getting consent with conditions that reduce viability of the project.The programme

251、 pools resources from the private sector and public sector bodies to fund projects that provide empirical data to support consenting authorities in evaluating the environmental risk of OFW.Projects are prioritised and informed by the ORJIP Advisory Network that includes key stakeholders such as stat

252、utory nature conservation bodies,academics,non-governmental organisations and others.One of the projects funded under this programme aims to improve the evidence base for coexistence between commercial fshing and offshore renewables with a focus on cabling.The project aims to understand the operatio

253、nal risk of fshing over subsea cables considering seabed conditions,geology and seabed morphology.This research will provide practical evidence to support risk assessments and improve safety of fshing activity near OFW cables.LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN SOUTH KOREAThe previous section explored a variety

254、of international approaches led by government and developers to support OFW and fshery coexistence.This section delves into the recent initiatives introduced in South Korea to overcome challenges and confict faced to date.These include the OFW Power Development Plan for Coexistence with Residents an

255、d Fisheries in 2020 and ongoing Special Bills related to the Offshore Wind Promotion Acts introducing public-private councils and bidding systems.In addition,this section details existing efforts by the South Korean government to enhance developer-led and government-led for engagement and stakeholde

256、r consultation.As previously mentioned,to help meet various climate commitments,the South Korean government has set a target of 14.3 GW of offshore wind installations by 2030.However,for a variety of reasons,including the lack of acceptance by fshers,progress towards the 2030 OFW deployment target h

257、as been slower than planned.To improve this situation,on July 17,2020,the South Korean government announced a plan to promote the construction of large-scale OFW farms through the Offshore Wind Development Plan for Coexistence with Residents and Fisheries.This plan outlines a comprehensive strategy

258、to expedite large-scale OFW projects using a government-led development model,with signifcant implications on the relationship between OFW developments and local stakeholders including the fshing community.In the government-led model,the government is typically responsible for zoning,site selection,

259、and selecting a developer to implement the project via a bidding process.In this case,the Offshore Wind Development Plan notes that the local governments will take the lead in selecting OFW farm locations and operate a public-private council in collaboration with fshers to listen to their concerns a

260、nd build their understanding of OFW power.The South Korean government also published the Guidelines for Offshore Wind Power Development in 2023.These Guidelines promote an approach for developer-led projects where industry takes the initiative to conduct community engagements to inform site selectio

261、n and feasibility assessments.In this case,the Guidelines advocate for developers interested in setting up OFW farm projects to establish a local council aimed at engaging stakeholders,particularly the fshing community.This ensures that consultations with fshers are completed before fnalising the si

262、te location.South Korea has amended its relevant laws twice(in 2020 and 2022)to allow stakeholder consultations,including those with the fshing community,to begin at an earlier stage of OFW projects.Prior to the amendments,there was no legal procedure for soliciting the fshing communitys opinions at

263、 the beginning of OFW projects before EBLs were obtained.However,recent legal changes enable the inclusion of stakeholders,including fshers,to be heard at an earlier stage.For example,in 2020,the Electricity Business Act was amended to include a new provision mandating public notifcation of wind pow

264、er projects and the collection of residents opinions in order to obtain an Electricity Business License.Subsequently,in 2022,the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Shared Waters was amended to require stakeholder consultations,inclusive of the fshing community,at the projects outset and prior

265、to wind metre installation.20Legislative background of the Offshore Wind Promotion ActSouth Korean government has implemented recent legislation to reduce conflicts37GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaLatest developments in South KoreaThe following

266、 measures will be introduced through the Offshore Wind Promotion Act:consideration of fshing activities in the site selection process;operation of a public-private council for consensus building;introduction of a bidding system to select project operators;and establishment of a Wind Energy Committee

267、.A comprehensive geographic information system called the Wind Power Location Information Network will be established to select OFW farm sites while accounting for fshing activities.Stakeholder engagement through briefngs and public hearings will be necessary before selecting a preliminary site for

268、the project.A public-private council will be established as a new institutional mechanism with the objective of increasing consensus between OFW and the fshing sector.The local government will be responsible for convening a public-private council prior to site selection.The council will comprise gov

269、ernment and private sector representatives,including fshers and OFW experts,and will serve to mediate key issues concerning all stakeholders.The public-private councils mandate includes information sharing about OFW projects,building consensus on site selection,and developing a project implementatio

270、n plan.Site selection will follow a government-led process,wherein the operator will be selected through a tender process once the site has been determined.The Ministry of Trade,Industry and Energy is responsible for the selection of the operator,with the decision-making process overseen by the Wind

271、 Energy Committee.1.the basic design plan of the proposed OFW project;2.the designation and alteration of development areas;3.local coexistence plans and resident proft-sharing mechanisms;4.fsheries and local economy revitalisation plans;and5.other matters crucial for securing stakeholder support.20

272、Offshore Wind Promotion ActPublic-private councilBidding system Consideration of fishing activities in the site selection process-38GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaKey areas of discussion within the public-private council will include the follow

273、ing aspects:The South Korean government is considering new improvements to the Offshore Wind Promotion Act.As of February 2024,the National Assembly is considering three bills under this Act to redesign the OFW development system.These bills,put forward by lawmakers from both the ruling and oppositi

274、on parties,offer a chance to address existing challenges and foster positive development in the sector.The Wind Energy Committee,composed of government ministers,will be established to deliberate and resolve matters related to OFW development.Chaired by the Prime Minister,the Wind Energy Committee w

275、ill include key members such as the Minister of Economy and Finance,the Minister of National Defense,the Minister of the Interior and Safety,the Minister of Agriculture,Food and Rural Affairs,the Minister of Trade,Industry and Energy,the Minister of Environment,the Minister of Land,Infrastructure an

276、d Transport,the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries,and the Director of the Cultural Heritage Administration.The Committees mandate includes facilitating inter-ministerial cooperation and expediting the processing of various licences and permits required for OFW projects.The three bills currently pendi

277、ng in the National Assembly share a common goal to move towards a government-led process for OFW deployment.Exhibit 5 compares these new government-led processes established by the Offshore Wind Promotion Act with the current developer-led processes.This Act presents an opportunity to address many o

278、f the issues concerning OFW farms and the fshing communitys acceptance as discussed in Chapter 2.1.Special bill to promote wind power supply2.Special bill on offshore wind power planning and industry development3.Special bill for the promotion of offshore wind power.Wind Energy Committee Three furth

279、er bills are under consideration to improve procedures as part of the OffshoreWind Promotion Act 28GWEC|Exploring Coexitence Opportunities For Offshore Wind And Fisheries In South KoreaAbility to effciently deliver OFW projects,including cost of power generation.Financial capability.Efforts to ensur

280、e mutual growth and stakeholder acceptance,including proft-sharing arrangements.Alignment with the relevant laws for the successful implementation of OFW projects.1.2.3.4.-The criteria for selecting a business operator will include:-39GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fi

281、sheries in South Korea28(1)Special Bill to Promote Wind Power Supply(Rep.Kim Won-young of the Democratic Party of South Korea,May 2021),(2)Special Bill on Offshore Wind Power Planning and Industry Development(Rep.Han Moo-kyung of the Peoples Power,March 2023),(3)Special Bill for the Promotion of Off

282、shore Wind Power(Rep.Kim Han-jung,Democratic Party of South Korea,March 2023).Developer-led ProcessPhase1.Site investigation2.Feasibility Study3.Decision of 4.Detailed design5.Construction Government-led ProcessGovernmentFishersDeveloperbusiness operationand OperationDetailed plansSite andfeasibilit

283、y studyinself(not public)Installation,commissioning,operationInstallation,commissioning,operationGoverment role:permiting based on individual lawsEIA draftPublic consultationEIA draftPublic consultationGovernmentFishersDeveloperStakeholderengagementPublic-privatecouncil/publichearingDetailed plansOp

284、eration of localinformation networkPreliminary SiteDesignation(Zoning)General planSite decisionTender for operatorLack of publicengagement40GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaExhibit 5:Comparison of current developer-led processes with the new gove

285、rnment-led model to be established under the Offshore Wind Promotion ActIn 2023,the South Korean city of Incheon conducted a pilot program supported by the central government to identify OFW sites by engaging fshers in the initial site survey phase.The Incheon case aligns with international best pra

286、ctices discussed in Chapter 3 as it emphasises the role of stakeholder engagement and establishment of early consultation groups as key coexistence strategies to resolve conficts.In December 2021,fshers organisations in Incheon released a joint statement opposing offshore wind projects.They cited fo

287、ur main reasons for opposing offshore wind projects.To resolve OFW conficts,Incheon implemented a publicly supported OFW site identifcation programme,which aimed to identify suitable locations for OFW farms.The programme involved engaging various stakeholders,particularly fshers,in the initial phase

288、s of site selection to ensure that their concerns are considered and encourage their buy-in for proposed OFW projects.The programme aimed to select project sites based on economic feasibility,environmental considerations,and acceptance from the fshing community.This programme allowed the fshing comm

289、unity to participate in site surveys and propose mutually agreeable locations.KEPCO and four public research organisations worked with Incheon City to identify suitable OFW zones.The South Korea Environment Institute(KEI)visited Incheon fshing communities to conduct a site preference survey and enga

290、ged fshers in discussions to identify areas where they opposed OFW and areas where they were willing to negotiate.This led to the creation of the Incheon Fishers Location Preference Map(see Exhibit 7).The map was used to guide the selection of suitable OFW project locations.The map,which delineates

291、the region into small grids,allows fshers to indicate their preferences which range from absolutely opposed,to negotiable,or in favour.These preferences were synthesised to identify locations where consensus could be reached among the entire group.Subsequently,this map was overlaid with additional m

292、aritime spatial data,including maritime traffc patterns,military activities,and wind conditions.The integration of this information facilitated the identifcation of suitable zones for OFW development in Incheon.The confict escalated,resulting in fshers rallying against OFW projects in March 2022.Inc

293、heon is an active area of OFW development,with 23 sites having wind measurement equipment installed for initial site surveys by 2022,and a total of 13 operators participating.Two companies have also obtained electricity business licences.Case Study:Offshore Wind Siting Through Fishery Engagement in

294、IncheonExhibit 6:Locations of Incheons offshore wind projects(2022)BackgroundOffshore wind site selection with fisheries participation1)Lack of consultation with fshers as directly affected stakeholders;2)Reduced fshing areas and disruption of fshing activities;3)Encroachment on shipping lanes;and4)

295、Damage to marine ecosystems.2930Key:Blue circles Wind measurement equipment installation locations/Red circles EBL project locations.41GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea2930Source:Google maps(background map),License status(Incheon City Council,202

296、2)Incheon Anchor Gillnet Association,Is the Incheon wind yours?Source:https:/ selection activities began in June 2022,resulting in a shortlist of 2.7 GW of potential OFW sites by August 2023(see Exhibit 8).The OFW sites in the fgure were selected based on the preferences of the Incheon fshing commun

297、ity,and any proposed project in the area is subject to receiving consent from fshers.Incheons site identifcation programme demonstrates the importance of involving fshers in the siting phase of an OFW project in reaching consensus on zones for OFW development.By doing so,Incheon demonstrated a commi

298、tment to inclusive decision-making and this approach serves as a model for other regions in South Korea seeking to balance OFW goals with social considerations.Exhibit 7:Fisheries workshop to select preferred areas of OFW development.Exhibit 8:Offshore wind sites identified through engagement with f

299、isheries(2.7 GW).32Siting preference of Incheon fishermen(17 organizations)Negotiable areaOpposite area42GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South Korea3132Source:KEIKyungin Ilbo(2023.11.29)31RECOMMENDATIONSThe South Korean government is considering new improv

300、ements to the Offshore Wind Promotion Act.As of February 2024,the National Assembly is considering three bills under this Act to redesign the OFW development system.These bills,put forward by lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties,offer a chance to address existing challenges and fost

301、er positive development in the sector.The three bills currently pending in the National Assembly share a common goal to move towards a government-led process for OFW deployment.Exhibit 5 compares these new government-led processes established by the Offshore Wind Promotion Act with the current devel

302、oper-led processes.This Act presents an opportunity to address many of the issues concerning OFW farms and the fshing communitys acceptance as discussed in Chapter 2.1.Special bill to promote wind power supply2.Special bill on offshore wind power planning and industry development3.Special bill for t

303、he promotion of offshore wind powerThis section outlines recommended actions for South Korean OFW stakeholders to enable of coexistence between OFW and the commercial fshing sector.The recom-mendations have been developed to address key concerns of the fshing sector(Section 2),learn from internation

304、al experiences,(Section 3),and build on initiatives already under way in South Korea(Section 4).The simultaneous use of government and developer led OFW project schemes in South Korea requires clarity and coordination to avoid confusion among stakeholders.As previously described,South Korea is in th

305、e process of enacting the Offshore Wind Power Promotion Act.The Act will implement a government-led development approach.At the same time,projects are continuing development under the developer-led model.The current situation where two different project development schemes(government-led and develop

306、er-led)are being promoted simultaneously is causing confusion for stakeholders including local government and fsheries.The OFW industry supports the promotion of projects under both systems,however,there needs to be clarity over project schemes.The passing of The Offshore Wind Power Promotion Act sh

307、ould be prioritised to allow clear guidance to future projects.As the Act is currently underway,the industry is committed to supporting the government in defning a clear future policy direction,moving to a new system where the siting of OFW projects will be government-led,whilst understanding that t

308、here are current projects in development under the developer-led model.Once the Act is passed,a clear implementation plan for the Act is required.Upon the passing of the Offshore Wind Promotion Act,it should be implemented with urgency given it is expected to streamline licensing and improve consen-

309、sus-building with fshers.The enactment of the Offshore Wind Power Promotion Act could have a number of positive outcomes.First,the Wind Energy Commission will be able to effciently process project licences and permits.Second,it will be positive for consensus-building with fshers,as public-private co

310、uncils will be operated in the siting process.Third,the government will ensure fsheries acceptance of the project at the site selection stage,so offshore wind operators can expect more stable and predictable project implementation.Considering these points,it is of high priority to enact the Offshore

311、 Wind Power Promotion Act as soon as possible.Undertake multi-stakeholder discussions between government,industry and local communities to address issues facing projects with EBLs,defning government roles,and incorporating community coexistence plans as bid requirements.If the Offshore Wind Power Pr

312、omotion Act is passed,the industry sees opportunities in implementation of the new system First,measures for projects that have already obtained EBLs should be discussed.Second,it is necessary to determine how the central and local governments will divide their roles in the future.Third,it is essent

313、ial to discuss how to consider not only the lowest price as a selection criterion,but also plans for coexistence with local communities when bidding to select a business operator.After the legislation,a more detailed system design will need to be made through an enforcement decree.Improve government

314、 guidance on stakeholder engagement to obtain EBLs for South Korean OFW projects.Regardless of whether or not the Offshore Wind Power Promotion Act is adopted,it is essential to improve the guidance from the government in regard to the stakeholder engagement process that is required for the EBL proj

315、ects.In addition,the EBL only authorises the operator to conduct a preliminary investigation,not an approval of the business,but in South Korea,the electricity business licence is sometimes misunderstood as an approval of the project.It is also necessary to consider improving the terminology of the

316、EBL to clearly convey its meaning.Institutional improvements:Legislation of government-led planned siting and bidding systemfor business developers44GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaRecommendationsFor coexistence to be enabled,action should be ta

317、ken by government,industry,and wider stakeholders.The actions required by each sector are included below.The central government should enact the Offshore Wind Power Promotion Act with a clear implementation plan to clarify the expected stakeholder engage-ment requirements for the EBL projects.As loc

318、al governments are proposed to play a role in siting OFW farms,the central government should increase coordination and provide local govern-ments with the necessary resources,such as budgets and manpower,to enable them to do so.The central government should streamline the various licensing,approval,

319、and permitting processes required for offshore wind projects and clarify the criteria for obtaining permits.The central government should take a leading role to consult not only with fshery but also with other stakeholders such as the Ministry of Defence,Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries,ministry of

320、Environment and Ministry of Trade,Industry and Energy at the stage of siting offshore wind projects.Marine spatial plans should take into account stakeholder consultations with key groups,such as fshers.The central government should prepare integrated guidance or standard in terms of fsheries compen

321、sation and community beneft fund so that develop-ers commonly refer to and apply to offshore wind projects regardless of region with consistency.Working with civil society organisations and other key stakeholders,the central government should develop and implement programs to positively change perce

322、ptions of offshore wind farm development including educational campaigns and capacity building initiatives.Local governments should take a leading role in identifying the eligibility of key stakeholders so that developers can make sure to consult with right people in order to make relevant stakehold

323、er management,as well as in organising community beneft funds and keeping its transparency and equitability in operation.Local governments should leverage new and existing partnerships in-country and internationally so that they are able to build capacity around successful coexistence practices to s

324、trategically plan and execute impactful initiatives at the local level.Local governments should operate public-private councils to ensure that fshers are accommodated during the siting and basic planning stages of offshore wind projects.Local governments should establish offshore wind master plans a

325、t the regional level rather than at the individual project level.This will help to revitalise local industries,including offshore wind and fsheries.Local governments should identify a variety of win-win solutions that can mutually beneft both offshore wind operators and local fshers,as well as indus

326、tries across the wind industry value chain.Working with civil society organisations and other key stakeholders,local governments should strive to build social support for offshore wind development by running capacity-building education programs.Local governments should determine and provide guidelin

327、es onassessing the local community and or fsheries that are directly impacted,assessing the congruence between the natural habitats of local fsh species and the fshers specialisation in a given area.Impacted local community areas including fsheries should be identifed to allow for greater clarity on

328、 various permit requirements(e.g.,the occupancy or use permit of public waters currently requires the unanimous consent of impacted fsheries or local community groups).At present the process of claiming an impact area is not clearly defned.Central GovernmentLocal governments including municipality a

329、nd provincial governments.Recommendations on the role of each actor-45GWEC|Exploring Coexistence Opportunities for Offshore Wind and Fisheries in South KoreaFuture tender criteria recommends preparation on both technical aspects(e.g.economic feasibility,and designing offshore wind farms to account f

330、or fshing vessel passage,etc.)and social aspects(e.g.interaction with local stakeholders such as fshers,local coexistence plan,securing fsheries acceptance of the project,etc.).Standardise the conduct of environmental impact assessment and social impact assessment to prevent various environmental an

331、d social risks that may arise from the construction of offshore wind farms.Improve transparency,and openness in decision-making and strengthen corporate social responsibility by adopting ESG management.Focus on technological innovation measures,including avoidance,minimisation,and remediation to ens

332、ure OFW farms can coexist in harmony with nature.Developer-led projects being promoted under the current system should also ensure that there is suffcient information-sharing and meaningful engagement with local stakeholders,fshers,from the pre-siting phase before obtaining an EBL.Projects that have

333、 already received EBLs should consider establishing local councils to consult with fshers to help increase their acceptance.The creation of an information-sharing system would ensure fshers are well-informed about OFW projects,at an earlier stage and active efforts by project operators to provide accurate information could prevent misunderstandings or potential mistrust of the overall project.Addi