Support study for the evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies : final report.
Date: 2021-08-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
Subjects: EU energy policy, energy technology, integrated maritime policy, marine energy, public consultation, renewable energy, report, research and development

Support study for the 
evaluation of the development 
of ocean energy policies 

Final report 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EUROPEAN  COMMISSION 

Dire ctorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
Dire ctorate A — Maritime Policy and Blue Economy 
Unit A2 — Blue  Economy Sectors, Aquaculture and Maritime Spatial Planning 

Contact: Fe lix  Leinemann 

E-mail:  m are -a2@ec.europa.eu  

European  Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the 
evaluation of the development 
of ocean energy policies 

Final report 

Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers  
to your questions about the European Union. 
Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The  information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, 

phone boxes or hotels m ay charge you). 

LEGAL NOTICE 

This document has been prepared for the European Commission howe ver it re flects the vie ws only of the 

authors, and the Commission cannot be held re sponsible for any use which m ay be made of the information 

contained therein. 

More  information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.e uropa.eu). 

Lux embourg: Publications O ffice  of the European Union, 2021 

ISBN: 978- 92-76-40852-9 

doi:10.2771/56376 

© Europe an Union, 2021 

The  C ommission’s reuse policy is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 De cember 2011 on 

the  re use of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39, https://eur-

le x .europa.eu/eli/dec/2011/833/oj). 

Unle ss otherwise noted, the re use of this document is authorised under the C reative C ommons Attribution 4.0 

Inte rnational (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/lice nses/by/4.0/). This means that re use is 

allowe d, provided appropriate cre dit is given and any changes are  indicated. 

For any use or re production of elements that are not owne d by the EU, permission may need to be sought 

dire ctly from the re spective rightholders.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

Introduction 

Abstract 
Executive summary 
Glossary 
1. 
2. 
2.1 
2.2 
2.3 
2.4 

Methodology 

Approach 
Evaluation questions 

Methods used 
Limitations to  the robustness of the evidence 

3. 
4. 
4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 
4.5 

5. 
5.1 
5.2 
5.3 
5.4 
5.5 
6. 
6.1 
6.2 
6.3 
6.4 
6.5 

Policy context 
Baseline 

Introduction 

EU context 
Member state and regional context 
Private sector context 
Development of key parameters 

Key findings 

Relevance 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 
C oherence 

EU added value 

Conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned 

Relevance 
Effectiveness 
Efficiency 

C oherence 
EU added value 

Appendix 1 – Evaluation question matrix 
Appendix 2 - Summary of evidence from the literature and overview of 

database assessment 

Appendix 3 – Factual summary report on the public consultation 
Appendix 4 – Stakeholder consultation synopsis report 

Appendix 5 – Intervention logic 
Appendix 6 – Overview of Member States’ support policies 

1 
2 
8 
9 
11 
11 
11 
12 
15 

17 
23 
23 
23 
26 
26 
27 

32 
32 
37 
60 
62 
63 
66 
66 
67 
69 
69 
70 
71 

83 
131 
144 
157 
159 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Study - Evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

ABSTRACT 

This study report supports DG MARE’s evaluation of the European C ommission’s policy to promote 

the development of ocean energy. It focuses preliminarily on the  Blue Energy C ommunication (the 
“C ommunication”) and the Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap (the “Roadmap”), but also takes into 

account the  evolution of the EU's wider policy towards renewable energy development and energy 
technology  policy, as  well  as  looks  at  and  the  interactions  with  national/regional  interventions  in 

the  sector. The  study  provides the  C ommission with  overarching conclusions and  lessons learned 
for the possible future review of the European policy for ocean energy. 

Evidence from qualitative and quantitative data collection shows that only partial progress has been 
made in  the implementation of the  actions inscribed in  the C ommunication and the Roadmap. Due 

to  this  and  also  given  the  fact  that  both  the C ommunication  and  the  Roadmap are  “soft”  policy 
tools,  its  direct  effects  on  the  development on  the  ocean  energy sector can  only be  derived to  a 
certain  extent.  However, the  study  nevertheless found  evidence for  positive  impacts  from  those 

policy instruments.  This  includes in  particular  that  they  provided an  agenda that  guided  the  work 
of  stakeholders and  helped  maintain  the  momentum  around  ocean  energy,  both  internally  and 

externally.  

In  general, the  uptake  of  ocean energy technologies has  been substantially  pushed by  the  wider 
support provided by the EU,  in particular for what  concerns the  consolidation of R&D activities (as 
backed  by  financial  instruments  such  as  Horizon  2020)  or  the  improvement  of  stakeholder 

coordination in the sector.  

Despite this,  substantial  challenges to  the further  development of  the sector still  persist,  in terms 
of cost  reductions  and de-risking of  the  technologies, which  require the  continued  support by  the 

European Union,  its Member States, and the private sector. 

1 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

About this study 

This study report supports DG MARE’s evaluation of the European C ommission’s policy to promote 
the development of ocean energy. It focuses preliminarily on the  Blue Energy C ommunication (the 
“C ommunication”) 1 and the Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap (the “Roadmap”), but also takes into 
account the  evolution of the EU's wider policy towards renewable energy development and energy 

technology  policy, as  well  as  looks  at  and  the  interactions  with  national/regional  interventions  in 
the  sector. The  study  provides the  C ommission with  overarching conclusions and  lessons learned 
for the possible future review of the European policy for ocean energy. 

The evaluation  support study  assesses the  effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and  EU 

added value of the  main EU policies and instruments  affecting and supporting ocean energy. 

The EU intervention supporting ocean energy  

The  EU  aims  to  become the  first  climate-neutral  continent  by  2050  and  increasing  the  share of 
renewable energy use in  Europe will  be key to  achieve this  target.  In this  context, it  is crucial  to 
further  develop  and  exploit  the  full  breadth  of  renewable  energy  sources  available  in  the  EU, 

including ocean energy.  

The term ocean energy subsumes five groups of technologies that convert different forms of energy 
present in the ocean to electric energy: wave energy converters, tidal energy converters (including 
technologies  using  tidal  stream  energy  and  tidal  range  and  lagoons),  ocean  thermal  energy 

converters  and  salinity  gradient  converters.  Ocean  energy  is  considered  to  have  a  tremendous 
potential  to provide clean and reliable energy in  the future, contributing  to  meet European climate 

and renewable energy targets, whilst  supporting job creation and economic growth.   

Building  on  the  well-developed  policy  framework  supporting  renewable  energy,  the  European 
C ommission decided to adopt the C ommunication to strengthen its support for the sector and to set 
an agenda of action  to help move the  sector forward. The general objective of the C ommunication 

is  to increase the  uptake of ocean energy by addressing the  main bottlenecks  that  hampered the 
development of the  sector at the  time. In 2014,  these challenges mainly related to costs, financial 

and  profitability  issues;  infrastructure  issues;  administrative  and  regulatory  issues.  To  address 
these, the Communication seeks to:  

•  Bring  together  stakeholders  to  foster  the  competitiveness  of  the  sector  through  coordinate 

actions to enhance technological innovation; 

• 
• 

Facilitate  the industry’s access to finance; 
Improve administrative practices and environmental monitoring. 

To achieve this, the C ommunication outlines four specific actions, separated in  two phases.  

The first phase (2014  – 2016)  included as first action setting  up an Ocean Energy Forum (OEF) 2 in 
order to bring together stakeholders and develop a shared understanding of challenges and devise 

1 C O M(2014)08 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE 
E U ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SO CIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE O F THE REGIONS Blue E nergy Action needed to 
deliver on the potential of oc ean energy in E uropean seas and oceans by 2020 and beyond 

2 See: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/1036  

2 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

workable solutions. In 2016, the OEF delivered the Ocean strategic roadmap Building Ocean Energy 
for Europe (the “Roadmap”) 3 which is the second action of the C ommunication. 

The  second  phase  of  action  (2017-2020)  included  the  potential  development  of  a  European 

Industrial  Initiative  (third  action  of  the  C ommunication),  based  on  the  outcomes  of  the  Ocean 
Energy Forum. Finally, action four of the C ommunication included the development of sector-specific 

guidelines for the implementation  of relevant legislation. 

The  Ocean  strategic  roadmap Building  Ocean  Energy  for Europe,  developed  by  the  OEF,  defined 

four key action plans to  support ocean energy development: 

•  Action  Plan  1:  Establish  a  European  phase-gate  scheme  to  validate  sub-systems  and  early 

prototypes in less mature ocean energy technologies; 

•  Action Plan 2: Set-up a EUR250m Investment Support Fund; 
•  Action  Plan:  Set-up  a  EUR50m  -  EUR70m  Insurance  and  Guarantee  Fund  for  ocean  energy 

demonstrations and pre-commercial projects; and 

•  Action Plan 4: De-risk environmental consenting through an integrated programme of measures 
that  will  develop  guidance  on  planning,  consenting,  research  socioeconomics  and 

demonstration. 

Main conclusions and recommendations 

Relevance 

The objectives of the Blue Energy Communication and Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap were 
appropriate to address the needs and challenges faced by the sector in 2014 overall. 

In  general,  the  objectives  identified  in  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  were  considered 
appropriate to  address the needs and challenges faced by the sector at the time of their adoption. 

These documents created momentum and provided a common direction and priorities for the further 
development  of  the  sector  in  a  moment  when  this  was  much  needed.  This  notwithstanding,  it 

appears that the documents were overoptimistic on the stage of development of the technology and 
in  the expectations of additional support  to be provided by Member States and the  private sector. 
A posteriori, certain elements could have been better considered or been expanded on at the time, 

for  instance  the  link  with  Member  States  strategies  and  approaches  to  ensure  their  future 
interventions, the different business cases for ocean energy, the  needs of certain technologies and 

the connection to specific funding instruments  for the implementation of the actions described.  

Most of the objectives of the Communication and Roadmap remain relevant today, although 
these would benefit from an expansion as recent developments in the sector have caused 
additional needs and challenges to emerge for the ocean energy sector. 

Due  to  the  insufficient  progress  registered  in  the  achievement  of  certain  objectives  of  the 
C ommunication and  Roadmap (e.g.  in  terms  of access to  finance,  de-risking of  the  technologies, 
improvement of  administrative  processes and  environmental monitoring),  most  of  the  objectives 

and  actions  inscribed  thereof  remain relevant  to  address  the  bottlenecks  of  the  sector  today.  In 
addition to this, developments took place since 2014 that would require an adaptation or expansion 
of  the  actions  and  approaches identified  in  these  policy  tools.  For  instance,  additional  efforts  to 

ensure that  dedicated  support  is  provided  to  ocean  energy to  avoid  that  this  needs compete for 
support with  other more advanced technologies, to  engage Member States and private companies 

3 See: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/node/3962  

3 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

in  the  investment  for  ocean  energy,  to  adapt  the  financing  to  the  new  developments  of  the 
technologies  (e.g.  more  focus  on  market  pull  mechanisms  to  stimulate  commercialization),  to 

exploit emerging synergies with  other industries,  and to  avoid that  the  Brexit and the  outbreak of 
C OVID-19 have a negative impact  on the  development of the sector.  

Effectiveness 

Partial progress has been made in the implementation of the actions inscribed in the 
Communication and Roadmap, but relevant work is ongoing for two of the four action plans 
set out in the Roadmap, for what concerns wave energy. 

The  EU  successfully implemented  the  actions  included  under  Phase  1  of  the  C ommunication, by 
setting  up  the  OEF  and  supporting  the  adoption  of  the  Roadmap. For  what  concerns  the  actions 
under Phase 2,  some progress has been made in the  development of sector-specific guidelines for 
the implementation of relevant legislation, in relations to the EU Nature legislation and partially also 

Maritime  Spatial  Planning  processes.  No  progress  was  registered  in  the  establishment  of  and 
European Industrial Initiatives for ocean energy, since the intention  to  not move forward with  this  

had already been communicated in 2014. 

With regards to the four action plans inscribed in the Roadmap, work is ongoing thanks to European 

C ommission  funding  on  the  development  of  a  European  phase-gate  technology  development 
process (Action  Plan 1)  and  on  the  monitoring  of environmental  impacts of  ocean energy (Action 

Plan  2),  but  only  for  what  concerns  wave energy.  Both  the  Investment  Support  Fund  for  ocean 
energy farms (Action Plan 2), and the Insurance and Guarantee Fund for ocean energy (Action Plan 
3) were not  created to  date, and financing and  de-risking of the  technologies still represent major 

bottlenecks  for  the  sector.  This  notwithstanding,  some  upcoming  initiatives  might  represent 
opportunities  for  the  ocean  energy sector in  these fields,  such  as  the Blue  Invest  Fund 4  and  the 
InvestEU programme 5.  

Progress on the achievement of the objectives of the Communication and Roadmap has been 
very limited, and it is challenging to establish a causal relationship between the 
achievements and these policy tools. 

In terms of the achievement of the objectives of the C ommunication and Roadmap, limited progress 
has been registered so far, as many of  the  bottlenecks faced by the  sector in 2014  still  challenge 
the further development of ocean energy to date, as outlined in the  sections below.  

Overall, there has  been an  increase in  the  uptake of  ocean energy in  the  EU,  and  the  sector has 

made  significant  steps  forward  in  terms  of  technological  development  over the  past  5  years,  in 
particular  for  tidal  energy.  However,  this  progress  has  been  slower  than  expected,  and  current 

levels of installed  capacity are far  away from the  expectations outlined  in  the  C ommunication. In 
2018,  total  installed  capacity  of  ocean  energy  devices was  24.7  MW,  while  the  C ommunication 
forecasted this  would amount  to 2.2  GW in  2020 (and  4.3 GW  in 2035).  While it  is not  possible to 

directly  attribute  these  developments  to  the  C ommunication  and  the  Roadmap,  the  wider  EU 
support  has  played  a  key  role,  as  the  majority  of  the  current  installed  capacity  and  the  most 

advanced technologies developed have benefited from EU  financial support.  

It is unclear to what  extent the objective on enhanced stakeholder coordination has been achieved, 

as  very  little  documentary  evidence  is  available  on  this.  While  some  sources  indicate  that 
stakeholder coordination is still  insufficient,  most of  the stakeholders interviewed in  the course of 

4 See: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/1451  
5 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_en  

4 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

this  study maintain that  the  sector is much more structured,  organized and synergetic than it  was 
in  2014.  This  is  also  because of  the  multiple  stakeholder coordination  initiatives  undertaken  or 

supported  by  the  EU,  which  however are  not  linked  to  the  publication  of  the  C ommunication or 
Roadmap and rather predate their adoption. 

Access to  finance  is  still  one  of  the  major  bottlenecks  for  the  ocean  energy  sector.  Despite  the 

substantial  support  provided by the  EU  and  other actors,  developers still  find  it  difficult  to  access 
available funding because of high competition, restrictive requirements and burdensome application 
procedures. The  availability of  private  funding  for  the  sector is  still  limited  by  the  high  risks still 

associated with the development of the technology, particularly in the absence of an Insurance and 
Guarantee fund,  and  by  the  lack of  revenue  support  schemes within  Member  States.  Funding  is 

particularly lacking for the  demonstration of ocean energy technologies. 

Administrative  practices  related  to  consenting  and  licensing  of  ocean  energy  are  still  long  and 

characterized by  uncertainties,  and  the  monitoring  of environmental  impacts  is  still  very limited. 
Despite relevant individual efforts being undertaken to collect data, best practices and lessons learnt 

in these fields, the  progress registered is considered insufficient, and it  still represents a deterrent 
for technology developers’ willingness to test and operate devices.  

The effectiveness of the EU intervention in support of the development of ocean energy has 
been affected by several external factors. 

Different factors have influenced the effectiveness of the overall EU intervention in support for ocean 
energy, both  positively and negatively, since 2014.  For instance, the increased societal awareness 
on climate change and increased interest in renewable energy, including  by different industries, as 

well  as the  lessons learnt from  the development of  other offshore renewable energy technologies 
have had a positive impact  for the  development of the  sector. On  the other  hand, factors such as 

high  profile failures in  the ocean energy industry,  the increased competitiveness of other forms of 
renewable energy technologies,  as  well  as  the  somewhat  poor argumentation  in  favour of  ocean 
energy have had a negative impact on Member States and private investors’ willingness to support 

ocean energy. The limited support received by these actors compared to the expectations have had 
a negative influence on the overall effectiveness of the EU  intervention.  

Efficiency 

It  is  not  possible to  identify quantitative information on the  costs  or  administrative and 
regulatory burdens related to the implementation of the Communication and Roadmap, as 
these are “soft regulation” policy tools. 

The  costs  related  the  implementation  of  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  relate  to  the  costs 
incurred by the European C ommission, Member States and private sector to implement the actions 

inscribed in  these policy tools.  

The European C ommission provided financial support for the set-up of the Ocean Energy Forum and 
for the related development of the  Roadmap. It moreover provided funding support to launch calls 

under Horizon 2020  and the EMFF  to  realize the objectives of two  out  of four action  plans outlined 
in  the  Roadmap, and  namely  Action  Plan  1  on  “A  European phase-gate  technology  development 
process for sub-systems and devices” and  Action Plan  4 on  “De-risking environmental consenting 

through  an integrated  programme of measures”. Quantitative  information is  only available on  the 
amounts  provided for the  calls, but  as work on  those projects is  still  ongoing, it  is  not  possible to 

assess the benefits gained by investing in these initiatives.  

5 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Overall, it  was not  possible to  identify comprehensive quantitative  information with  regards to  the 
costs or administrative and regulatory burdens of implementing  the actions  of the C ommunication 

and Roadmap, especially from the Member States and the private sector. However, given that the 
two  instruments  are “soft  regulation”  policy  tools,  which  do  not  prescribe specific  behaviours or 

actions of organisations and individuals, it is assumed that  they are insignificant. 

Coherence 

The Communication and the Roadmap are internally coherent and in line with the wider EU 
policy framework. 

The C ommunication and the Roadmap are internally coherent and build logically on each other. The 
policy tools are also consistent with  the wider renewable energy and climate policy framework. 

A degree of inconsistency persists between the EU intervention on ocean energy and Member 
States’ strategies and activities in the sector. 

The C ommunication and Roadmap, as well as the broader EU intervention in favour of ocean energy 
development establish  a  common direction  and  ambition  for  the  development of  the  sector.  This 

ambition is not  always reflected in national strategies, such as National Energy C limate Plans, that 
instead  indicated  a  limited  commitment  of  Member  States  to  further  develop  ocean energy as  a 
means  to  achieve  their  renewable  energy  targets.  Where  the  ambition  is  reflected  in  national 

strategies, this is often not matched by the establishment of appropriate support mechanisms, such 
as revenue support, and this represents a considerable challenge for the advancement of the sector 

in practice.  

EU added value 

The Communication and the Roadmap provide EU added value in particular in terms of defining 
a common strategic agenda for the sector, although it remains unclear whether the sector 
would be substantially different now had they not been adopted. The EU added value of the 
broader EU intervention for ocean energy is perceived more clearly. 

The  C ommunication  and  the  Roadmap  achieved  results  that  could  not  have  been  achieved  at 
different levels of intervention, in particular in terms of bringing  the sector’s stakeholders together 

around a specific strategic  agenda. It  remains unclear to what  extent the  implementation of these 
instruments  is directly responsible for the  limited progress witnessed in the  sector up to  now, and 

whether this would be much different had they not been adopted. In general, is difficult to establish 
a  clear  causal  link  between  the  adoption  of  the  C ommunication and  Roadmap  and  the  specific 

developments in  the  ocean  energy sector,  due  to  the  fact  that  these  are  embedded in  the  well-
developed  wider  policy  framework of  EU  renewable  energy  and  energy  technology  policy.  This 
notwithstanding,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  were  only  ever 

intended  to  be  “soft  regulation”  policy  tools,  representing  only  a  part  of  the  picture,  to  be 
complemented by additional interventions by the EU, Member States and the private sector. When 

the broader EU intervention, in particular the financial support provided, is taken into consideration, 
it is clear that this  was crucial for the development of the sector.  

6 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

The EU holds global leadership on ocean energy technologies thanks to the support provided 
by the EU and its Member States so far and a potential withdrawal of its intervention would 
have negative consequences for the sector internally, and also potentially abroad. 

Driven by  the  substantial  support  provided by  EU  institutions  and  its  Member  States,  the  EU-27 
have gained undisputed global technological leadership in the ocean energy sector. Around 70% of 

global ocean energy installed capacity is located in EU waters, and EU  companies hold around half 
of the  patents  for tidal  and wave energy globally. As most  of current projects still  benefit  or have 

benefitted  from  EU’s  support,  the  continuation  of EU’s  financial (e.g.  Horizon  2020  and  Interreg) 
and  strategic  (including  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap,  but  also  general  strategic  support) 
intervention  in  favour of  ocean  energy is  crucial for  the  sector.  The  withdrawing  of  such  support 

would  have very negative consequences for the  sector in  Europe, and given the  high  level of  “EU 
content” in ocean energy technologies developed abroad, this might also have consequences in the 

rest  of  the  world.  What  is  more, this  withdrawal  would  represent a  missed  chance for  the  EU  to 
capitalize on its first mover advance and on the substantial investments made so far, for the benefit 
of global late comers.  

Recommendations 

The European C ommission, as well as its Member States and the private sector should continue to 
undertake activities,  and explore innovative approaches, to achieve progress on the  objectives set 
out  in  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap.  This  is  particularly  important  for  what  concerns  the 

facilitation  of  access  to  finance  for  both  demonstration  and  pre-commercial  projects,  including 
through  revenue  support.  Further  work  on  making  adequate  guarantee  and  insurance  products 
available to ocean energy developers should  be pursued, and  activities  to  improve administrative 

practices and  environmental monitoring  should  be  reinforced. Moreover, additional  efforts should 
be undertaken to  improve alignment of  Member States’ strategies with  the  EU ambition  on  ocean 

energy and to enhance their engagement in support for the sector, including by exploiting existing 
dialogue platforms such as ETIP Ocean and OceanSET. 

7 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

GLOSSARY 

A cronym 

Definition 

CA PEX 

C apital expenditure 

Communication 

Blue  Ene rgy C ommunication 

COSME 

EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs 

DG MA RE 

DG for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries  

EII 

EMFF 

ERDF 

H2020 

LCOE 

MSFD 

MSP  

NECPs 

OEF 

OPEX 

OTEC 

PC 

R&D  

R&I  

Europe an Industrial Initiatives 

Europe an Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

Europe an Regional Development Fund 

Horizon 2020 

Le ve lized C ost of Energy 

Marine  Strategy Framework Directive 

Maritim e Spatial Planning 

National C limate and Energy Action Plans  

O ce an Energy Forum 

O pe rational e xpenditure  

O ce an Thermal Energy Conversion 

Public consultation  

R e search and Development 

R e search and Innovation 

Roadmap 

O ce an Energy Strategic R oadmap 

SET Plan 

Strate gic Energy Technology Plan 

TRL 

WECs 

Te chnology Readiness Level 

W ave  Energy C onversion system 

8 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The present document is the final report of the support study for the evaluation of the development 
of ocean energy policies” 6 for DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE). 

The objective of  this study  is to  assist DG MARE’s  evaluation of the European C ommission’s policy 

to  promote  the  development  of  ocean  energy.  The  study  primarily  examines  the  state  of 
implementation  of  the  different  actions  lined  out  in  the  Blue  Energy  C ommunication  (the 
“C ommunication”) 7 and the Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap (the “Roadmap”) 8, but also takes into 
account the  evolution and further development of the  EU's wider policy towards renewable energy 
development9 and energy technology policy 10; and also looks at interactions with  national/regional 
interventions  .  On  this  basis,  the  study  provides overarching conclusions and  lessons learned for 
the possible future review of the European policy for ocean energy. 

In  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Guidelines 11, the  study  assesses the  effectiveness, efficiency, 
relevance, coherence and  EU  added value  of  the  main  EU  policies  and  instruments  affecting  and 

supporting ocean energy.  

The temporal scope of the assignment (i.e. period of analysis) is 2014  – the year of adoption of the 
C ommunication – until  the end of 2019. 

The  technological  scope  includes  the  five  principal  technology  groups  that  convert ocean  energy 

into electricity, namely: 

Tidal stream energy; 
Tidal range and lagoon; 

•  Wave energy; 
• 
• 
•  Ocean Thermal Energy C onversion (OTEC ); and 
•  Salinity gradient. 

This report presents the work carried out  as well as the results of the work, in the  form of answers 
to the evaluation questions and conclusions and lessons learned/recommendations. 

6  I n line with the discussions in the kick-off meeting we have c hanged the working title of the project from “Evaluation of the 

development of ocean energy and s upport policies” to “Evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies” to avoid 
c onfusion about the scope of the s tudy. 

7 C O M(2014)08 final COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE 
E U ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SO CIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE O F THE REGIONS Blue E nergy Action needed to 
deliver on the potential of oc ean energy in E uropean seas and oceans by 2020 and beyond. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0008  

8 O c ean Energy Forum (2016) O cean E nergy Strategic Roadmap 2016, building ocean energy for Europe. Available at: 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/node/3962  

9 For more information on the EU’s renewable energy policies, s ee here: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/renewable-
energy_en  
10 For more information on the EU’s research and innovation policies related to renewable energy see here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/energy-research-and-innovation_en  

11 E uropean Commission, 2017, Better Regulation Guidelines (SWD (2017) 350). A vailable at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law- making-process/planning-and-proposing-law/better-regulation-why-and-how/better-
regulation-guidelines-and-toolbox_en . T he Better Regulation G uidelines s et out the principles that the E uropean Commission 
follows when preparing new initiatives and proposals and when managing and evaluating existing legislation. T his includes 
c ertain minimum criteria for evaluations, which we are referring to here.  

9 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

The evaluation relies on a mixed methods approach, making use of both qualitative and quantitative  
data  collected through  desk review, a Public  C onsultation 12, and interviews  with  the  public  sector 
(including  at EU, national and regional level), private sector actors, and research institutions. 

12 See: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12061-Evaluation-of-ocean-energy-
development-and-support-policies/public-consultation 

10 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

2.  METHODOLOGY 

This chapter provides a brief overview of the methodology, notably the data collection and analysis 
tools used, and limitations to the reliability or representativeness of the information used to develop 

findings.  

2.1  Approach 

The  study  encompasses  both  a  summative  and  a  formative  perspective.  It  focuses  on  the 
assessment of  the  achievements of  the  C ommunication and  the  Roadmap during  the  years they 

have  been  implemented  (summative  dimension)  and,  where  relevant,  gives  clear  and 
implementable recommendations for improvements (formative dimension), based on the evidence 

collected. 

It should be noted that  the evaluation took place at a time when the Roadmap had been published 

for less than  four years which gives rise to  challenges in assessing impacts and results that  take a 
longer time  to  materialise, especially in  an area as  diverse and  fragmented  as renewable energy 

development. 

The  approach  to  this  evaluation  consisted  in  assessing  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence and  EU  added value of the  C ommunication and Roadmap, also taking  into  account  the 
evolution and further development of the EU’s wider policy towards renewable energy development 

and energy technology policy. To ensure the robustness of the assessment, a structured evaluation 
approach was used, relying on an elaborated intervention logic, operationalised evaluation matrix, 

and a mix of data collection and analytical methods. 

2.2  Evaluation questions 

In  line  with  the  requirements  of  the  C ommission’s Better  Regulation  Guidelines,  the  evaluation 
criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value were covered as part 

of this  evaluation. To  do so,  thirteen  evaluation questions  were answered which  are presented in 
the Table below. 

Table 2.1 Overview of evaluation questions 

Criterion 

Evaluation questions 

Relevance 

EQ  1.  To what e x tent have the objectives of the intervention proven to be appropriate 

for re sponding to the needs identified in the impact assessment? 

EQ  2.  To what e x tent do the obje ctives of the intervention re main appropriate in the 

light of the evolution of the EU e nergy, climate, maritime and R &I policies? 

Effectiveness  EQ  3.  W hat progre ss has been made in implementing the activities of the interve ntion? 

EQ  4.  To what e x tent have the objectives of the intervention been met so far? 

EQ  5.  W hat have been the quantitative and qualitative e ffects of the intervention? 

EQ  6.  W hat factors have influenced e ffectiveness (positively or negatively), how and to 

what e x te nt? 

Efficiency 

EQ  7.  To what e x tent are  the costs of implementing the intervention justified, given the 

be nefits it has achieved? 

11 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Criterion 

Evaluation questions 

EQ  8.  W hat factors have influenced e fficiency (positively or negatively), how and to what 

e x te nt? 

Coherence 

EQ  9.  To what e x tent are  the components of the intervention coherent internally; are 

the re  any overlaps, inconsistencies, or incoherencies? 

EQ  10. To what e x tent is the interve ntion coherent with wide r EU policy and initiatives? 

EQ  11. To what e x tent is the interve ntion coherent with other re levant EU support 

sche mes (e.g. funding, sectorial policies), in particular linked to re newables and 
innovation? 

EU A dded 
Value 

EQ  12. W hat is the additional value re sulting from the intervention, compared to what 

could have been e xpected from private initiatives and investments, and Member 
State s acting at national/regional levels?  

EQ  13. W hat would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the 

e x isting intervention?  

These  questions  were  subdivided  into  sub-questions,  as  outlined  in  Appendix  1  -    Evaluation 
question  matrix.  These  were  further  operationalised,  and  associated  indicators  and  judgement 
criteria  were  developed,  to  provide  a  framework  within  which  the  appropriate  data  could  be 

collected, and evaluative judgements could be made. 

2.3  Methods used 

The  methodology  included  a  database  and  literature  review, in-depth  interviews  with  the  public 
sector (including at EU, national and regional level), private sector actors, and research institutions , 

and a Public C onsultation. 

2.3.1  Database and literature review  

Method 

A review of  existing databases and  relevant literature was carried out.  The aim of this  review was 
to collect, organise and analyse relevant information from secondary sources. 

The  review  of  existing  databases  aimed at  collecting  relevant  quantitative  data  e.g.  on  installed 

capacities,  deployment  and  power  generation,  ongoing  and  planned  projects  for  the  evaluation 
study.  Available databases were assessed in  detail,  and  the  most  relevant evidence was  fed  into 

the answers to  the evaluation questions. 

The review of the  literature covered legislative documents, strategy and policy papers, technology 
and market reports, scientific papers and industry reports. The information was coded using NVivo 
following a coding framework based on the indicators outlined in the evaluation matrix, which made 

it possible to track key gaps in evidence, which guided the revision of data collection tools to ensure 
adequate  coverage of  those  aspects  for  which  limited  documentary evidence  was  available. The 

results of this  review formed the basis for the development of the baseline and for the answers to 
evaluation questions. 

12 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Data reliability and limitations linked to the method 

The  databases  used  to  feed  into  this  project  are  all  published  by  reliable  institutions  and  are 
considered robust. 

The  literature  that  was  assessed  included  legislative  documents,  strategy  and  policy  papers, 

technology and market reports, scientific papers and industry reports. They can also be considered 
reliable and are cited throughout  the document. 

2.3.2  Targeted consultations 

Method 

Interviews were carried out with public sector actors (including at EU,  national and regional level), 
private sector actors, and research institutions,  to  gather their insights  into several aspects of this  
study. 

Tailored interview  questionnaires  were developed for  the  different  stakeholder groups.  The  table 

below summarises the main consultation themes that  were focused on for the different stakeholder 
groups. 

Table 2.2 Consultation themes per stakeholder category 

Category 
stakeholder 

of 

Proposed consultation themes 

Public sector 

Information  about  the  relevance, effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence  and 

EU  added  value  of  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap,  information  about 
relevant  policy  and  funding  support  provided  to  the  ocean  energy sector, 
recommendations 

Private sector 

Information  about  the  relevance, effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence  and 

EU  added  value  of  the  C ommunication,  information  about  relevant  policy 
and  funding  support  received  or  needed,  information  about  technology 
deployment, identified challenges (e.g. related to the specific scope of action 

of the interviewee), recommendations 

Research 

Information  about  the  relevance, effectiveness,  efficiency, coherence  and 

EU  added  value  of  the  C ommunication,  information  about  relevant  policy 
and  funding  support  received  or  needed,  information  about  technology 

deployment, research needs and recommendations 

A total of 25 interviews were conducted. The table below presents an overview of the interviewees. 

Table 2.3 Conducted interviews per stakeholder group 

Category of 
stakeholder 

Type of stakeholder  

Conducted 

Public sector 

EU institutions and bodies  

Inte rnational organisations  

Private sector 

Industry re pre sentatives 

Me m ber State Institutions and bodies – National and re gional 

Finance/Insurance/Investment sector 

Te chnology developers – Tidal 

Te chnology developers – Wave 

2 

1 

7 

1 

2 

2 

3 

13 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Category of 

stakeholder 

Type of stakeholder  

Conducted 

Te chnology developers – OTEC  

Te chnology developers – Salinity gradient 

Utility 

C luster organisation 

Research 

R e search organisations 

Total 

1 

1 

1 

1 

3 

25 

The interviews were semi-structured, following  interview guides designed for each of the different 
stakeholder  categories.  Detailed  interview  notes  were  taken  for  each  interview,  which  were 

subsequently analysed using the qualitative analysis software NVivo.  

An analysis of the results of these interviews is presented in Appendix 3 to this report. The results 

fed into the answers to the evaluation questions. 

Data reliability and limitations linked to the method 

No  difficulties  were  encountered in  identifying  relevant stakeholders for all  envisaged categories. 
The data collected through interviews was useful and relevant to respond to all evaluation questions 
that  were foreseen to make use of these interviews.  

The stakeholders interviewed in the  course of the  study  can be considered “expert” stakeholders, 

since they are all directly involved in the development of the ocean energy sector, and as such they 
provided “expert” opinion and insights on the sector. The interviewees constituted  a representative 

sample of stakeholders from within  the ocean energy sector, as they belonged to the most relevant 
and  influential  categories  involved  in  the  sector,  such  as  policymakers (EU,  Member  States  and 
International),  private  sector  (industry  representatives, technology  developers from  each  of  the 

four  technologies  object  of  the  study,  utilities  and  cluster  organisations),  as  well  as  research 
organisations  involved  in  the  ocean-energy related  research projects.  At  the  same  time,  these 

stakeholders most  likely have a vested interest in  seeing the  sector progress, and this  factor was 
considered when assessing the input.   

2.3.3  Public consultation  

Method 

On  27th  August  2020,  the  European  C ommission launched  a  public  consultation  to  gather  the 
opinions of the  broader stakeholder community on  the Ocean Energy C ommunication, and to take 
stock  of  ocean  energy development in  Europe.  Once  launched,  the  public  consultation  remained 
open for responses from all EU  citizens for 15 weeks, until 10th of December 2020. 

A total  of 71  respondents participated  to  the  public  consultation.  Of  these, one  response was  not 
taken into  account as  it  came from a  member of  the  project team,  therefore the  total  number of 
responses  analysed  is 70.  Two  stakeholders  that  were  consulted  in  the  course  of  the  targeted 

interviews  also  replied  to  the  public  consultation  (namely,  one  technology  developer  and  one 
representative of  the  European  C ommission), and  their  responses are  taken  into  account  in  the 

analysis. All the responses received were complete. 

Following the profiling questions, respondents were split into groups based on those that wanted to 

provide their ‘View on the sector of ocean energy’ and those who wanted to provide a ‘Detailed view 

14 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

on  the  Blue Energy C ommunication and  the  Roadmap’. 41  respondents belong to  the  first  group, 
and 29 to the  latter. 

During  data  cleaning it  was found  that  18  out  of  these  29  responses correspond to  “coordinated 
answers” according  to  the  Better  Regulations  Toolbox 13 and the  decision was  made to  segregate 
the data and conduct a separate analysis so to not skew the results. These answers were segregated 

from the  main dataset and the  main differences are highlighted  during the analysis.  

The results from the survey were analysed in Excel. The detailed analysis is presented in Appendix 

3 to this  report. 

Data reliability and limitations linked to the method 

Difficulties were encountered in  generating a high response rate to  the Public C onsultation. As the 
majority  of  respondents only  provided  their general views  on  the  sector of  ocean  energy, and  a 
campaign  of  coordinated  answers  was  identified  in  the  course  of  data  cleaning  among  the 

stakeholders that provided their detailed view on the Blue Energy C ommunication and the Roadmap, 
there are limitations to the robustness of the contribution  of the public consultation as evidence for 

the study and this  has been flagged out  in the report, where relevant. 

In  addition  to  this,  as for  the  targeted  consultations,  the  stakeholders that  replied  to  the  Public 
C onsultation are for the most part “expert” stakeholders, and as such they provided “expert” opinion 
and  insights  on  the  sector. The  fact that  there a  campaign of  coordinated answers was  identified 

can  also  signal  that  a  number  of  expert  stakeholders  wanted  to  pass  a  clear  message  for 
consideration of the  study and  its readers. At the  same time,  these stakeholders most likely have 

a vested interest in seeing the sector progress, and this factor should be considered when assessing 
the conclusions based on their input.   

2.4  Limitations to the robustness of the evidence 

In  the  process  of  data  collection  and  analysis,  a  few  general  challenges  and  limitations  were 

encountered. There are listed in the Table below, along with the way the challenges and limitations 
were addressed or mitigated. 

Table 2.4 Challenges encountered in the evaluation 

Challenge  

Solution / mitigation  

The   Blue   Ene rgy C ommunication  and  the   O ce an  Energy 
R oadmap are  “soft re gulation”14 policy tools which do not 
spe cify behaviour of organisations or individuals. 

The y are embedded in we ll-defined policy frameworks, most 

notably  of  re se arch  and  innovation  policy,  as  we ll  as 

re ne wable  e ne rgy  policy.  The   e ffe cts  of  the   policy 
inte rve ntions are thus difficult to separate from the effects of 
the  wide r policy framework.  

The  challenge was alre ady identified during 
the  ince ption and interim stage. 

To  m itigate this  challe nge, this  e valuation 
study presents, where  possible, two layers of 
e vide nce for e valuation questions. 

In  a  first  laye r, e vide nce is  pre se nted for 

e ffe cts  that  can  be   cle arly  link e d  to  the  
R oadmap and the C ommunication. 

13 Better Regulation Tool #5 4, page 4 9. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-
toolbox-54_en_0.pdf  

14 Better Regulation Toolbox. T ool #18 T he choice of policy instruments. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-18_en_0.pdf  

15 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Challenge  

Solution / mitigation  

The  publication of the Public C onsultation was de layed, and 
re sults we re  only available towards the e nd of the study. 

In a se cond layer, e vidence is pre sented that 

link s to  the   wide r  fram e work of  re se arch, 
innovation, and re newable e nergy policy. 

The  project te am undertook se veral e fforts to 

com m unicate about the  Public C onsultation 
through  the   im plementation  of  a  de tailed 
stak eholder e ngagement plan. 

This  included  e .g.  adve rtisement  though 

social m e dia accounts and  re aching out to 
re le vant  um brella  organisations  and  other 

m ultipliers to e nsure that they inform their 
m e mbers about the  Public C onsultation and 
se nd reminders.  

The  Public C onsultation partly  ran  in  parallel to  another 

In 

the   com m unication  on  the   Public 

initiative in the same policy field, the EU strategy for offshore 
re ne wables15.  There was a risk that stakeholders confuse the 
two parallel initiatives. 

C onsultation the parallel initiative was clearly 

m e ntioned and the differences between the 
two e x plained, to avoid confusion. 

W he n reaching out to umbre lla organisations 
and other stakeholders they we re  specifically 

ask ed to m ake the ir m e mbers aware  of the  
diffe rences betwe en the two. 

15 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12517-Offshore-renewable-energy-
s trategy/public-consultation  

16 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

3.  POLICY CONTEXT 

The potential of ocean energy 

Renewable energy can  be produced from a wide  variety of sources. By using more renewables to 
meet its energy needs, the EU lowers its dependence on imported fossil fuels and makes its energy 

production  more sustainable.  The  renewable energy industry  also drives technological  innovation 
and employment across Europe. 

Within  this  context,  ocean energy is  considered to  have a  tremendous  potential  to provide clean 
and reliable energy in the future 16 contributing  to meet European renewable energy targets, whilst 
supporting job creation and economic growth 17. 

The term ocean energy subsumes five groups of technologies that convert different forms of energy 
present in the ocean to electric energy: wave energy converters, tidal energy converters (including 

technologies  using  tidal  stream  energy  and  tidal  range  and  lagoons),  ocean  thermal  energy 
converters and salinity gradient converters. 

Europe has  a 70,000  km coastline  along  four seas, the  Baltic,  the  North  Sea, the  Mediterranean, 
and the Black Sea, and two oceans, the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. Along those coastlines, there is 

enormous  theoretical  potential  of  energy that  could  be  harvested  –  given  that  the  right  energy 
policy framework is in place to foster the development of the  technologies. 

The EU policy framework supporting renewable energy 

The development of a common energy policy in Europe took pace in 2006, when  the C ommission’s 
green  paper  A  European  for  Sustainable,  Competitive  and  Secure  Energy 18  was  published, 
identifying  a  number  of  common  challenges,  such  as  the  growing  demand  for  energy and  fossil 
fuels,  reliance  on  energy  imports,  increasing  energy  prices  and  climate  change  projections.  The 

green paper called for action in six priority areas, including the diversification of the energy mix to 
improve  energy  security  and  efficiency,  whilst  ensuring  sustainable  and  competitive  energy 
generation.  It  led  to  the  initial  definition  of  Europe’s  Energy  Policy 19  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas 
emissions by 20%, increase the proportion of energy consumption from renewable sources by 20% 
and achieve a 20%  improvement in energy efficiency (in relation to 1990  levels) 20. 

In line  with  this,  the  Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC )  established a common framework 
for the promotion  of energy from renewable sources. Acknowledging the  importance of renewable 

energy, the EU  also set binding  targets  for the share of final  energy consumption  from renewable 
sources to be obtained by 2020  (20% by the EU  as a whole). 

16 C ommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
C ommittee and the Committee of the regions. Blue E nergy, Action needed to deliver on the potential of ocean energy in 
E uropean seas and oceans by 2020 and beyond. COM(2014) 8  final. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu  [L ast accessed 
0 2 /12/19] 

17 C ommunication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
C ommittee and the Committee of the regions. I nnovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our s eas and oceans 
for jobs  and growth. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu [L ast accessed 02/12/19] 

18 C ommission of the E uropean Communities (2006) Green Paper. A E uropean Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and 
Sec ure E nergy. Available at: https://europa.eu [L ast accessed 02/12/2019] 

19 C ommission of the E uropean Communities (2007) Communication from the Commission to the European Council and the 
P arliament. An Energy Policy for E urope.  See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
c ontent/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0001&from=EN 

20 D irective 2009/28/EC of the European P arliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy 
from renewable s ources. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32009L0028  

17 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

With the target year of 2020 approaching, longer-term decarbonisation efforts came into focus and 
a discussion on EU objectives for 2030 arose. The European C ouncil decided on climate and energy 
targets for 2030 in October 2014 21. The heads of state and government agreed on a legally binding 
new renewable energy target of at least 27% of final energy consumption for the whole EU by 2030. 

The  target  for  renewables was  revised upwards  in  2018  to  at  least  32%.  The Renewable  Energy 
Directive was  revised  in  2018  and  incorporates now  the  same  32%  goal 22. This  was  part  of  the 
“C lean  Energy  Package” 23  which  in  turn  facilitates  the  implementation  of  the  “Energy  Union 
Strategy 24”. 

In  2020,  the  EU  adopted  the  2030  climate  target  plan,  which  establishes  that  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  should  be  reduced  by  at  least  55%  by  2030  compared  to  1990.  To  deliver  on  this  

increased ambition, the C ommission planned to revise existing legislation, including the Renewable 
Energy  Directive, in  2021.  The  revision will  consider the  upward  review  of  the  2030  target  of  at 
least 32% of renewables.  

The EU policy response to foster the deployment of Ocean Energy: A communication and 

a roadmap 

To  better  exploit  the  enormous  potential  of  ocean  energy  within  this  wider  renewable  energy 
framework and  push the  Technology Readiness Level (TRL)  of the  technologies towards  industrial 
roll-out (TRL 7-9) 25, the European C ommission launched a number of targeted support instruments. 

This  includes  notably the  2014  C ommunication on  Blue Energy16 (the  “C ommunication”)  which  is 
subject to  this  project. It was published  recognising, that  ocean energy was at  the time  still  at an 
early development stage but had the potential  to develop over time. 

The  C ommunication  recommends  four  specific  actions,  separated  in  two  phases  of  action.  The 
approach of rolling  out  the  actions  in  two  phases was  according to  the  C ommunication chosen to 

“allow  for the  accumulation  of a  critical  mass of actors  and development of  a shared response to 
the  issues  at  stake in  a  bottom-up  manner,  thus  creating  a  sense of  ownership  among  involved 

stakeholders” for the  second phase. 

The first phase (2014  –  2016)  included as first action  setting  up the Ocean Energy Forum (OEF) 26 
in  order  to  bring  together  stakeholders  and  develop  a  shared  understanding  of  challenges  and 
devise workable solutions. In 2016, the OEF delivered the Ocean strategic road map Building Ocean 
Energy for Europe 27 (the “Roadmap”) which is the second action of the  C ommunication. 

The  second  phase  of  action  (2017-2020)  included  the  potential  development  of  a  European 
Industrial  Initiative  (third  action  of  the  C ommunication),  based  on  the  outcomes  of  the  Ocean 

21 A  policy framework for c limate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. See : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
c ontent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015   

22 D irective (EU) 2018/2001 of the E uropean Parliament and of the Council of 1 1 December 2 018 on the promotion of the use 
of energy from renewable sources. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj  

23 C lean Energy for all Europeans. See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:fa6ea15b-b7b0-11e6-9e3c-
0 1 aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  

24 A  Framework Strategy for a Resilient E nergy Union with a Forward-Looking Climate Change P olicy. See: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:80:FIN  

25 T he c lassification of the “industrial roll-out phase” has been defined in the O cean E nergy Strategic Roadmap “Building 
O cean Energy for E urope”. T he definition of TRL employed is the one provided by the European Commission Horizon 2 020 
framework. 

26 See more information at: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu [L ast accessed 02/12/19] 

27 Available at: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu   [Last accessed 02/12/19] 

18 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Energy Forum. Finally, action four of the C ommunication included the development of sector-specific 
guidelines for the implementation  of relevant legislation.  

The  Ocean  strategic roadmap Building  Ocean  Energy  for Europe ,  developed  by  the  OEF, 

defined four key action plans to support ocean energy development: 

• 

Establish  a European phase-gate scheme to validate sub-systems and early prototypes in  less 
mature ocean energy technologies; 

•  Set-up a EUR250m Investment Support Fund; 
•  Set-up a EUR50m  - EUR70m  Insurance and Guarantee Fund  for ocean energy demonstrations 

and pre-commercial projects; and 

•  De-risk  environmental  consenting  through  an  integrated  programme  of  measures  that  will 

develop guidance on planning,  consenting, research socioeconomics and demonstration. 

The assessment of the implementation and recent development of each of these phases and actions 
is the object of this study and is presented in chapter 5.  

A set of relevant policy tools to support Ocean Energy 

Other policies, instruments  and programmes that supported the ocean energy sector 28, include 
the following: 

• 

• 

The  Integrated Maritime Policy 2007 29,  which  calls for  an  increased coordination  between 
different policy areas, and identifies Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) 30 as an important tool for 
the  sustainable  development of marine areas and  coastal regions, including  in  relation to  the 
deployment of ocean energy technologies; 
The C ommission’s C ommunication on Accelerating Clean Energy Innovation 2016 31, which 
lays out a comprehensive strategy for the  three main policy levers the EU  can deploy to  boost 
private investment in  clean energy innovation; 
The  Strategic Energy Technologies Plan (SET  Plan) 32,  which  sets  the  agenda  for  an  EU 
energy  technology  policy  and  establishes  European  Industrial  Initiatives  (EII),  already 
implemented in the offshore wind sector and available to support the ocean energy sector;  
•  Horizon 2020 funding for research and innovation, which,  among others, currently provides 
funding  to  the  Ocean Energy  ERA-Net  cofound  initiative 33  to  coordinate support  for research 
and development in  ocean energy, to  encourage collaborative projects that  tackle some of the 
key challenges identified for the sector as it  progresses towards commercialisation.  

• 

•  NER300  programme 34 for renewable energy technologies and carbon capture and storage; 
• 

Interreg Europe 35 (financed by the European Regional Development Fund),  aimed at helping 
regional and local governments across Europe to develop and deliver better policy by supporting 

actions  developed  in  research  and  innovation,  SME  competitiveness,  low-carbon  economy, 
environment and resource efficiency; 

28 D uring the temporal scope c overed by this evaluation. 
29 I nc luding the s o-called “Blue P aper” (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52007DC0575) and 
the c orresponding action plan (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52007SC1278) 
30 T he requirement for M ember States to prepare maritime spatial plans is captured in the Maritime Spatial P lanning D irective 
2 0 14/89/EU (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089) 

31 See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0763  
32 See: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2016.133.01.0025.01.ENG  

33 See: https://www.oceancofund.eu/  
34 See: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund/ner300_en  

35 See: https://www.interregeurope.eu/about-us/what-is-interreg-europe/  

19 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

•  Regional initiatives, including, among others: 

• 

• 

The original Atlantic Action Plan 36, which aims to boost the Atlantic Ocean Area’s sustainable 
blue economy by 2020,  and the version 2.0,  updated in 2020 37. 
EU  Strategy  for  the  Baltic  Sea  Region  2013 38,  which  aims  to  strengthen  cooperation 
between countries bordering the Baltic and provides for regional energy policy. 

Recent policy developments 

Ocean energy and renewable energy operate in a highly dynamic policy field. 

While  not  covered  by  the  temporal  scope  of  this  evaluation,  there  are  a  number  of  recent 
developments in the  policy framework which  have the  potential  to  further influence the  uptake of 

ocean energy in the  future. The most relevant are listed in the Box below. 

Box 3.1 Recent policy developments outside the temporal scope of the evaluation 

Recent developments – Policy 

The European Green Deal39 

The  European Gre e n De al was adopted in 2019 by the  von der Le ye n C ommission and it pre sents the  
C om mission’s integrated strategy to transform the  EU into a m odern, re source  e fficient and com petitive, 
e conomy, while le aving no one behind. The Green De al sits on three pillars:  

• 
• 
• 

C lim ate neutrality of the EU by 2050; 

Econom ic growth decoupled from re source  use; 
Just transition for all Europeans. 

The  European Green fully re cognises the key role of the offshore  renewable energy sector in contributing to 

the  cle an e nergy transition and that this sector will  have  to substantially scale up to re ach the  climate 
ne utrality target by 2050. 

EU offshore renewable energy strategy 40 

In Nove mber 2020, the European C ommission adopted the EU strategy on Offshore renewable energy41 
that assesses the potential contribution of the sector to the ambitious EU energy and climate targets, as well 

as proposes way forward to support the long-term sustainable development of offshore  re newable e nergy. 
The  strategy: 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Se ts ambitious targets for the growth of the sector; 
Provides a clear and stable le gal framework within which this can develop; 

Encourages public and private investments; 
Stim ulates re gional cooperation within the EU. 

W ith re gards to ocean energy, the strategy sets ambitious targets: by 2030, overall installed capacity should 
re ach at least 1 GW , and by 2050 this should be 40 GW. 

36 See: https://atlanticstrategy.eu/en/content/atlantic-strategy  
37 See: https://atlanticstrategy.eu/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/aap_v2.0_en.pdf  

38 See: https://www.balticsea-region-strategy.eu/  
39 See : https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/european-green-deal-communication_en.pdf  

40 See : https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/offshore_renewable_energy_strategy.pdf  
41 C O M(2020)741 C ommunication from the Commission to the E uropean Parliament, the C ouncil, the European Economic and 
Soc ial Committee and the Committee of the Regions An EU Strategy to harness the potential of offshore renewable energy 
for a c limate neutral future (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0741) 

20 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Recent developments – Funding 

Innovation Fund 42 

The  Innovation Fund is one of the world’s largest funding programme for demonstration of innovative low-

carbon te chnologies. The re venues for the  Innovation Fund com e from the  auctioning of 450 million EU 
Em ission Trading Syste m allowances from 2020 to 2030, as we ll as any u nspent funds com ing from  the  
NER 300 programme. The Fund may amount to about 10 billion EUR, depending on the carbon price. 

The  Fund aims to cre ate the right financial ince ntives for proje cts to inve st now in the  ne xt ge neration of 
te chnologies needed for the  EU’s low-carbon transition, including innovative re newable e nergy generation, 

and as such it can play an important role in supporting the development of ocean e nergy. This is particularly 

true  as one of the aims of the Fund is to share the risk with proje ct promoters to help with the demonstration 
of first-of-a-kind highly innovative projects. 

The  first calls for proposals will open in 2020-2021. 

InvestEU 43 

The  Inve stEU Programme will  bring together under one roof the  m ultitude of EU financial instruments 

curre ntly available and e xpand the succe ssful m odel of the Investment Plan for Europe, the  Juncker Plan. 

W ith InvestEU, the Commission will further boost investment, innovation and job cre ation, triggering at least 
650 billion EUR  in additional inve stment. The InvestEU Programme will finance projects in different policy 

are as, including sustainable e nergy, for the period 2021-2027. As such, the programme can provide support 
and guarantees for e merging technologies such as ocean e nergy.  

Blue Invest Initiative 44 

The  Blue Invest Initiative will channel funding towards e nterprises active in the field of Blue Economy. This 
will be  done thanks to: 

• 

• 

The  allocation of grants to SMEs targeting the blue e conomy via the “Blue Invest Grants”, with a budget 

of 22.5 million EUR  earmarked from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
The  provision of finance to financial intermediaries targeting the  blue e conomy via “Blue Invest Fund”, 

with 75 m illion EUR e armarked from the European Investment Fund 

C alls for applications for the “Blue Invest Grants” have been closed in February 2020, the one for the “Blue 
Inve st Fund” in September 2020. 

NextGenerationEU and Recovery and Resilience Facility 45 

Ne x tGe nerationEU re covery plan is a te mporary initiative designed to boost the re covery post-COVID-19 in 
Europe . It is coupled with the  R ecovery and R esilience Facility, an instrument that will m ake 672.5 billion EUR 

available in loans and grants to support re forms and investments undertaken by Member States to mitigate 

the  e conomic and social im pact of the coronavirus pandemic and m ake European e conomies and societies 
m ore  sustainable, re silient and better prepared for the challenges and opportunities of the green and digital 

transitions. 37% of the Facility’s budget will be channelled to the green transition, and it will be important to 
support re forms and investments in offshore  renewable energy under the ‘Powe r up’ flagship initiative. 

The current state of ocean energy in Europe 

The  ocean energy sector has  experienced growth  in  Europe  over the  last  few  years, both  due  to 
continuous  progress in technology and successful demonstration projects. The EU is  considered to 
host  78%  of  global  wave  and  tidal  energy capacity,  which  has  itself  doubled  between  2017  and 

42 See : https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund_en  

43 See : https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/recovery-plan-europe_en  
44 See : https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/1451  

45 See : https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/recovery-coronavirus/recovery-and-resilience-facility_en  

21 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

2018. However, the operational capacity of ocean energy within the EU lacks behind expectations46 
and  it  is  clear that  there  are still  a  number  of challenges that  need to  be  addressed, including  in 

relation  to  supporting  policy  and  access  to  financial  instruments  aimed  at  supporting  the 
commercialisation of prototypes and demonstration projects 47.  

The  current  state  of  ocean  energy in  Europe  according  to  the  resource (wave,  tidal,  OTEC  and 

salinity  gradient)  and  the  different  technologies  under  development  is  summarized  in two  JRC ’s 
reports published in  2019 48.  

Wave energy 

Wave  Energy  C onverters  demonstration  projects  have  been  deployed  by  different  technology 
developers. Main  focus has been on point  absorbers (small devices compared to  the  wave length) 

OceanEnergy, Oceantec Marmok,  Wedge W1,  Demowave, C orpower C 3, Seabased, Nemos, Wello 
Pengui, Laminaria and  integrated in  breakwaters such as SinnPower, Ecowavepower, Mitrico  OWC  
plant,  floating  or  submerged  Surging  flaps  WavePiston,  WaveRoller,  and  larger  floating  and 

submerged structures  like the Hace in  and Bomboa integrating  power from several absorbers to a 
common larger turbines  are being  tested. The demonstration of  these technologies typically takes 

place at  European test sites such as at EMEC , Mitriku,  Plocan, Sem-Rev, FabTest  and DanWEC . 

Tidal energy 

Tidal  technologies  which  are  tested  and  demonstrated  range  from  the  240 MW  tidal  barrages 
La-Range that was built  in the 1960th  to modern fixed and floating tidal stream turbines similar to 
underwater windmills  (Nova  Innovation, Atlantis,  Andritz  Hydro-Hammerfest, Openhydro, Orbital, 

Schottel,  and Tocardo) and tidal  kites like Minesto  being deployed at  the  Faroe islands. These are 
still considered demonstration projects, being tested for prolonged times, and operational strategies 

are being implemented and improved before commercial roll-out can take place. 

OTEC 

The OTEC  resource in European continental waters is limited;  nevertheless, some projects exist. In 
Europe  e.g.  the  OTEC  specialist  Bluerise (spinoff  from  TU  Delft)  which  has  been  bought  by  the 
offshore company Allseas. OTEC  is also used for heating and cooling of buildings on a smaller scale 

i.e. in the Principality of Monaco. 

Salinity Gradient 

Salinity  Gradient  power  can  also  contribute  to  base  load  electricity  production  with  a  significant 
potential  worldwide.  Two  principles  can be  used,  Pressure Retarded Osmosis or  Reversed Electro 
Dialysis.  A  Pressure Retarded  Osmosis  prototype  was  built  by  Statkraft  in  Norway  in  2010,  but 

development was put on halt in 2013.  The Reversed Electro Dialysis technology is being developed 
by  REDstack  in  the  Netherlands  with  a  prototype  demonstration  plant  at  the  Blue  Energy  pilot 

installation on the Afsluitdijk. It is not clear how fast salinity gradient technologies will develop both 
in terms of technology and market. 

46 M agagna, D ., O cean Energy T echnology D evelopment Report 2018, EUR 29907 EN, E uropean C ommission, L uxemburg, 
2 0 19, I SBN 978-92-76-12428-3, doi:10.2760/158132, J RC118296.9 

47 E uropean Commission (2018) M arket Study on O cean Energy. A vailable at: https://www.etipocean.eu [Accessed 02/12/19] 
48 J RC (2019) Technology Development and T echnology M arket Report.  

22 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

4.  BASELINE 

4.1 

Introduction 

To  evaluate  the  effects  of  the  C ommunication  and  the  Roadmap,  the  study  developed  a 

counterfactual  scenario  which  assumes  the  C ommunication  the  Roadmap  had  not  existed.  The 
baseline provides a point of comparison to determine the actual impact of the intervention. 

The baseline covers: 

• 
• 

The expected evolution of the  policy context considering relevant external factors; and 
The expected evolution of key variables. 

The  main  point  of  reference  for  the  definition  of  the  baseline  is  the  Impact  Assessment 
accompanying the proposal for the adoption of the C ommunication 49. 

The Impact  Assessment defined the  problems associated with  the  EU  legal framework on  support 

for ocean energy and its expected evolution in the absence of any further intervention (business as 
usual scenario). It has provided the starting  point for the definition of the baseline. 

As already pointed out  in section 2.4,  it should be noted that  the Blue Energy C ommunication and 
the  Ocean Energy Roadmap are “soft  regulation” 50  policy tools  which  do  not  specify behaviour of 
organisations or individuals. However, there are still  a number of effects to be expected compared 
to the counterfactual scenario, as outlined below. 

4.2  EU context 

In  the  absence  of  the  C ommunication,  it  is  assumed  that  the  existing  policy  instruments  would 
continue to  impact the ocean energy sector. Thus, business as usual assumes a baseline involving 
C ommunity action in the form of the wider policy framework, since the C ommunication was the first 

EU policy tool specifically targeting the ocean energy sector. 

Other EU initiatives supporting the ocean energy sector 

However, even though it  was the  first EU policy tool specifically targeting the ocean energy sector, 
the C ommunication was the follow-up to (or embedded in) a few policy initiatives at the time of its 
adoption  (i.e. in  2014),  including  most notably  the  Blue Growth C ommunication and the  Limassol 

declaration. 

The 2011  Blue Growth  C ommunication 51 identified five areas of the  blue economy where targeted 
EU  action  could  stimulate  economic  growth  and  jobs  in  Europe,  one  of  them  the  ocean  energy 
sector, which stated that  “increased effort should now be devoted to technologies such as wave and 

currents that  will  reach full  maturity  in the  coming  decades”. Blue Growth  itself is  one of  the  five 
pillars of the  C ommission’s Integrated Maritime Policy. 

49 C ommission Staff Working Document, I mpact Assessment (Accompanying the document Communication from the 
C ommission to the E uropean Parliament, the Council, the E uropean Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of 
the Regions), O cean Energy: Action needed to deliver on the potential of ocean energy by 2020 and beyond, SWD (2014) 13 
final. https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/docs/body/swd_2014_13_en.pdf  

50 Better Regulation Toolbox. T ool #18 T he choice of policy instruments. 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-18_en_0.pdf  

51 C O MMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC 
A ND SO CIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE O F THE REGIONS Blue G rowth opportunities for marine and maritime 
s us tainable growth. /*  COM/2012/0494 final */. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0494  

23 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Likewise, in  2012,  the  Limassol Declaration 52 was adopted  by the  European Ministers  responsible 
for the Integrated Maritime Policy and the European C ommission. It provided further impetus to the 

sector  by  stating  that  signatories  will  work  towards  goals  of  “carbon  emissions  and  renewable 
energy  and  create  new  employment  opportunities  by  increasing  marine  renewable  energy 

production and exploration, so as to  strengthen the EU’s global leadership position”. 

In  the  absence  of  the  Blue  Energy  C ommunication,  it  can  be  expected  that  those  two  policy 
initiatives would have delivered some of the benefits of the Blue Energy C ommunication with regard 
to demonstrated support by the  EU institutions  for the ocean energy sector, albeit not to  the same 

extent as a dedicated C ommunication. 

Europe 2020 strategy 

Both,  the  Blue  Growth  C ommunication  and  the  Limassol  Declaration  stress  the  importance  of 
maritime  activities  for growth  and  jobs and  place  the  blue  economy (including  the  ocean energy 
sector) as the maritime pillar of the Europe 2020 strategy 53, working towards the key targets of the 
strategy (including  employment, spending  in  R&D,  and  fighting  climate  change  including  through 
targets for renewable energy). 

As such,  the  objectives of the  Blue Energy C ommunication are  in  sync with  some of  the  flagship 

initiatives of the Europe 2020 Strategy, including the Innovation Union (see below “research policy”) 
and Resource-Efficient Europe (see below “renewable energy policy). 

It  can be  expected that  in the  absence of the  Blue  Energy C ommunication and  the Ocean Energy 
Roadmap this wider policy framework of the Europe 2020 strategy and its follow-up initiatives would 

have often had almost the same effects. 

Research and innovation policy 

EU  research and innovation  policy aims to consolidate the  scientific and technological foundations, 
promote  competitiveness  and  support  research activity  in  Europe.  Given  that  the  ocean  energy 
sector is still  mostly an emerging sector, this  policy framework is crucial for it. 

Through  the  European  Framework Programmes, research and  innovation  activities  are  funded  to 

promote the scientific and technological development of European industry and its competitiveness 
as well  as other EU  policy areas. Before the adoption  of the  Blue Energy C ommunication in  2014, 
the  sector  was  already  supported  through  research and  development  projects,  pre-commercial 
demonstration  projects,  and  market  uptake  projects  notably  through  its  6th  and  7th  Framework 
Research Programmes, the Intelligent  Energy Europe programme and the NER-300  programme. 

The  financial  support  carried  on  after  2014  as  part  of  Horizon  2020.  C ompared to  the  previous 

Framework  Research  Programmes, under  H2020  there  were  no  more  dedicated  calls  for  ocean 
energy projects, and instead the ocean energy sector was put in competition with other renewables. 
This was not part of the Blue Energy C ommunication and thus in its absence the same development 

could be expected. 

The  first  Action  Plan  of  the  Ocean  Energy  Roadmap  “A  European  phase-gate  technology 
development  process  for  sub-systems  and  devices”  and  the  fourth  Action  Plan  “De-risking 

52 C yprus Presidency of the Council of the E uropean Union (2012). D eclaration of the E uropean Ministers responsible for the 
I ntegrated Maritime Policy and the European Commission, on a Marine and Maritime Agenda for growth and jobs the 
“L imassol D eclaration”. https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/sites/maritimeaffairs/files/docs/body/limassol_en.pdf  

53 E urope 2020: A s trategy for smart, s ustainable and inclusive growth. 
https://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20-%20Europe%202020%20-
% 2 0EN%20version.pdf  

24 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

environmental consenting  through  an  integrated  programme of  measures” provided guidance for 
relevant research in the  sector. This has been further refined and operationalised by the  European 
C ommission as part of the SET implementation plan 54. However, the other two Action Plans, which 
are concerned with  funding  and  financing  (Action  plan  2  “An Investment  Support  Fund  for  ocean 

energy farms” and Action plan 3 “An EU Insurance and Guarantee Fund to underwrite project risks”) 
have not  yet been implemented and thus  don’t influence the baseline. 

It  can  thus  be  assumed that,  in  the  absence of  the  Blue  Energy C ommunication  and  the  Ocean 
Energy Roadmap, the overall quantity  of funding for research and innovation would  not have been 

different; however, it would be expected that there was less coordination among research activities. 

Renewable energy policy 

The  impact  assessment of  the  Blue  Energy  C ommunication acknowledges the  importance  of  the 
EU’s renewable policy framework for the ocean energy sector. This includes the Renewable Energy 
Directive 55,  the  “Energy  Roadmap  2050” 56,  the  SET  Plan 57,  and  the  2012  C ommunication  on 
Renewable Energy 58. 

The  Renewable Energy Directive establishes since  2009  a  common  framework for  the  production 
and promotion of  energy from different renewable sources and set the  aim for the  EU to  get  20% 

of  its  energy  from  renewable  sources  by  2020.  EU  Member  States  have  also  taken  on  binding 
national targets for raising the share of renewables in their energy consumption by 2020,  under the 
Renewable Energy Directive. To this end, Member States drafted “National Renewable Energy Action 

Plans” in which they provided roadmaps for the development of renewable energy. In some of those 
plans, (e.g. Portugal and UK) ocean energy was included as being part of the energy mix. In 2014, 

the 2030  climate and  energy framework was adopted which also set a renewable energy target of 
27% for 2030,  which was again revised in 2018  to 32%. 

With  the  adoption  of the  C ommunication “Energy Roadmap 2050”,  the EU  committed  to  reducing 
greenhouse gas  emissions  to  80-95%  below  1990  levels  by  2050  and  highlighted  the  challenges 

posed by delivering the EU’s decarbonisation objective, while at the same time ensuring security of 
energy supply and competitiveness. 

To  reach its  2020  and 2050  targets  for cutting  C O2 emissions, the  high-performance low-carbon 
technologies are required. The EU  energy technology policy has been set by the SET plan in 2010, 

to  accelerate  the  development  and  deployment  of  cost-effective  low  carbon  technologies, 
comprising measures relating to planning, implementation, resources and international cooperation 

in the field of energy technology, including ocean energy technology. 

In  2012,  the  C ommission published  a C ommunication setting  out  a strategy  to  enable the  EU  to 
have a world-class technology and innovation  sector fit  for coping with  the challenges up  to  2020 
and beyond. The document stressed the need for accelerating innovation in cutting  edge low-carbon 

technologies and innovative solutions,  for reducing costs rapidly and speeding up  the introduction 

54 T emporary Working G roup on O cean Energy (2018) SET-Plan O cean Energy –  I mplementation plan. 
https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/set_plan_ocean_implementation_plan.pdf 

55 D irective 2009/28/EC of the European P arliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 established a c ommon framework for 
the production and promotion of energy from renewable s ources. https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=O J:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF  

56 E nergy roadmap 2050. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/2012_energy_roadmap_2050_en_0.pdf  
57 https ://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/technology-and-innovation/strategic-energy-technology-plan_en  

58 C O MMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC 
A ND SO CIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE O F THE REGIONS Renewable E nergy: a major player in the European energy 
market /*  COM/2012/0271 final */. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52012DC0271  

25 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

of new  technologies to the  market. The C ommunication called, among other,  for further efforts to 
reinforce research and development in  the field of ocean energy. 

Almost all of the above initiatives (expect the revision of the 2030 targets and the SET Plan Ocean) 

were adopted  either before or at  the  same time  as the  Blue Energy C ommunication and  thus  the 
C ommunication and consequently the Ocean Energy Roadmap did not influence them. The Roadmap 

however strongly  influenced the  SET Plan Ocean Implementation Plan, as can be seen by the  fact 
that  the Plan reiterates some of the objectives identified in  the Roadmap. The C ommunication and 
Roadmap  also  had  an  influence  in  the  programming  of  Horizon  2020  calls,  as  was  indicated  by 

C ommission staff in the  course of this study. 

4.3  Member state and regional context 

This relates to  Q4.3 “How  much  have Member States supported  the uptake of ocean energy since 
2014  (including revenue support schemes)?” 

In  addition  to  action  by  the  EU,  the  ocean  energy  sector  also  receives support  at  national  and 

regional  level  in  a  few  locations  across  Europe.  In  fact,  in  the  period  between  2004  and  2010, 
support  for  the  development  of  tidal  energy  technology  was  provided  predominantly  through 
national  grants.  From  2012  funds,  including  EU  mechanisms  have  focussed  more on  supporting 
single demonstration of devices and pre-commercial farms 59. 

The impact assessment for the Blue Energy C ommunication reported that at that time, over a dozen 
countries  had dedicated  support  for ocean energy, with  nine  EU  countries  having  some kind  of a 

revenue support in place, mostly feed-in-tariffs. Only four countries, however, had a differentiated 
revenue support scheme specifically for ocean energy in place. 

The  effects of  the  Blue Energy  C ommunication on  the  Ocean  Energy Roadmap  on  member state 
support  is difficult  to  assess. Evidence from the  stakeholder consultations  show,  however, that  in 

some cases (e.g.  Ireland)  there was  a  cross-fertilisation  between  the  EU  support  (in  form  of  the 
ocean energy forum) and national processes. In other cases, e.g. France, certain types of member 
state support were stopped after 2014,  while others continued 60. 

In general, a number of specific actions of the Blue Energy C ommunication and the  Ocean Energy 

Roadmap could  potentially  have influenced  member state  action;  this  includes  the  ocean energy 
forum  (which  brought  together  stakeholders to  develop a  shared understanding  of  the  problems 

faced  by  the  Ocean  Energy  sector  and  to  collectively devise  workable solutions),  the  process of 
developing the Ocean Energy Roadmap (which was a collaborative process of different stakeholders, 
including public  stakeholders) and the  Ocean Energy Roadmap itself. 

4.4  Private sector context 

The private sector is both,  receiver of funds as well as actively supporting and funding, in order to 
develop technologies. 

The  impact  assessment of  the  Blue  Energy  C ommunication  reports on  two  main  type  of  private 
stakeholders; the  technology  developers (mostly  SMEs)  as  well  as  large industrial  players  in  the 

power generation market (such as Alstom Power, Siemens, ABB, Andritz Hydro, Voith Hydro, Bosch 
Rexroth and Rolls Royce). 

59 J RC (2019) Ocean E nergy Technology Market Report 
60 E .g. A DEME’s Investment for the Future c ontinued to s upport ocean energy.  

26 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Since  2014,  this  situation  has  changed,  and  most  industrial  players have turned  away  from  the 
ocean energy market. The main reason stated for this by stakeholders was the slow  development 

of the ocean energy market which  led to  industrial players turning towards other technologies. 

It  is  expected  that,  in  the  absence  of  the  Blue  Energy  C ommunication  and  the  Ocean  energy 
Roadmap, this development would have somewhat comparable with, however, a tendency towards 

lower private investments, given the confidence effect that the Blue Energy C ommunication and the 
Ocean Energy Roadmap have by showing  political will for the sector at  EU level. 

4.5  Development of key parameters 

Besides the qualitative  description of  the  baseline presented above the  study  has also considered 
how some key variables should be expected to evolve.  

More  specifically, variables relating to  the  core indicators  to  assess ocean energy development in 

the  impact  assessment  have  been  used  to  describe  the  expected  evolution  under  the  baseline 
scenario. 

Table 4.1 Key monitoring indicators proposed in the impact assessment 

Indicator 

Relevance 

Installed capacity 

Te chnology commercialisation 

Num be r of proje cts planned 

Inve stor confidence and political saliency 

Magnitude of investment into the sector 

Pe rce ived re liability, e fficiency and cost- effectiveness of the 
te chnologies 

C apital cost reduction 

R &D e fficiency 

C apital cost reduction/R&D spending 
ove r a given period of time 

R &D consolidation and e fficiency 

Num be r of collaborative undertakings 

Industry cooperation and collaboration, synergies 

Am ount of Member State financial 

Political saliency 

support for ocean energy, including 
diffe rentiated re venue support schemes 

Le ad time length (i.e. the total time 

Efficie ncy of planning and licensing procedures 

tak e n to get building consent and grid 
conne ction permits) 

Proportion of the administrative cost 

Efficie ncy of planning and licensing procedures 

com pared to the total proje ct costs 

Availability of relevant baseline 
e nvironmental data 

Monitoring of e nvironmental impacts 

Tim e  and resources spent satisfying the 

O ptim ising the application of e nvironmental protection 

re quirements of the EIAs 

le gislation 

4.5.1 

Installed capacity and number of projects planned 

This  relates to  Q4.1  “How  many  new  ocean energy projects have been  installed  and  deployed in 

Europe since 2014?” 

In  the  impact  assessment,  for  the  development  up  to  2035  the  ‘business  as  usual’  scenario 
predominantly followed the reference scenario in the C ommission’s Energy Roadmap 2050. For the 
short term, up to 2020, the scenario was refined by using the commitments made by Member States 

in the “National  Renewable Energy Action Plans” referred to above. 

27 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

The baseline resulted in the assumption that  ocean energy installed capacity will  grow to 2.2 GW in 
2020 (and 4.3 GW in 2035), on top of the 10 MW installed in 2014. The development of that baseline 

is presented in the  Figure below. 

Figure 4.1 Baseline for installed capacity 

Source: I mpact as sessment 

In  2018 61,  even  though  the  installed  capacity  more  than  doubled  at  24.7  MW  compared to  the 
10 MW  installed in 2010,  it is much lower than the expected approx. 1.6  GW.  

Thus, the installed capacity is still relatively low and comes only from a few selected projects. Also, 
given  the  early stages  of  technology  development  that  the  sector  is  in  in  general,  a  lot  of  the 
installed  capacity  is  from  demonstration  and  prototype  projects  which  are  at  one  point 
decommissioned 62. 

C ompared to the baseline, the policy options presented in the impact assessment were expected to 
only add value after 2020,  i.e. it  was assumed that  the  policy intervention (what  eventually would 

become the  Blue Energy  Forum  and  the  Ocean  Energy Roadmap)  would  only  affect  the  installed 
capacity  after  2020.  However,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the  majority  of  the  current  installed 
capacity and the most advanced technologies have benefited from EU  financial support63. 

With  respect to  planned projects,  no detailed  assumptions  were made in  the  impact  assessment. 

However, it  can  be expected that  the  same methodology would  have been applied up  to  2020  as 
for the installed capacity.  

61 L atest available numbers, based on J RC (2019) O cean Energy T echnology M arket Report 

62 J RC (2019) Ocean E nergy Technology Market Report 
63 J RC (2019) Technology Market Study 

28 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

4.5.2  Magnitude of investment into the sector 

This relates to: 

•  Q4.2  “How  much  has  been  invested  in  the  ocean energy sector  since  2014  (both  public  and 

private investments)?”; 

•  Q4.5  “What  is  the  extent  of the  investments  in  R&D for ocean energy since 2014  (public  and 

private)?”; and 

•  Q5.3 “To what  extent has ocean energy’s access to finance been facilitated?” 

In the impact  assessment, for the baseline scenario, it  was expected that  EU funding  will  continue 
as planned 64. No assumptions were made for member state, regional, or private sector investments. 

C ompared to  the  baseline,  it  was  expected  that  additional  policy  interventions  will  lead  to  an 

increase  in  “political,  investor  and  public  awareness  of  the  opportunities  available  […]  as  will 
confidence in the  sector”; also  other effects such as enhanced project bankability  and investment 

commitments from the industry were expected. However, it was also acknowledged that the precise 
impacts of the actions on the above cannot be quantified.  

At EU  level, funding was provided through  a number of different funds as described in Table 5.2 in 
chapter 5. In line with the baseline of the impact assessment, it is assumed that this funding would 

have also continued without  the C ommunication and the Roadmap. 

4.5.3  Capital cost reduction 

This  relates to  Q4.4  “How  much  have the  capital costs  for  the  deployment of  ocean energy been 
reduced since 2014?” 

C apital cost  reduction is an  important objective of the  Blue Energy C ommunication. Given, that  in 

ocean energy there is  a lack of commercial scale applications, this  results in a lack of reliable data 
to  analyse the  cost  trends 65. This  was also  acknowledged in  the  impact  assessment which  stated 
that  “data are not available on actual costs of electricity per generating technology”.  

However,  the  impact  assessment nevertheless made  assumptions  (for  tidal  and  wave, based  on 
calculations by the  JRC 66) about the  development of capital  cost of ocean energy as well as about 
the competitiveness of marine energy technologies based on the levelised cost of electricity (LC OE). 

64 “E U  funding for R&D projects under the existing FP7 programme as well as the second c all under the NER300 programme 
will c ontinue. An ERA-Net on ocean energy is expected to be established in 2013 which will s trengthen research coordination 
and enc ourage joint c alls for funding amongst Member States thus c apitalizing on national and regional research efforts to 
ac celerate ocean energy development. T he Commission, M ember States and s takeholders will c ontinue discussions on the 
future priority areas for renewable energy under the new H orizon 2020 programme.” 

65 E uropean Commission (2019). Study on impacts of E U actions s upporting the development of Renewable E nergy 
tec hnologies. 
66 By J RC-SETIS, the Information System for the European Strategic E nergy Technology (SET)-Plan 

29 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Figure 4.2 Capital cost reductions in wave and tidal energy technologies; and LCOE projections for 
the main power generation technologies 

Source: I mpact as sessment 

As shown  in  section 4.5.1,  market uptake  has,  compared to  the  expectations at  the  time,  rather 

stagnated. Thus, learning effects and economies of scale likely do not play as big a role as expected 
in  the  impact assessment in  the  reduction of capital  costs and  LC OE. 67 That  being  said, there are 
some learning  effects  “as the  industry  now  better  understands  how  to  build  their  foundations  so 

they can resist harsh conditions, how and when to install them, how to build machines that  produce 
more while decreasing the amount of materials used (after a phase when over-sizing was common 
as part of testing,  the ocean energy industry is moving into an efficiency phase).” 68 

It  is  thus  suggested  that  those  effects should  be  taken into  consideration; however, to  a  smaller 
extent than predicted in the impact assessment. 

The  baseline for  LC OE in  the  impact  assessment does  only  predict effects from  policy  options  to 
take part  after 2020.  This should  also be seen in  interplay with  the  SET-Plan declaration of  intent 
for ocean energy which has set ambitious LC OE targets for wave and tidal  energy in 2016 69. 

67 I n the impact assessment it was assumed that additional supportive action (i.e. the Blue E nergy Communication and the 
O cean Energy Roadmap) would stimulate market uptake, which would lead to accelerated c ost reduction through learning 
effec ts and economies of s cale, i.e. lowering the capital c ost and LCOE over time. 
68 E uropean Commission (2019). Study on impacts of E U actions s upporting the development of Renewable E nergy 
tec hnologies 

69 E uropean Commission (2016) SET P lan – D eclaration of I ntent on Strategic T argets in the context of an I nitiative for G lobal 
L eadership in O cean E nergy. https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/integrated_set-plan/declaration_of_intent_ocean_0.pdf  

30 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

4.5.4  Number of collaborative undertakings 

This relates to Q5.2 “To what extent have the stakeholders been brought together and coordinated 
their action to enhance technological innovation and competitiveness?” 

No baseline for the number of collaborative undertakings could be developed; however, an overview 
of current collaborative undertakings is presented in the  evaluation question. 

4.5.5  Amount of Member States’ financial support for ocean energy, including differentiated 

revenue support schemes 

This relates to  Q4.3 “How  much  have Member States supported  the uptake of ocean energy since 
2014  (including revenue support schemes)?”  

An important indicator is also the number of countries with differentiated revenue support schemes 
in place. An overview of instruments in place is provided in the impact assessment but no estimation 

is  provided on  how  the  Roadmap and  the  C ommunication  would  impact  the  number  of  support 
schemes. 

An overview of current Member State support is provided in  Appendix 5 of this report. 

4.5.6  Environmental and administrative burdens 

This includes the indicators: 

Lead time length (i.e. the total time taken to get building consent and grid connection permits); 
Proportion of the administrative cost compared to the total  project costs; 

• 
• 
•  Availability of relevant baseline environmental data; and 
• 

Time and resources spent satisfying the requirements of the EIAs. 

No quantitative  estimations were made for either of those indicators in the  impact assessment. 

31 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

5.  KEY FINDINGS 

This  chapter  presents  the  study’s  findings  on  the  basis  of  the  data  collected  and  analysed. The 
results are presented at the  level of the evaluation criteria and questions. 

For the findings it is important to reiterate that both the Blue Energy C ommunication and the Ocean 

Energy Roadmap are “soft regulation” policy tools which  do not  specifically prescribe behaviours of 
organisations or individuals, which influences the magnitude of the impacts that such initiatives can 

produce.  Moreover,  these  instruments  are  embedded  in  well-defined  policy  frameworks,  most 
notably of research and innovation policy, as well as renewable energy policy. The presence of this 
wider  context  makes  it  difficult  to  establish  a  clear  causal  link  between  the  adoption  of  the 

C ommunication and  Roadmap and  the  specific developments  in  the  ocean  energy  sector.  These 
considerations  are  taken  into  account  when  assessing  the  relevance,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 

coherence and EU  added value of these tools. 

5.1  Relevance 

This section presents the key findings concerning the continued relevance of the C ommunication by 
assessing  (a)  the  degree  to  which  the  objectives  were  appropriate  considering  the  needs  and 
problems facing the ocean energy sector at the  time of its  adoption; (b)  whether there have been 

any changes or  developments in the  sector  and in  the  wider  EU  policy framework since  then;  (c) 
the extent to which  the objectives may need to be adapted in light  of these developments. 

5.1.1  EQ 1: To what extent have the objectives of the intervention proven to be appropriate 

for responding to the needs identified in the impact assessment? 

The  Blue  Energy  C ommunication  established  three  specific  objectives  and  four  operational 
objectives to address the needs and challenges faced by the ocean energy sector in  2014. 

Figure 5.1 Needs identified in the Impact A ssessment and specific and operational objectives of 
the Blue Energy Communication 

32 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

The  collected evidence suggests  that  the  objectives identified  in  the  Blue  Energy C ommunication 
and  Ocean Energy Strategic  Roadmap were appropriate to  respond to  the  needs of  the  sector as 

identified in the  impact assessment.  

While only a limited number of the  stakeholders interviewed during the study  were able to refer to 
the  specific  objectives  of  the  C ommunication  or  Roadmap,  the  majority  of  them  agree that  the 

publication  of  a  cohesive  document  indicating  a  common  direction  and  priorities  for  the  further 
development of ocean energy served to create momentum  and to  give some level of confidence to 
investors, which  was needed at the  time. At the same time, some stakeholders indicate that these 

instruments  were  not  meant  to  be  self-sufficient  to  address  all  the  needs  and  challenges  of  the 
sector, but  were  intended to  function  as a piece of  the  puzzle, to  be complemented by  additional 

support  coming  from  Member  States  and  the  private  sector.  This  is  also  reflected  in  the 
C ommunication itself,  which  indicated  that  the  sector already counted  on a  well-developed policy 
framework, constituted  by  a  number  of  provisions  that  facilitate  the  development of  renewables 

and the development of ocean energy technologies. 

The C ommunication and Roadmap contained adequate elements to  guide the  sector in  identifying 
the  workstreams where its resources should focus on,  and this  was particularly useful for national 

and  regional  authorities  or  private actors  aiming  to  develop their  own  strategies  or to  make the 
business  case  for  ocean  energy,  according  to  the  stakeholders  belonging  to  these  category 
interviewed in the course of the study. In this context, the objective of consolidating R&D activities 

to  enable cost reductions  was considered particularly appropriate given the  stage of  development 
of the sector at the time, according to the stakeholders consulted 70. By contrast, some stakeholders 
raised concerns  that  coordination  and  knowledge  sharing  might  be  regarded as  inappropriate by 
technology  developers trying  to  preserve their  intellectual  property  for competitiveness  reasons, 
and this is also reflected in documentary evidence 71. 

Notably, stakeholders involved in the development of OTEC  and salinity gradient technologies stated 

that  documents  were  not  appropriately  tailored  to  address  the  needs  of  these  technologies 
specifically but were rather geared towards being useful for wave and tidal technologies instead. It 
was  also  pointed  out  by  one  stakeholder  representing  a  national  research  institute  in  the 

Mediterranean that  the C ommunication and Roadmap could have paid more attention to the future 
development  of  ocean  energy  technologies  in  the  Mediterranean.  It  is  important  to  highlight 

however, that  no evidence of substantial developments with  regards to ocean energy technologies 
in the  Mediterranean at the  time of publication of these documents was identified  in the context of 

this  study,  and  that  the  interest  of  Mediterranean countries  for the  development  of this  sector is 
described as being quite  recent72.   

Via  the  stakeholder  consultation,  it  was  found  that  additional  aspects  could  have  been  more 
appropriately considered in the C ommunication or Roadmap at the time of their adoption, namely:  

•  Although  the  importance  of  Member  States  intervention  is  highlighted  throughout  the 
documents,  the  link  to  Member  States’  complementary  intervention  could  have  been  made 
clearer, as well as a clear strategy to ensure the engagement of Member States and to increase 
collaboration among the regions active in the field of ocean energy could have been included; 

• 

The documents could have further expanded on the ‘business case’ for ocean energy, by treating 
more prominently  aspects such  as the  predictability  of  the  technology and  the  advantages of 

localised energy  production  for  Member  States,  although  it  is  noted  that  knowledge  of  these 

70 We refer here to the s takeholders consulted via the Public Consultation.  
71 E uropean Commission (2017): “Study on lessons for O cean energy”  

72 G . P isacane et al (2018) Marine Energy E xploitation in the M editerranean Region: Steps Forward and Challenges. A vailable 
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fenrg.2018.00109/full  

33 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

aspects  might  be  of  more  recent  origin,  as  indicated  by  the  date  of  publication  of  available 
studies on such issues 73; 
The link to a dedicated budget line or specific funding instrument for the implementation of the 
actions set in the C ommunication and Roadmap could have further been considered. 

• 

5.1.2  EQ 2: To what extent do the objectives of the intervention remain appropriate in the 
light of the evolution of the EU energy, climate, maritime and R&I policies? 

There is a widespread agreement among the consulted stakeholders that  most of the objectives of 
the  C ommunication and  Roadmap remain relevant  to  date,  notwithstanding  the  evolution  of  the 

broader framework on  EU  energy,  climate,  maritime  and  R&I  climate  policies.  This  is  to  a  large 
extent because insufficient progress has been registered in their achievement so far, and therefore 
a  large  part  of  the  needs  and  challenges  identified  in  2014  remains  valid  today.  This  is  also 
confirmed by relevant documentary evidence 74. In particular, the first annual review of Ocean SET, 
as  well  as  other  sources 75 highlight  that  progress  relating  to  objectives  related  to  finance  and 
administrative or environmental actions is still  limited. Stakeholders also specifically confirmed that 
the  objective  of  enhancing  synergies  with  other  industries  remains  relevant76.  Notably,  it  was 
indicated by a small part of the stakeholders consulted that the C ommunication and Roadmap were 

perhaps too optimistic  with  regards to the maturity  of the  sector at the  time of their adoption, and 
this might  be a reason why some of their objectives are still relevant to  date. 

In addition to this, important developments also took place in the sector and in the context in which 
this  operates,  which  resulted  in  the  emergence of  additional  needs  and  challenges for the  sector 

according  to  the  stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  course  of  the  study.  The  developments  most 
stakeholders refer to can be summarised as follows: 

•  Rapid development of other renewable energy sources e.g. offshore wind and offshore floating 
wind,  “outcompeting”  ocean  energy and  therefore  requiring  additional  efforts  to  ensure  that 
ocean energy receives the necessary support to further develop; 
Progress in the technological development of ocean energy technology (especially tidal energy), 

• 

resulting in the evolution of the financing needs of the sector for some of the technologies e.g. 
need for market pull  mechanisms; 

Limited  support  provided  by  Member  States  and  private  investors  compared  to  the  initial 
expectations,  requiring  additional  strategies  to  ensure  their  involvement.  Notably,  the 
uncertainty about the continuity of Member States’ support policies for ocean energy can further 

discourage  private  investors  and  reduce  the  spectrum  of  funding  available  to  technology 
developers 77; 
Emergence of additional opportunities for synergies e.g. with  the oil and gas sector or offshore 
floating wind,  which would need to be further explored; 

• 

• 

73 T o c ite a few, Sasaki (2017) Predictability of global offshore wind and wave power , A vailable at: 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214166917300036 ; Segura et al (2017) Techno-economic 
c hallenges of tidal energy c onversion systems: Current s tatus and trends, Available at: 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032117305567; Bezerra L eite Neto (2020) The effect of 
c omplementarity between solar, wind and tidal energy in isolated hybrid microgrids, Available at: 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148119313217 

74 E uropean Commission (2017): “Study on lessons for O cean energy”; T emporary Working G roup on O cean energy (2018): 
“SE T-Plan O cean energy –  I mplementation Plan”; J RC (2019): “O cean energy Technology Market Report”; O ceanSET (2020) 
O ceanSET First Annual Report 

75 T hethys website (2020) “Regulatory Frameworks for M arine Renewable Energy” ; M endoza et. Al. (2019) “Renewable and 
Sus tainable E nergy Reviews” 

76 T his is also reflected in I nterreg report on PELAGOS (2 019): “Strategic research Agenda towards innovation in Blue energy” 

77 J RC (2019): O cean energy T echnology M arket Report 

34 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

•  Brexit, likely causing a reduction  in the  amount  of available funding  for ocean energy, as well 
as having an impact on the  capitalisation of the investments made in the  British ocean energy 

sector so far; 

•  C OVID-19 outbreak potentially  causing  a  reduction  of  available funding  of  ocean  energy but 
also representing an opportunity  for ocean energy as many countries will  look into  recovering 
through  low  carbon  strategies, as  indicated  in  the  EU  post-C OVID-19 recovery strategy. It  is 
important to note that while a few sources 78 have been identified backing up the latter opinion, 
no  evidence  was  found  supporting  the  suggestion  that  there  might  be  a  negative  relation 
between the pandemic and the  reduction of funding  for ocean energy.  

According to  the  stakeholders interviewed  in  the  course of  the  study,  most  of  the  developments 
listed above also had an influence, both positive and negative, in how effective the overall EU policy 
in  support of ocean energy has been up  to  now. A list  of relevant EU  policies that  have an impact 
on the development of the ocean energy sector is in the table below. 

Table 5.1 Relevant EU policies that have an impact on the development of the ocean energy sector 

Sector 

Policy tool 

Relevance for the ocean energy sector 

A ll sectors 

Europe an Green Deal  

The  European Gre en Deal re cognises the key 

Energy policy 

C le an energy package (CEP) 

role  of the  offshore re newable e nergy sector 
in contributing to the cle an e nergy transition 

and that this sector will have to substantially 
scale  up to re ach the clim ate neutrality target 

by 2050. 

The  C lean e nergy package brought about a 
com prehensive update of the  e nergy policy 

fram ework , and it highlighted the importance 

of  foste ring  inve stments  in  future   clean 
e ne rgy technologies such as ocean e nergy. 

R e newable Ene rgy Dire ctive and targets  The  re cast re ne wable e ne rgy dire ctive  set 

ne w binding re newable e nergy targets for the  
EU for 2030 of at le ast 32%. These targets 

include   oce an  e ne rgy  as  e ne rgy  from  
re ne wable sources. 

SET  Plan  on  O ce an  Ene rgy  – 

The  SET  Plan outlines a  se t  of  high-level 

Im plementation Plan 

actions  to  be   im plemented  by  different 
stak eholders  to  e nable  wave   and  tidal 

te chnologies to re ach commercial stage. 

Climate policy 

EU  e m ission trading system and NER  
300/Innovation Fund 

A  part  of  the   re ve nues  from   the   sale   of 
e m ission trading system allowances are used 

to fund the NER 300 (and starting from 2021, 

the  Innovation Fund) which provide funding 
for the  de velopment of innovative low-carbon 

te chnologies, 
te chnologies. 

including  oce an  e nergy 

National  C lim ate  and  Ene rgy  Action 

Me m ber  State s  are   re quire d  to  e stablish 

Plans (NEC Ps) 

inte grated  10-year  NEC Ps  for  2021-2030, 
outlining  the ir  strate gy  to  achie ve  their 

re spe ctive targets on different dimensions of 
the   e ne rgy union. This includes re ne wable 

e ne rgy targets. For ce rtain countries these 

targe ts  can  be   achie ved  via  a  further 
de ployment of ocean e nergy. 

78 See: https://seabased.com/news-insights/ocean-energy-an-exciting-option-for-covid-19-recovery  

35 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Sector 

Policy tool 

Relevance for the ocean energy sector 

Maritime policy 

Blue  growth strategy 

The   Blue   growth  strate gy  fosters  the  

de ve lopment  of  se ctors  that  have   a  high 
pote ntial for  sustainable jobs  and growth, 

including oce an energy. 

Marine  Spatial Planning Dire ctive (MSP)  The  MSP Dire ctive is im portant tool for the  
sustainable development of m arine areas and 

coastal re gions, including in re lation to the  
de ployment of ocean e nergy te chnologies. 

Marine   Strate gy  Fram ework  Dire ctive  

The   Marine   Strate gy  Fram ework   Dire ctive  

(MSFD) 

(MSFD) re quire s Me m ber State s to  assess 
and m onitor im pacts of hum an activities on 

the ir  m arine wate rs in  orde r to  de termine 

whe the r the se achieve good e nvironmental 
status. This can include activities re lated to 
e nergy 
the  
te chnologies. 

de ployment 

oce an 

of 

Atlantic Action Plan 

The   Atlantic  Action  Plan  calls  for  the  

stre ngthening of cooperation in the European 
oce an e nergy com munity, and to de velop a 

spe cific  oce an  e ne rgy  fram ework   for  EU 

islands in the Atlantic. 

Europe an Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

The  EMFF enables, inter alia, investments the 

(EMFF) 

m onitoring of ocean energy devices. 

Research 
Innovation 

and 

R e search  Fram ework   Programmes 
(FP7,  Horizon  2020  and  Horizon 

EU  R e search  Fram e work   Programmes 
provide funding for the development of ocean 

policy 

Europe ) 

e ne rgy technologies. 

Cohesion policy 

Europe an R egional De ve lopment Fund 
(ER DF) and Interreg 

The  ER DF and Interre g help re gional and local 
gove rnments across Europe to develop and 

de live r better policy by supporting actions in 

diffe rent  fie lds,  including  de ve loped  in 
SME 
re se arch 

innovation, 

and 

com petitiveness, 
e nvironment and resource e fficiency. 

low-carbon 

e conomy, 

SME support 

EU programme for the Competitiveness 

C O SME supports SMEs in the following areas: 

of Ente rprises and SMEs (COSME) 

facilitating  acce ss  to  finance,  supporting 
inte rnationalization and acce ss to m arkets, 

cre ating  an  e nvironment  favourable  to 
an 
com petitiveness, 

e ncouraging 

e ntre preneurial culture. This can be accessed 

by  SMEs  involve d  in  the   de ve lopment  of 
oce an energy technologies. 

With regards to the continued relevance of the objectives of the intervention in light of the evolution 
of the wider EU policy framework, the literature points out79 that while this general and non-targeted 
policy framework was instrumental for the sector, this was not always able to secure the success in 

the  development  and  commercialisation  of  ocean  energy technologies,  not  even  when  taken  in 
combination with  national and regional support.  

In  this  context,  the  majority  of  the  stakeholders consulted  maintain  that  ocean energy  requires 
dedicated support from the EU. It is important to note that this  conclusion is mainly qualitative and 

that the stakeholders consulted in the  course of the study are principally technology developers or 

79 J RC (2019) “O cean energy Technology Market Report” 

36 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

actors involved in  the development of the  sector overall, that have vested interest in the growth of 
the sector. This represents a limit  to the robustness of this conclusion. 

Despite the  fact  that  there are wider  policies at  the  EU  level that  indirectly support the  uptake of 

ocean  energy  e.g.  renewable  energy policy,  research and  innovation  policy  as  well  as  different 
financing mechanisms, this technology is still  at an early stage of development, and it would  likely 

not be able to progress further effectively without targeted support from the EU, according to these 
stakeholders. It  has  been repeatedly asserted that  it  would  be particularly challenging  for  ocean 
energy  to  progress  if  it  continues  to  be  required  to  compete  for  EU  support  with  other  more 

established and less costly sources of renewable energy e.g. offshore wind.   

5.2  Effectiveness 

This section presents the key findings on the effectiveness of the C ommunication and the Roadmap 
in terms of the extent to which it has achieved its general, specific and operational objectives, what 

has  actually  been  achieved by  the  C ommunication  versus other  external factors  and  key  factors 
that  facilitated or hindered the achievement of objectives. 

5.2.1  EQ 3: What  progress has been made in implementing the activities of the intervention? 

The  C ommunication established  a two-phased  action  framework to  increase the  uptake  of  ocean 
energy.  A  first  phase,  envisaging  the  establishment  of  the  Ocean  Energy  Forum  and  the 
development  of  the  Roadmap,  and  a  second  phase  foreseeing  the  development  of  a  European 

Industrial  Initiative and  of sector-specific guidelines for the  implementation  of legislation  relevant 
to ocean energy. Notably both, the C ommunication and Roadmap stressed that  EU, Member States 

and  the  ocean energy sector  should  work  together  to  achieve the  objectives  and  implement  the 
actions inscribed thereof. 

Phase 1 (2014-2016) 

Both  the  documentary evidence collected,  and  the  stakeholders consulted,  confirm  that  the  first 
phase of the action framework was successfully implemented.  

Ocean Energy Forum 

The Ocean Energy Forum was created in 2014  and it  brought together more than 100 stakeholders 
over  a  period  of  two  years  with  the  aim  of  discussing  and  designing  solutions  to  support  the 
development  of  the  ocean  energy  sector.  The  Forum  was  organised  in  three  workstreams  for 
technology, finance and environment and consenting,  each with  a Steering C ommittee and a C hair 

guiding  the  open  concertation  process.  A  Secretariat  was  also  created,  with  the  purpose  of 
supporting  the  work  of  the  Forum  and  ensuring  the  delivery  of  the  Ocean  Energy  Strategic 

Roadmap.  

Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap 

As  foreseen,  the  Forum  adopted  the  Ocean  Energy  Strategic  Roadmap in  November  2016.  This 
Roadmap has been  considered as  a “declaration  of intent”  developed by  different stakeholders in 
the  ocean energy industry  and  with  the  agreement of the  European C ommission 80. The Roadmap 
established four key action  areas for the  development of ocean energy, to be implemented jointly 

80 T emporary Working G roup O cean energy (2018): “SET-Plan O cean energy Implementation Plan” 
https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/set_plan_ocean_implementation_plan.pdf 

37 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

by  the  EU  and  National  Authorities.  According  to  the  evidence collected 81,  the  EU,  its  Members 
States and the private sector have made some progress in the implementation of two out of four of 

these action plans, namely Action Plan 1 and 4, although most of the work is ongoing. 

Action Plan 1 “A European phase-gate technology development process for sub-systems 
and devices” 

The  Roadmap  proposed that  a  phase-gate  process for  sub-systems  and  devices  be  created  that 
would  set  clear  performance  indicators  to  be  met  before  moving  to  one  step  of  testing  and 

development to the other. Partial progress on this Action Plan took place, only with regards to wave 
energy.  

A 20,752,112  EUR call  for proposals was issued in  2018  under Horizon  2020  titled  ‘European Pre-
C ommercial  Procurement  Programme  for  Wave  Energy  Research  &  Development’ 82,  aimed  at 
bringing  European  Wave Energy Research and Development more efficiently  into  the  direction  of 
commercialization by introducing a phase gate procedure for wave energy development at EU level. 

At  the  time  of  writing  of  this  report,  a grant  agreement for  the  project has  been  signed  with  the 
consortium  led  by  Wave  Energy  Scotland  and  including  the  Basque  Energy  Agency  and  Ocean 
Energy Europe. The project is  expected to start  on the  1st of January 2021 and  it will  aims to lead 
to  the  development  and  implementation  of  a  pre-commercial  procurement  structure  for  wave 
energy technology,  including  common  performance levels  and  associated specifications  for  wave 

energy systems. 

Action Plan 2 “An Investment Support Fund for ocean energy farms” 

The Roadmap suggests  that  an  Investment Support  Fund  for financing  single demonstration/pre-
commercial projects, able to  provide different types of finance and  able to  help developers access 
other financing sources could be created. This Fund  could have a budget  of around 200-300M  EUR 

over a period of  5-10  years, and could  be financed via  Member States budgets,  national  revenue 
from the EU emission trading system, EU structural  funds, EU  demonstration programmes such as 

ERA-Net co-fund, Innovation Fund,  European Fund  for Strategic Investments. 

No  single such fund  has been created to date,  and therefore it  cannot  be concluded that  progress 
with  this  action  plan  has been  made at  this  stage.  While  there  is  no  indication  at  present that  a 
single fund, established as a Public Private Partnership between the EU and its  Member States and 

the private sector will be created, it  appears that individual actions are taking place, both from the 
EU  itself and  its Member  States. The following  initiatives demonstrate progress has been made to 

some  extent  in  the  establishment  of  financial  institutions  and  programmes that  can  be  used  to 
invest  in  ocean  energy  projects  or  companies after  2014 83,  although  none  of  them  are  directly 
targeted to providing support for ocean energy:  

• 

The European C ommission is in the process of implementing an investment platform called Blue 
Invest that  will  provide support of maritime-based industries, including ocean energy 84; 

81 T he evidence includes stakeholder opinion and the following publication: ETIP O cean (2019): “P owering homes today, 
powering nations tomorrow”; as well as the publication O ceanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: 
https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

82 Retrieved from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-details/lc-sc3-ja-
3 - 2019  
83 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

84 T he Blue Invest I nitiative will channel funding towards enterprises active in the field of Blue Economy. This will be done 
thanks to: 

• 

T he allocation of grants to SMEs targeting the blue economy via the “Blue I nvest G rants”, with a budget of 2 2.5 
M L N EUR earmarked from the European M aritime and Fisheries Fund 

38 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

• 

The  European  C ommission established  the  InnovFin  EDP  facility 85,  which  enables  the  EIB  to 
finance  innovative  first-of-a-kind  demonstration  projects  at  the  pre-commercial  stage  that 

contribute  to  the  energy transition,  including  in  the  fields  of  renewable  energy technologies, 
with  the aim of contributing  to de-risking the  technologies and reassuring financial investors of 

their commercial viability; 

•  Member States’ initiatives  such as France’s Bpifrance 86. 

Reportedly 87 however, access to these instruments  is still  challenging for ocean energy actors, due 
to the eligibility  requirements. This issue will be further expanded on in  the sections below. 

Action Plan 3 “An EU Insurance and Guarantee Fund to underwrite project risks” 

The Roadmap proposed that  an Insurance and Guarantee Fund  be created to  support  deployment 

of the first demonstration and pre-commercial farms by insuring project revenues in the early years. 

The evidence collected so far shows that no progress was made in the implementation of this Action 
Plan. Reportedly 88, in 2018 Ocean Energy Europe submitted a project proposal under Horizon 2020 
aimed at defining  how the  EU Insurance and Guarantee Fund  would  work. While the  proposal was 

selected for funding,  the grant  agreement preparations were terminated by the  consortium due to 
the withdrawal of one key member of the project consortium. This signals that there is interest from 

the  stakeholders  and  the  EU  to  work  on  understanding  the  feasibility  of  setting  up  such  an 
instrument,  but there are no indications that  this will  be established in the near future.  

This  might  also be because relevant actions  are being  taken, although  not  specifically targeted  to 
ocean energy, to help underwrite project risks. For the next Multi-annual  Financial Framework (MFF) 

covering the  2021-2027  period, the  European C ommission proposed to  bring  together  under one 
roof the different EU  financial instruments  currently available that  provide financing in  the form of 
loans  and  guarantees.  This  will  lead  to  the  creation  of  InvestEU,  a  platform  that  will  boost 

investment,  innovation  and  job  creation  by  triggering  at  least  EUR650  billion  in  additional 
investments  thanks  to  the  EU  budgetary  guarantee. The  guarantee  will  cover part  of  the  risk of 

investment projects of EU strategic interest with  the aim of mobilising additional amounts of private 
and  public  capital  for these  projects 89. The InvestEU  Programme will  finance projects  in  different 
domains,  including  sustainable  energy,  and  as  such,  it  can  provide  support  and  guarantees  for 

emerging  technologies  such  as  ocean  energy.  Although  this  initiative  cannot  be  considered  as 
realising Action Plan 3, in that  it  is not  yet in  place, nor it is dedicated to ocean energy specifically, 

it  can  represent an  important  opportunity  for the  ocean  energy sector  in  terms  of increasing  the 
confidence of investors and reducing costs 90. 

• 

• 

T he provision of finance to financial intermediaries targeting the blue economy via “Blue Invest Fund”, with 75 M LN 
E U R earmarked from the European I nvestment Fund 

C alls for applications for the “Blue I nvest Grants” have been closed in February 2 020, while those for the “Blue 
I nvest Fund” were open until September 2020. Retrieved from 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/1451 

85 I nnovFin E nergy D emonstration Projects provides loans, loan guarantees or equity-type financing typically between EUR 7.5 
million and EUR 7 5 million. For more information s ee: https://www.eib.org/en/products/mandates-
partnerships/innovfin/products/energy-demo-projects.htm  
86 For more information see: https://www.bpifrance.fr/Q ui-sommes-nous/Notre-mission  

87 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

88 I nc luding stakeholder opinion and O ceanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: 
https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  
89 J ac ques Delors Institute (2020) T he Member State compartment of the I nvestEU Fund: how does it work? Will it fly? 
A vailable at : https://institutdelors.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/PP247_InvestEUFund_Rubio-EN-1.pdf   

90 D G  MARE Website (2018) O cean energy -  A new s ource of green, blue power. A vailable at : 
https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/press/ocean-energy-new-source-green-blue-power_en   

39 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Action Plan 4 “De-risking environmental consenting through an integrated programme of 
measures” 

The  Roadmap  suggested  to  develop a  set  of  5  environment  and  consenting  projects  to  address 

specific challenges related to environment and consenting for the ocean energy sector, and namely: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Project 1 –  Planning: provide guidance and recommendations on how to  apply spatial planning 
and assessment to aid the ocean energy sector in selecting sites and ensuring compliance with 
Directives/Regulations in a proactive manner;  

Project 2 – C onsenting: provide guidance promoting best  practice techniques  based on review 
of consenting and licensing processes; 

Project  3  –  Research: provide guidance  describing  the  approaches to  secure delivery of  site 
specific planning  and monitoring,  research and assessment; 
Project 4 – Socio-economics: provide data on potential socio-economic benefits and impacts as 

well  as  recommendations  on  the  most  effective  techniques  to  assess  and  report  upon  cost 
reduction and maximising social and economic benefit of ocean energy technologies; 

Project 5 – Demonstration Strategy: develop an Environmental  Demonstration Strategy which 
will  take advantage of  first  arrays to  monitor  and assess the  environmental impacts  of ocean 

energy technologies. 

Partial progress has been made on the implementation of Project 1, 2 and 5 for what concerns wave 
energy, as  three  projects  are in  the  process of  being  implemented  that  focus  on  increasing  the 
amount  of  environmental  data  available  and  to  improve  the  knowledge  on  assessing  possible 

impacts of ocean energy devices, including to improve the  planning and consenting procedures.  

In 2017 91 and 2019 92 the  European C ommission published two calls on “Environmental monitoring 
of wave and tidal  devices” under the EMFF.  Following  the publication  of the 2017  call for proposal, 
the Sea Wave project93 and the WESE Project94 were cumulatively funded with 1.5 million EUR from 
the EMFF  and launched in October-November 2018.  Both projects are under way and will  run until 
2021.  The  2019  call  gave light  to  the  SafeWAVE project95, started  in  October 2020  and  running 
until  2023.  

The  Sea Wave  Project 96  aims  to  “undertake  one  of  the  first  targeted  multi-WEC   ecological 
sampling campaigns adopting  a rigorous experimental approach to  address some of the remaining 
uncertainties that exist for WEC s in offshore environments” 97. The project will develop, among other 
things,  a comprehensive environmental impact data  review and an  impact model framework, that 
will  serve  to  deliver  and  disseminate  evidence-based guidance  and  best  practice  documents  to 

facilitate  the  adoption  by  national  regulatory  bodies  of  risk-based  consenting  processes  and  to 

91 C all for proposals: Environmental monitoring of wave and tidal devices (2017) https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/call-
proposals-environmental-monitoring-wave-and-tidal-devices 

92 C all for proposals: Ocean monitoring (2019) https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-
tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/opportunities/topic-
details/om;freeTextSearchKeyword=;typeCodes=1;statusCodes=31094501,31094502,31094503;programCode=EMFF;progr
amD ivisionCode=null;focusAreaCode=null;crossCuttingPriorityCode=null;callCode=Default;sortQuery=openingDate;orderBy
=as c ;onlyTenders=false;topicListKey=to 

93 See http://www.emec.org.uk/projects/ocean-energy-projects/environmental-monitoring/sea-wave-strategic-environmental-
as sessment-of-wave-energy-technologies/  

94 See http://wese-project.eu/  
95 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/org-
details/999999999/project/101000175/program/31098847/details  

96 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/org-
details/999999999/project/101000175/program/31098847/details  

97 See http://www.emec.org.uk/projects/ocean-energy-projects/environmental-monitoring/sea-wave-strategic-environmental-
as sessment-of-wave-energy-technologies/  

40 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

support  developers in  securing  future  multi-device  consents.  The  link  to  the  objectives  of  the 
Roadmap is directly recognised on the project description available on the website 98. The project is 
led by the European Marine Energy C entre, coordinating a consortium that brings together academic 
experts,  environmental consultants,  data  managers and  wave  technology  developers. It  will  run 

until  October 2021,  and it  is  composed by 6 Work Packages. The first  deliverables of WP 1 on  the 
gap analysis, WP 3 on data collection, WP 4 on modelling and validation, and WP6 on communication 
have been produced and are available on the project’s website 99. 

The WESE  project aims at  improving “the  current knowledge  of  potential  environmental  effects 

and risks of wave energy, better inform decision-makers and managers on environmental risks and 
reduce environmental consenting uncertainty” 100 in Portugal and Spain. The project is implemented 
by  the  WESE  consortium,  led  by  the  RD&I  Basque  centre  AZTI  and  a  multidisciplinary  team  of 
partners composed by technology device developers, EIA consultants,  academic experts and data 
managers  and  it  is  articulated  in  7  Work  Packages  (WP),  including  the  collection,  processing, 

analysis and  sharing of environmental data  around three wave energy devices currently operating 
at sea. The project is progressing and will run until  October 2021.  The first deliverables of WP 2 on 

Environmental  monitoring,  WP4  on  Risk  and  adaptive  based  consenting  for  wave  energy 
deployments and WP7 on communication and dissemination have been delivered and are available 
on the project’s website 101. 

The  SafeWAVE  project  aims  to  better  inform  decision-makers and  managers on  environmental 

risks  of  wave  energy  devices,  as  well  as  to  help  reduce  environmental  consenting  uncertainty 
thereof and to support the development of country-specific licensing guidance and suitability maps 

for wave energy developments based on MSP decision support tools for most of the EU countries in 
the Atlantic Arch. This will be done by collecting, processing, analysing and sharing of environmental 
data on devices currently operating at sea and modelling future impacts of larger scale wave energy 

deployments. The project started in October 2020  and is at the initial stages of its implementation. 
It will  run until 2023 102.   

Phase 2 (2017-2020) 

The  evidence  collected  demonstrates  that  limited  progress was  made  in  the  implementation  of 
phase 2  of the  action  framework established by  the C ommunication, for what  concerns wave and 

tidal energy only.  

European Industrial Initiative  

The  C ommunication suggested  that  a European  Industrial  Initiative  (EII)  be  created as  a  public-
private partnership to  bring  together ocean energy industry,  researchers, Member States and  the 

C ommission to  set out  and achieve clear and shared objectives for the  sector. No  evidence that  a 
dedicated European Industrial  Initiative  for ocean energy was created was  found  in the  course of 
the study, and according to a stakeholder consulted in the course of this study, the intention to not 

continue  with  the  EII  had  already  been  communicated  at  the  time  of  publication  of  the 
C ommunication. 

98 See: http://www.emec.org.uk/projects/ocean-energy-projects/environmental-monitoring/sea-wave-strategic-
environmental-assessment-of-wave-energy-technologies/  

99 See: http://www.emec.org.uk/projects/ocean-energy-projects/environmental-monitoring/sea-wave-strategic-
environmental-assessment-of-wave-energy-technologies/project-deliverables/  
100 See: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/stories/european-unions-efforts-understanding-environmental-impacts-wave-energy-devices  

101 See http://wese-project.eu/  
102 See: https://www.wavec.org/en/research-development/projects/safewave  

41 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Sector-specific guidelines for the implementation of relevant legislation 

The  C ommunication recommended that  guidelines  be developed  to  “streamline  and  facilitate  the 
implementation”  of  relevant  EU  legislation  (e.g.  Birds  and  Habitats  Directive, Renewable  Energy 

Directive,  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive)  and  to  facilitate  the  licensing  of  relevant  ocean 
energy projects and therefore “ease the burden faced by public authorities and project developers”.  

Notably,  in  2019  the  European  C ommission  published  the  “Guidance  on  Energy  Transmission 
Infrastructure and EU nature legislation” 103, with the aim to provide guidance to project developers, 
transmission system operators and authorities responsible for the permitting of energy transmission 
plans  and  projects  on  how  best  to  approach the  installation,  operation  and  decommissioning  of 

energy transmission infrastructure in relation to Natura 2000  sites and species protected under the 
EU  Habitats  and Birds Directive. The document provides an overview of the potential  impacts that 

energy  transmission  infrastructure  might  have  on  protected  habitats  and  species,  it  presents 
approaches on how to  identify appropriate mitigation  measures during different stages of the plan 
or  project  cycle,  and  it  also  touches  upon  permitting  procedures  under  the  Habitats  Directive. 

Notably,  the  document  also  includes  a  chapter  dedicated to  marine  renewable energy,  including 
wave  and  tidal  current  power.  The  guidance  however  specifies  that  due  to  the  current  level  of 

development of these types of technologies, there is still uncertainty with  regards to the  scale and 
complexity of their impacts on the marine environment, and it suggests a case by case assessment 
to identify the impacts.  

Although  these  cannot  be considered official  guidelines for  the  purposes of assessing the  level of 

implementation  of  Phase  2  of  the  C ommunication,  it  is  possible  to  note  that  the  European 
C ommission has  funded  different  initiatives  in  the  context  of  which  specific recommendations for 

Maritime Spatial Planning processes in support of the ocean energy sector have been produced. For 
instance,  the  MSP  Platform  published  a  document104  in  2018  outlining  some  general 
recommendations on how to  support the development of wave and tidal energy projects alongside 
other  sectors  and  interests.  The  MUSES  project105,  yet  to  be  completed,  is  going  to  develop  an 
action  plan to  address the  challenges and opportunities  for Multi-Uses  of the  oceans, including  by 

addressing  issues  relating  to  the  deployment  of  wave  and  tidal  energy.  Moreover,  the  MARINA 
Platform Project106, concluded  in  2014,  produced a  set  of protocols  covering the  engineering and 
economic evaluation of multi-purpose Marine Renewable Energy platforms, including wave and tidal 

devices, taking  into  account also  non-energy uses and  planning  &  consenting  issues surrounding 
their deployment, which are relevant in  the context of the spatial planning decisions. 

5.2.2  EQ 4: What  have been the quantitative and qualitative effects of the intervention? 

Ocean energy projects installed and deployed since 2014 

The combined installed  capacity of ocean energy devices in 2014  in  Europe was 10  MW 107.  At the 
end of 2018, this amounted to 24.7 MW 108. Evidence collected provides data mostly regards to wave 
and  tidal  technology devices. The  collected information  shows that  while  the  installed  capacity of 

wave technology devices doubled compared to 2015 (from 4.8 MW to 10 MW), the installed capacity 

103 E uropean Commission (2019) G uidance on energy transmission infrastructure and EU nature legislation. Available at : 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/82e2011b-be3e-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1  

104 See: https://www.msp-platform.eu/sites/default/files/sector/pdf/mspforbluegrowth_sectorfiche_tidalwave.pdf 
105 See: https://muses-project.com/?page_id=45 

106 See: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/241402/reporting 
107 E uropean Commission (2014) I mpact Assessment accompanying the Communication on O cean energy 

108 J RC (2019) Technology Market Report 

42 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

of  tidal  energy  quadrupled  (from  4.6  MW  to  20  MW) 109.  11.8  MW  of  the  tidal  energy  installed 
capacity are located in  the United  Kingdom 110. Reportedly, 27.7  MW  of  tidal  stream and 11.8  MW 
of  wave  energy were  installed  in  Europe  since  2010 111.  It  is  important  to  know  however, that  a 
portion  of this  installed  capacity was removed or decommissioned at  the  end of  their  testing  and 
demonstration phase. In particular, according to recently collected data 112, 10.4 MW of tidal stream 
is  currently  operating,  while  17.3  MW  have  been  decommissioned  following  the  successful 
completion of testing  programmes. Of the 11.8  MW of wave energy deployed since 2010,  only 1.5 

MW  is currently in the water, while 10.3  MW  have been decommissioned as well.  

Figure 5.2 Installed capacity by origin of technology 

Source: JRC 2020 – 9 JRC (2020) – Facts  and figures on Offshore Renewable Energy Sources in Europe, JRC121366 
(upcoming)113 

According to  the Ocean SET report114, compiling information from a survey directed to  EU Member 
States, the average annual electricity production per installed capacity was 1,762 MWh/MW  for tidal 

109 J RC (2019) Market Study Report; O cean E nergy E urope (2020) Key trends and s tatistics 2019 reports that in 2 019, the 
ins talled capacity in EU waters amounted to 10.4 MW for tidal energy and 1.5 MW for wave energy. 

1 1 0  J RC (2019) Market Study Report 
111 O c ean Energy E urope (2020) Key trends and s tatistics 2019 

112 E T IPOcean (2 020) Strategic Research And Innovation Agenda For O cean Energy  
113 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

114 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

43 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

energy. No information on electricity production was found for wave energy or other ocean energy 
technologies. 

OTEC  is  being developed at the  Principality of  Monaco (2019)  for heating and  cooling of  buildings 

(approximately 1MW of installed capacity). Salinity gradient is being developed in the Netherlands, 
with the installed capacity at the REDSTAC K site being around 50 kW. This is planned to be upscaled. 

In general, the information regarding developments with OTEC  and salinity gradient technologies is 
rather scarce in the main technology reports published to date in the  EU. This can be attributed  to 
the  fact that these technologies are at earlier stages of development compared to  wave and  tidal, 

and that  their applicability to the EU continent  appears to be limited.  

In this context,  it is important  to highlight  that  ocean energy manufactures (e.g. manufacturers of 
different components of ocean energy devices) seem to be regaining interest in the sector, and the 
creation of new manufacturing facilities was announced in France (Normandy) and Shetland (United  
Kingdom) 115. 

While it  is  possible to  conclude that  there has been progress in  the installation  and deployment of 
wave and tidal energy since 2014,  there is  no direct evidence, that  this  slight  increase of installed 

capacity is due to  the policy intervention object of this  study. On the  other hand, it is important  to 
note that most of the installed capacity within EU waters received EU funding 116, and this can be an 
indication  that  the  wider  EU  support  for  ocean  energy  played  an  important  role  for  the  further 

installation  of ocean energy devices in the water. 

European Union’s investments in ocean energy since 2014, including R&D funding 

The EU provides funding  to ocean energy since the  early 2000s but  presenting an accurate picture 
of the exact amount of funding  provided, especially by type of fund, remains challenging.  

According to the  energy competitiveness report117, the  total  R&I expenditure on wave and tidal in 
the EU  was 3.84  billion EUR from 2007 to  2019, with  2.74  billion EUR coming from private sources 

and  436  million  EUR  coming  from national  R&I programmes.  In  this  context,  the  EU  contribution 
from R&I funds was around 650 million EUR (this includes R&I programmes as well as contributions 

from NER300  and Interreg projects).  

115 J RC (2019): “O cean energy supply c hain” 
116 J RC (2019) Technology Market Report 

117 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

44 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Figure 5.3 EU R&D expenditure on Wave and tidal energy, EUR million 118 

In  terms  of  trends,  while  private  investments  in  the  sector  decreased between  2010  and  2016, 
national  and  EU  R&D  funds  increased.  By  contrast,  between  2017  and  2019,  private  R&D 

investments started increasing again, while EU and national support slightly  decreased.  

According to  a stakeholder from the  European C ommission consulted  in  the  context of  the  study, 
the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  helped  steer  internal  policy  dynamics  within  the  European 
C ommission and  channel considerable funding  from EU  mechanisms such as  Horizon  2020,  ERDF 

(Interreg)  and  NER300  in  the  direction  of  ocean  energy.  It  was  not  possible  however,  to  find 
additional documentary evidence to confirm this. 

The  table  below provides an  overview of  the  financial support  provided to  ocean energy by  each 

different  EU  fund,  based  on  the  2019  JRC   Technology  Development  Report  (unless  stated 
otherwise). This overview also includes minor sources of funding and support that can be accessed 
by ocean energy developers, although no indications on the resources allocated to the sector so far 

are available.  

Table 5.2 Overview of the main EU funding mechanisms supporting ocean energy 

Funding mechanisms  

Responsible entity 

A mount (in million 
EUR) 

Period 

Horizon 2020 

Europe an Commission, 

Of which Ocean ERA-
NET 

DG R e search and 
Innovation 

Of which EIT 
InnoEnergy 121 

Of which Enhanced 
European  Innovation 
Council (EIC) pilot 122 

140 119 
7.6 120 

N/A 

N/A 

2014-2019 

2013-2019 

N/A 

N/A 

118 Retrieved from: European C ommission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020 
119 J RC (2019) Technology development report. 

120 J RC (2019) Technology development report. 
121 I nnoEnergy supports s tart-ups and scale-ups that work on innovative sustainable energy technologies. For more 
information see: https://www.innoenergy.com/  
122 T he E nhanced E uropean Innovation Council (EIC) pilot s upports researchers and innovators developing high-risk, 
breakthrough innovations with the potential to c reate new markets and boost jobs, growth and prosperity in E urope. T he 
pilot provides grants and blended finance. For more information s ee: 
https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/european-innovation-council-eic-pilot  

45 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Funding mechanisms  

Responsible entity 

A mount (in million 
EUR) 

Period 

NER  300  

Europe an Commission, 
DG C lim ate Action 

148 123 

2010-2019 

Europe an Regional 

De ve lopment Fund, 
including Interreg 

Europe  

Of which Interreg 

Europe an Maritime 
Fishe ries Fund 
C O SME 127 

Europe an Commission, 

209.5 124 

2007-2019 

DG R e gional Policy 

72,5 125 
1.8 126  

N/A 128 

2016-2022 

2017- 2020 

N/A 

Europe an Commission, 
DG Maritim e Policy 

Europe an Commission, 
DG for Inte rnal Market, 
Industry, 

Entre pre neurship and 
SMEs 

Member States’ support for ocean energy since 2014 

Little  comprehensive data is available on the total  amount of Member States’ investments in ocean 
energy since 2014.  The  JRC  reported that  Member  States spent  around 100  million  EUR  in  ocean 
energy between 2014  and 2015 129,  while other sources inform that  contribution  from national R&I 
programmes amounted to 463 million EUR in the period 2007-2019 130.  According to a recent report 
from OceanSET, the contribution  from Member States amounted to  26.3 million  EUR in 2018 131.  It 
is however unclear whether  these numbers refer to wave and tidal  only, or also include OTEC  and 
salinity gradient. In addition to this,  it is important to note that,  as stated in this report, difficulties 
persist in accessing accurate information regarding national funding  of ocean energy projects. 

123 E uropean Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report. 

124 J RC (2019) Technology development report. 
125 T his figure was identified based on an assessment done by the D G MARE. 

126 Bas ed on an assessment of project names 2  projects directly linked to ocean energy were identified, and the amounts 
added. Cross-cutting projects, that also might benefit the O CEN s ector, were not added. See: 
https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/european-maritime-and-fisheries-fund-0 

127 C O SME is the EU programme for the Competitiveness of E nterprises and SMEs, running from 2014 to 2020, with a budget 
of 2 .3  billion EUR. COSME s upports SMEs in the following areas: facilitating access to finance, s upporting internationalization 
and ac cess to markets, c reating an environment favorable to c ompetitiveness, encouraging an entrepreneurial c ulture. For 
more information s ee:  https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/cosme_en  

128 I t was  not possible to estimate the amount of the support provided by the COSME instrument, but this is included in the 
overview for c ompleteness of information, as this instrument can be relevant for ocean energy developers which are SMEs in 
mos t cases. 

129 J RC (2019): “T echnology D evelopment Report” 
130 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

131 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

46 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Figure 5.4 A nnual Member State R&D funding in the EU for ocean technologies 

Source: European Commis sion (2019): “Study on impacts of EU actions s upporting the development of Renewable Energy 
technologies 

It is important to note that support for ocean energy development often comes from specific coastal 

regions  within  the  different  Member  States.  In  this  respect,  regions such  as  Brittany,  Pays de  la 
Loire (France), Basque country (Spain) and Flanders (Belgium) currently play an  important role in 
helping the sector, also by providing dedicated support to it in some cases. An overview of the main 

support policies, including  regional ones, is presented in Appendix 6. Aside for the  direct provision 
of  funding  to  the  ocean  energy  sector,  Member  States  and  regions  also  support  the  sector  by 

ensuring  the  availability  of,  suitable  test  centres  for  these  technologies.  Access to  these  sites  is 
crucial  to  enable technology  developers to  have a  practical  experience of  the  different  phases of 
installation,  operation,  maintenance  and  decommissioning  of  their  devices,  including  the  related 

administrative  procedures. Open  Sea  Test  Sites,  two  to  three  per  country,  are  available  in  the 
Netherlands, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden and France 132.

132 O ES (2019) Annual Report. A vailable at : https://www.etipocean.eu/assets/Uploads/oes-annual-report-2019.pdf  

47 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Capital costs reduction in ocean energy since 2014 

“Significant cost reduction is needed for tidal and wave energy technologies to exploit their potential 
in  the  energy mix, for  which  intensified and  continued  demonstration activities  are necessary”133. 
The capital expenditure (C APEX) costs of ocean energy are on a decreasing trend, but the costs of 
ocean energy are still  above the cost of other renewable energy sources 134. 

C ost reduction  has been achieved at  a faster pace than  expected for  tidal stream technologies 135. 
Recent estimates on the current levelized cost of energy (LC OE) of ocean energy report a LC OE of 
400 EUR/MWh  for tidal energy, and of 560  EUR/MWh  for wave energy 136. Although there has been 
a reduction in  the LC OE of ocean energy since 2014,  by 40%  for tidal stream in three years alone 
according to official sources 137 and by 30-50% for single wave energy devices 138, the development 
of ocean energy is still associated with  both  high capital expenditure (C APEX) and high  operational 
expenditure (OPEX) 139, and the  sector struggles with  creating a viable market for itself 140.  

It is important to  highlight  that data con cost trends are still limited,  due to the lack of commercial 
scale  applications  and  estimates  are  currently  mostly  drawn  by  analysing  baseline  case 141.  In 
addition  to  this,  the  LC OE  of  ocean  energy  is  both  site  and  technology  specific,  and  without 

transparent  and  shared performance data  from  demonstration  projects  it  is  difficult  to  draw  firm 
conclusions on the  LC OE development.  

It  was not  possible to  identify  evidence proving the existence of  a direct  and causal  link between 
the  adoption  of  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  and  the  achieved  cost  reductions.  However, 

documentary evidence indicates  that  EU  funding,  and in  particular  Horizon 2020,  helped increase 
know-how in the sector and decrease C APEX 142143.  

To what  extent has the development of ocean energy sector contributed to job creation, 
economic growth or EU’s sustainability objectives since 2014 

Evidence  collected  so  far  points  at  the  lack  of  data  and  studies  on  ocean  energy-related  job 
creation 144.  Despite this,  estimates  have been  found  reporting  that  the  ocean energy sector  has 

133 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

134 J RC (2019) “Technology Market Report” 
135 D avide M agagna - JRC (2020) O cean E nergy in Europe Analysis of the s tate of play of the O cean E nergy s ector in E urope 

and implications moving forward. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2030-

V ision-Launch-Davide-Magagna.pdf  

136 J RC (2019) “Technology Development Report” 
137 E uropean Commission (2020) EU s trategy on offshore renewable energy 

138 E T IPocean (2020) Strategic Research And I nnovation Agenda For O cean Energy 
139 J RC (2019) “T echnology D evelopment Report” 

140 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

141 T rinomics (2019) “Study on impacts of EU actions s upporting the development of Renewable Energy technologies” 

142 T rinomics (2019) “Study on impacts of EU actions s upporting the development of Renewable Energy technologies” 
143 SE TIS magazine (2019): “O cean energy” 

144 D alton (2018) “O cean energy Wave and Tide” 

48 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

generated around 2,000 jobs, both through  direct and indirect145 job creation, in 2018 146 147. Other 
sources 148 inform that  TRL7+ projects in wave energy have created 121 jobs in 2018,  and those in 
tidal energy have created 78.  According to the Blue Economy Report149, 2250  jobs were generated 
by the ocean energy sector in 2019,  with  over 430 companies being involved in different stages of 

the  supply chain  in  the  EU.  The figure  below provides and overview of the  different  types of jobs 
created by the ocean energy sector. 

Figure 5.5 Breakdown of key actors in EU ocean energy sector (2017)150 

Source: JRC, updated Dec 2017 

Most  of the  information  retrieved on  the contribution  of ocean energy to  the  EU  economic growth 

and sustainability  objectives is represented by forecasts and future  outlooks. For  this reason, it  is 
not included in the analysis. However, it is important to note that  there is widespread confidence in 

the  fact  that  a  developed ocean  energy sector  will  contribute  to  providing  economic benefits,  in 
particular  to  EU  peripheral  areas,  as  well  as  to  the  reduction  of  EU  GHG  emissions  and  the 

145 T his relates to indirect employment in c ompanies along the supply c hain providing intermediate services and c omponents 
to the oc ean energy s ector.  
146 E uropean Commission (2020) T he 2018 annual economic report on the EU blue economy. A vailable at : 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/79299d10-8a35-11e8-ac6a-01aa75ed71a1  

147 T rinomics (2 019): “Study on impacts of EU actions s upporting the development of renewable energy technology” 
148 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  
149 E uropean Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020 

150 E uropean Commission (2020) T he 2018 annual economic report on the EU blue economy. A vailable at : 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/79299d10-8a35-11e8-ac6a-01aa75ed71a1  

49 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

achievement of the  climate neutrality  target by 2050,  including  by supporting the  decarbonisation 
of EU islands. This is also backed by relevant recent policy documents 151 152. 

5.2.3  EQ 5: To what extent have the objectives of the intervention been met so far? 

It  is  important to  note that  none of  the  stakeholders interviewed  in  the  course of  the  study  have 
been able to make a direct reference to the objectives of the Blue Energy C ommunication. Notably, 

one  third  of  them  have  provided  a  positive  feedback  on  the  effectiveness of  the  instrument  “in 
general”, with  the majority of the  others remaining rather neutral in  their judgment.  

Increase in the uptake of ocean energy 

Documentary evidence allows to conclude that  the installed capacity of ocean energy worldwide has 
increased  by  50%  between  2016  and  2017.  In  2018,  the  installed  capacity  of  wave  and  tide 

combined amounted to  31.4  MW  worldwide, this  went  up  to 34  MW  in 2019  (12MW  wave, 22 MW  
tidal) 153.  70% 154  of this  global ocean energy installed  capacity is located  within  the  EU-27  waters 
and  therefore  it  is  possible  to  conclude  that  there  has  been  an  increase in  the  uptake  of  ocean 
energy both globally and in the EU.  Overall, the sector has made significant steps forward in terms 
of technological development over the past  5 years 155, although  this  progress has  been described 
as “limited” or “slow” compared to original expectations 156. In fact, the Blue Energy C ommunication 
included a projection that foresaw total  installed capacity of ocean energy to reach 2.2 GW in 2020 

(and  4.3  GW  in  2035)    (as  backed by  the  Impact  Assessment that  accompanied  it), which  is far 
from the current levels. Other estimates foresaw an installed capacity of around 2GW 157, 158 or 3.6 
GW 159 by 2020.  Different stakeholders mentioned  that  the C ommunication was “overoptimistic” in 
terms of the  stage of development and potential of ocean energy at  the time of its publication.  

In this  context,  it is  important to  note that  documentary sources indicate that while  the uptake of 
tidal  energy has been notable,  in  particular since 2017 160,  the  wave energy sector’s progress has 
been slower. According to the EU,  tidal technologies ‘can be considered as being at pre-commercial 
stage’, with a number of projects and prototypes being deployed across Europe 161 (with TRL of most 
devices being around 6-8) 162.  The progress made by tidal energy has been judged superior to the 

151 E uropean Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020 

152 E uropean Commission (2020) EU s trategy on offshore renewable energy  
153 D avide M agagna - JRC (2020) O cean E nergy in Europe Analysis of the s tate of play of the O cean E nergy s ector in E urope 

and implications moving forward. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2030-

V ision-Launch-Davide-Magagna.pdf  

154 E uropean Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020 

155 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

156 J RC (2019): “Technology Market Report” 
157 E uropean Renewable E nergy Council (2010) M apping Renewable Energy Pathways towards 2020. Available at : 
http://www.eufores.org/fileadmin/eufores/Projects/REPAP_2020/EREC-roadmap-V4.pdf  

158 D avide M agagna, Andreas Uihlein (2015) O cean energy development in E urope: Current s tatus and future perspectives. 
A vailable at : 
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S2214166915000181?token=261027A4D4DADF08B4683A81CCC0675B46BD37E6F
3 9 B7954D12615CC34EFE6CF08EC4012DB8276E2568A3265B50574BA  
159 P osition P aper -  T owards E uropean industrial leadership in O cean Energy in 2 020 

160 J RC (2019): “O cean energy supply c hain” 
161 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

162 E T IPOcean (2 020) Strategic Research And Innovation Agenda For O cean Energy 

50 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

expectations, in particular in terms of the reliability of the devices, as well as their ability to provide 
stable input  to the grid 163. By contrast, wave energy technologies appear to still be at the R&I stage 
(with  most  of  the  approaches being  at  TRL  6-7) 164,  and  substantially  lagging  behind  in  terms  of 
performance,  in  particular  when  electricity  generation  is  taken  into  account165.  In  both  cases, 
technological maturity varies amongst developers. 

The  number  of  patents  filed  for  a  certain  technology  can  provide  indications  on  the  level  of  its 
uptake.  The  number  of EU  patents  filed  for  ocean energy technologies  has  been  reducing.  Since 
2006,  above  170  ocean  energy  patents  have  been  filed  every  year. The  number  of  EU  patents 

increased  until  2009,  when  313  patents  were  filed,  after  which  it  decreased again  to  pre-2007 
levels. However, the reason for this decrease appears to be a shift away for developing new devices 

to improving existing ones, which can be an indication of technological convergence. In addition to 
this, incentives and (test)  project sites outside of the EU have increased over the past years, which 
can be related to the increase in patents  being filed by non-EU countries 166 167. 

It  was  not  possible  to  identify  evidence  proving  the  existence  of  a  direct  link  between  the  EU 

intervention  analysed  in  this  study  and  the  increase  in  the  uptake  of  ocean  energy  verified. 
However, it  is  important  to  note  that  the  majority  of the  current installed  capacity and  the  most 
advanced technologies have benefited from EU financial support168.  

Enhanced stakeholder coordination 

According to the evidence collected in the course of the study, the EU support enabled the creation 
of  platforms  aiming  to  facilitate  the  development  of  a  European-wide  coordinated,  unified  and 
streamlined ocean energy sector 169. Several initiatives  favouring the  encounter of stakeholders in 
the  sector have been undertaken since before 2014.  Most  of these initiatives  include stakeholders 
from both the  industry, research and  public sector, and aim to  define common research priorities, 
identify  solutions  to  enable  and  in  general facilitate  the  further  development  of  ocean energy. A 

non-exhaustive list of relevant initiatives in which the EU participates is provided in the table below. 

Table  5.3  Overview of the main stakeholder coordination initiatives relating  to ocean energy and 
their timeline 

Initiative name 

Purpose/Output 

Period of activity  The 

Initiative 
type  

O rganisation 

Europe an 
Te chnology  and 

Innovation 

Platform 
O ce an 

for 
Ene rgy 

• 

• 

de fine 
and 
innovation priorities for the 

re se arch 

oce an energy sector 
prom ote  solutions  to  the  
industry,  European  and 

(ETIP O cean) 

national policy m akers. 

initiative 
receives EU 

funding  

Since  2013 

Ye s 

163 E uropean Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020 
164 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  
165 E uropean Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020  

166 T rinomics (2019): “Study on impacts of EU actions s upporting the development of renewable energy technology”  
167 D alton (2018): “O cean energy Wave and Tide”  

168 J RC (2019) Technology Market Study 
169 T rinomics (2019) “Study on impacts of EU actions s upporting the development of Renewable Energy technologies” 

51 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Initiative 
type  

O rganisation 

Initiative name 

Purpose/Output 

Period of activity  The 

initiative 
receives EU 

funding  

EER A 
Programme 

Joint 
on 

• 

de fine 
and 
innovation priorities for the 

re se arch 

O ce an Energy 

oce an e nergy se ctor from  

since  2010 

Ye s 

the   point  of  view  of 
re se arch organisations 

C ofund action    FP7 O ce aneranet 

• 

facilitate  cooperation  and 

2013 - 2018 

Ye s 

H2020 
O ce anER ANET 

C O FUND 

alignment of national and 
re search 
re gional 

2017 – 2021 

programmes 
support the  de monstration 

• 

and de velopment of ocean 

e ne rgy technologies  

C luster 

ELBE proje ct 

•  De live r 

support 

to 

Since  2018 

Ye s 

organisation 

C ollaborative 
programme 

The   Te chnology 
C ollaboration 

inte rnationalisation 

activitie s  of  SMEs  in  the  
blue  e conomy sectors 

Position 
European 
com panies  in  the   global 

blue  e conomy market 

Acce le rate  the   viability, 
uptake,  acce ptance   of 

2001 

• 

• 

Programme 
O ce an 

on 
e nergy 

oce an energy systems I an 
e nvironmentally 

Syste m s 

acce ptable m anner 

No/ 
The  

Europe an 
C om mission 

is a  member 

since  2016. 

C ollaborative 

O ce anSET 

• 

Support  action  for  the  

Since  2019 

Ye s 

proje ct 

im plementation  working 

group of the  ocean energy 
SET Plan IP 

Profe ssional 

O ce an 

Ene rgy 

• 

Prom ote the   development 

Since  2005 

Ye s 170 

ne twork  

Europe  (OEE) 

of oce an energy industry in 
Europe  

Several events bringing ocean energy stakeholders together are also regularly organised, such as 
European  Wave  and  Tidal  Energy  C onference 171, Offshore  Energy  Exhibition  &  C onference172, 
WaveEC  Annual Seminar 173, Marine Energy Week 174, Ocean Energy Europe Annual Event175. 

In  2017  some  stakeholders 176 still  expressed concerns with  regards to  the  current  “do  it  alone” 
approach in  ocean energy and  lamented that  insufficient  sharing of  knowledge was  slowing  down 
the  development  of  the  sector.  Little  documentary  evidence  assessing  the  current  level  of 
stakeholder collaboration in the sector is available. This notwithstanding,  the majority of the expert 

170 O c ean Energy E urope participates to EU-funded projects relating to ocean energy e.g. FO RESEA, MARINET2.  
171 See: https://ewtec.org/  

172 See: https://www.offshore-energy.biz/  
173 See: http://www.wavec.org/en/events/seminar-2020  

174 See: https://wmw.bilbaoexhibitioncentre.com/en/meeting/marine-energy-week/   
175 See: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/annual-event/oee2020/ 

176 J RC (2019) “O cean energy supply c hain” 

52 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

stakeholders consulted in  the  course of this  study affirm  that  the  ocean energy sector is  sensibly 
more structured,  coordinated  and  organised than  it  was  in  2014,  in  particular  because of  the  EU 

support of several of the initiatives indicated  above.  

Facilitated access to finance 

Access to  finance is still  an  issue in the  context  of ocean energy and this  affects the  development 
of  the  sector 177 178 179.  While  funding  for  research  and  development  is  usually  regarded  as 
“reasonably good”, the stakeholders express concerns with regards to the amounts of the funding, 

as well as the lack of funding in support of the commercialisation of the technology and the lack of 
engagement of private sector and Member States. These shortcomings are also highlighted  in  the 
documentary evidence analysed 180 181 182. In  addition  to  this,  a part  of  the  stakeholders consulted 
indicate  that  a  limited  understanding  of  the  available  instruments  still  persists  in  some  cases. 
Moreover,  access  to  funding  is  deemed  particularly  difficult  for  OTEC   and  salinity  gradient 

technology developers, which even mentioned, during the interviews conducted in the course of the 
study,  that  ‘there  was  no  access to  finance’.  It  is  important  to  highlight  that  this  feedback was 

provided  by  stakeholders that  are  directly  involved  in  the  ocean energy  sector  (e.g.  technology 
developers, research institutes and public authorities) and that  have a vested interest in seeing the 

sector develop further. 

The evidence collected in  the course of the  study points  at different persisting obstacles to  access 

to finance for ocean energy development to date, as outlined  in the section below. 

The high competition for available funding and restrictive requirements and burdensome 
application procedures of available funding mechanisms (e.g. the requirement for projects to 
be ‘bankable’183); 

While  different EU  funding  mechanisms are available for ocean energy development (as indicated 
in EQ4), difficulties in accessing these funds persist, according to the stakeholders consulted. First, 

there  is  high  competition  for  the  available funds,  not  only  from  within  the  ocean  energy sector, 
which  practically  lowers  the  chances of  success for  single  applicants.  Second, the  eligibility  and 
other technical requirements for the  disbursement of the  funds can be too restrictive or difficult  to 

comply with  for  emerging technologies  such  as wave  and  tidal  energy. The  need for  “specifically 
designed  calls”  has  been  highlighted  by  the  JRC , as  it  is  important  to  ensure  that  these  include 
realistic  time  scales  for  manufacturing,  deployment  and  optimisation  of  devices 184. For  instance, 
some facilities require projects to be bankable i.e. to demonstrate that they will deliver direct return 
on  the  investment  over  the  lifetime  of  the  project.  In  absence of  dedicated  revenue support  by 
Member  States,  bankability  is  particularly  difficult  to  attain 185.  Third,  the  application  procedures 
appear  to  be  overly complicated  and  time  consuming  for  a  part  of  the  stakeholders  consulted, 

177 J RC (2019) Technology development report 

178 E uropean Commission (2017): “Study on lessons for ocean energy development 
179 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

180 J RC (2019) “Technology Market Report” 
181 E T IP O cean (2019) “Powering homes today, powering nations tomorrow” 

182 E T IP O cean (2020) Strategic Research and I nnovation Agenda for O cean Energy 
183 i.e. the project must demonstrate that they will deliver a return on the investment. Retrieved from: O ceanSET (2020) 
O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-
A nnual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

184 J RC (2019) Technology Development Report 

185 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

53 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

requiring  technology developers to  engage a  substantial  amount  of resources in  proposal  writing 
and  therefore de-facto excluding  certain  actors from accessing the  funds.  This  is mainly  because 

technology developers are in large part SMEs, that  often find it  challenging to gather the resources 
necessary to navigate the funding  landscape and its related complex requirements.  

According to  the stakeholders consulted in the  course of the study,  some of these shortcomings in 

the  characteristics  of  available funding  mechanisms  have  resulted  in  funding  being  allocated  to 
technologies  that  ended  up  being  unsuccessful.  At  the  same time,  it  was  clarified that  it  is  quite 
difficult  for the  authorities  to  assess the  potential  of these  technologies,  and  that  in  some  cases 

technology  developers themselves ‘overpromised’  in  terms  of  the  maturity  of  their  technologies. 
Notably,  some  stakeholders  also  indicated  that  excessive  pressure  on  the  technological 

development has been put by project financers, supposedly forcing the technologies to demonstrate 
substantial  advancements ahead of  time. In  their views, this  has  led to  the failure of  some of  the 
devices as well. 

The absence of commercial insurance products for ocean energy devices 

As indicated in  EQ3  above, no insurance and  guarantee fund  for ocean energy exists to  date, and 
this  represents an  important  obstacle  for  technology  developers and  investors  that  have to  take 
charge of substantial project risks. According to the majority of the stakeholders consulted, limited 

progress has been made in  the reduction of risks for investors, and this still  constitutes  one of the 
main  bottlenecks  when  it  comes  to  attracting  private  capital  to  the  sector.  The  new  InvestEU 
programme  could  constitute  a  positive  advancement  on  this  as  it  will  provide  EU  budgetary 

guarantee  to  leverage  investments  on  different  projects,  including  ocean  energy  ones,  as 
highlighted  in  section 5.2.1.  The impact of  this programme for the  sector however still  remains to 

be seen.  

The limited availability of targeted revenue support schemes in Member States as well as 
private sector investments 

According to  the OceanSET report, 5 EU Member States provide revenue support for ocean energy 
(wave and tidal),  namely the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, France. Notably, France is the 

only country that  ring-fences funding for ocean energy. In all other countries, “attempt to  compete 
against other, more established, renewables, which  have already been able to lower costs through 

deploying substantial  capacity. As a result, where revenue support is not ring-fenced, the payment 
to  ocean energy projects is  typically EUR  0.” 186. More  details on  the revenue support provided by 
EU  Member States (and other) is  provided in  the table below.  The table was drafted by OceanSET 

based on a survey completed by the representatives of different Member States participating in the 
OceanSET Plan. 

The  absence  of  dedicated  revenue support  for  ocean energy  has  been  mentioned  as  one  of  the 

factors discouraging private investments in  the sector by the  stakeholders consulted in the  course 
of  the  study,  together  with  the  scarcity  of clear  national  strategies and  targets  for  ocean energy 
deployment,  that  would  give  confidence  on  the  existence  of  future  potential  markets  for  the 
technology 187. 

186 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

187 T his is also supported by documentary evidence s uch as the: O ceanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report and the J RC 
(2 0 19) T echnology development report 

54 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Table 5.4 Member States revenue support for ocean energy 188 

Country 

Revenue 

Revenue 

Is  revenue 

Revenue 

Revenue 

Revenue 

support  for 
wave? 

support  for 
tidal? 

support 

ring-
fenced? 

support 

support 

support 

tariff 
wave?  

for 

tariff 
tidal? 

for 

(in EUR) 

(in EUR) 

paid 
ocean 

energy 
2018?  

to 

in 

(in EUR) 

Finland 

No  

The 
Netherlands 

Ye s 

Italy 

No 

Spain 

Ye s 

No 

Ye s 

No 

No 

N/A 

No* 

Sk ipped 

0 

0 

0 

No* 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

N/A 

0 

0 

Not  publicly 
available. 

N/A 

Subsidy 

to 

inve stment 

costs: 
EUR 151,197; 

Subsidy 

to 

ope ration 
cost: 
EUR 35,581 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Ireland 

No 

Belgium 
(Flanders) 

Ye s 

No 

- 

N/A 

No* 

Belgium 

Ye s 

Ye s 

N/A 

50 

50 

(Ghent 
Univeristy) 

Sweden 

Ye s 

Portugal 

No 

France 

Ye s 

Norway 

No 

UK 

Ye s 

Ye s 

No 

Ye s 

No 

Ye s 

No* 

14 

Sk ipped 

0 

14 

0 

Ye s 

N/A 

No* 

173 

173 

Unk nown 

0 

45 

0 

45 

Unk nown 

EUR 370,000 

No* = No, there is  no ring-fenced s upport. Ocean energy competes against all other renewable technologies. 

This  table was adapted by the s tudy team and the data was  s ourced in the OceanSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual Report. 

188 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

55 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Improved administrative practices and environmental monitoring 

Administrative practices 

According  to  recent  estimates 189,  only  three  Member  States,  namely France,  Italy  and  Portugal, 
reported having consented wave or tidal  projects in 2018.  Average licensing  time among Member 

States  is  about  three  years and  average consenting  time  is  around  two  years for wave  and  tidal 
projects. The length  of the process has been recognised as a possible deterrent for the willingness 
of  developers  to  test  and  operate  ocean  energy  technologies 190.  According  to  most  of  the 
stakeholders consulted, limited to no progress has been made on the improvement of the efficiency 
of planning  and licensing procedures to date  and these procedures are still  considered to  be time-
consuming 191 192. 

The evidence collected suggests that there has been an increase in the number of EU-funded studies 
that  have  collected  best  practice  and  lessons  learned  in  support  of  the  ocean  energy  sector, 
including in relation to consenting processes 193, 194, 195, 196. The extent to which these lessons learned 
reach authorities or entities involved in consenting processes is, however, still unclear, and there is 
scope  to  improve  in  dissemination  approaches,  removing  language  barriers  and  centralising 

knowledge and data created in the context of these studies according to the stakeholders consulted 
in the course of the study.   

At the European level, there is still a lack of uniform procedures or guidance with regards to licensing 
and  consenting  for  ocean energy. This  is  because  licensing  is  a national  competence and  largely 

depends on the governance system that operates in a given jurisdiction. In this  context, the  recast 
Renewable  Energy Directive 197 provides some general  guidance  on  the  matter  as  it  requires 
Member  States  to  ensure  that  the  national  rules  concerning  the  authorisation,  certification  and 
licensing procedures applied to renewable energy are “proportionate and necessary and contribute 
to the implementation of the energy efficiency first principle”. The Directive also mandates that the 

procedures  put  in  place  should  be  streamlined,  objective,  transparent  and  non-discriminatory, 
among other things.   

189 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

190 O c eanSET (2020) O ceanSET First Annual Report. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanset.eu/wp-
c ontent/uploads/2020/04/O ceanSET_1st-Annual-Report_April-2020.pdf  

191 SE TIS magazine (2019) “O cean energy” 
192 E uropean Commission (2017) “Study on lessons for ocean energy development” 

1 9 3  E c orys and Fraunhofer (2017) Study on lessons for O cean E nergy D evelopment. Final Report. A  Report for D G for 

Res earch and Innovation. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/03c9b48d-66af-11e7-b2f2-
0 1 aa75ed71a1  

1 9 4  Ris k Based Consenting of O ffshore Renewable Energy P rojects (RiCORE) (2015 –  2016) was a H orizon 2020 funded 

project that promoted a risk-based approach to the c onsenting of offshore renewable energy. I t c onsidered the practices, 
methodologies and implementation of pre-consent s urveys, post-consent and post-deployment monitoring. Available at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/horizon-2020/projects/h2020-energy/wind-energy/ricore  

1 9 5  T he M ulti-Use in European Seas (MUSES) project (2016 – 2 018) was a H orizon 2020 funded project that explored the 

opportunities for Multi-Use in E uropean Seas across five EU s ea basin, reviewing existing planning and c onsenting processes 
us ed for marine and c oastal development of E uropean s eas. More information at: https://muses-project.com/   

1 9 6  E T IP O cean (2019) Powering H omes T oday, Powering N ations T omorrow. Available at: https://www.etipocean.eu  
197 D irective (EU) 2018/2001 of the E uropean Parliament and of the Council of 1 1 December 2 018 on the promotion of the use 
of energy from renewable sources (T ext with EEA relevance.) available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
c ontent/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:O J.L_.2018.328.01.0082.01.ENG&toc=O J:L:2018:328:TOC   

56 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

In  2016,  it  was  reported 198  that  only  a  few  European  countries  had  streamlined  the  consenting 
process for ocean energy developments by introducing a single point of contact or ‘one-stop-shop’ 

system (such as Denmark, the  United  Kingdom or Portugal).  Other countries, including  Spain and 
Sweden still  rely on  multiple  authorities  to  process consenting  applications for  ocean energy and 

other marine activities.  

At  the  same  time,  over  the  last  six  years,  there  has  been  significant  progress  made  in  the 
implementation  of the  EU Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 199, which requires the  adoption 
of maritime spatial plans in Member States by March 2021 and is identified as an important  tool for 

the  sustainable  development  of  marine  areas and  coastal  regions,  with  potential  to  de-risk  and 
unlock potential areas for ocean energy deployment.  

To date, most marine plans considering ocean energy have focused on offshore wind  development 
(such  as  Denmark, Germany or  Sweden) 200 and  do  not  make reference to  other  forms of  ocean 
energy in  their plans.  Exceptions, however, exist and  wave and  tidal  energy are likely to  become 
increasingly considered  in  planning  processes, as  indicated  in  the  Irish  National  Marine  Planning 
Framework Baseline Report (published in November 2019) 201 or the Spanish Draft Maritime Spatial 
Plan  (published  in  February  2020) 202.  According  to  the  stakeholders interviewed,  other  Member 
States  prefer to  use  marine plans  to  set  a  framework for  development and  use  sectoral plans  to 
identify  suitable  areas  and  infrastructure  needs  for  wave  and  tidal  energy  development  (e.g. 
Scotland), in Portugal, although marine plans do identify zones for specific uses, they allow certain 

flexibility for alternative uses to  be proposed. 

Environmental monitoring 

Knowledge and understanding of the environmental impact  associated with  different ocean energy 
technologies are important factors when it comes to facilitating licensing and consenting processes. 
The  main  potential  impacts 203  so  far  associated  with  the  deployment  of  ocean  energy  relate  to 
potential  collision with  marine biodiversity, the  creation of  underwater noise and  electromagnetic 
fields  that  can  disturb  marine  species,  changes  in  marine  habitats  (e.g.  seabed  conditions, 

sedimentation  patterns  etc.)  that  can  occur  as  a  consequence of  the  installation  of  devices. The 
assessment of environmental impacts largely depends on  the type of conversion technology used, 
on their operation mode and on the specific location of the device. Due to the fact that most impacts 

are site-specific, and that there is a limited number of ocean energy devices installed and monitored 
in  EU  waters,  there  is  still  substantial  uncertainty  with  regards  to  the  environmental  impacts  of 

ocean energy. The “lack of coherent, generalised information, strategies and the lack of monitoring 
and  mitigation  plans”  are considered to  be  obstacles to  the development of  ocean energy around 
the  world to  date 204, and  the proliferation of  real-world observations and  long-term monitoring  of 

198 O c ean Energy Systems (O ES) (2016) C onsenting Processes for O cean Energy. U pdate on Barriers and Recommendations. 
A vailable at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov  

199 D irective 2014/89/EU of the E uropean Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime 
s patial planning. A vailable at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089  
200 O c ean Energy Systems (O ES) (2016) C onsenting Processes for O cean Energy. U pdate on Barriers and Recommendations. 
A vailable at: https://tethys.pnnl.gov  

201 A vailable at: https://www.housing.gov.ie [Accessed 150520] 
202 A vailable at: https://servicios.mapama.es [Accessed 180520] 

203 E T IPOcean (2 020) O cean energy and the environment: Research and strategic actions. Available at: 
https://www.etipocean.eu/resources/ocean-energy-and-the-environment-research-and-strategic-actions/   

204 M endoza et al (2019) A framework to evaluate the environmental impact of O CEAN energy devices. Available at: 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032119303831   

57 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

impacts are still  highlighted  as a key needs for the sector 205. This signals that  limited progress has 
been made on this objective of the C ommunication.  

The stakeholders interviewed also reported that  guidance on the assessment of certain impacts or 

on  certain  receptors  has  also  been  developed,  but  these  do  not  necessarily  reach  relevant 
authorities  or decision-makers. No specific guidance  on the  application of the  EIA Directive or the 

Habitats  and  Birds Directive for  the  ocean energy sector  has been  found,  but  the  Directives and 
their procedures are well established and transposed to National legislation, so receptor-specific or 
impact-specific  assessment  guidance  may  be  more  useful  and  transferrable  to  the  diversity  of 

technologies being considered.  

Over the last years, the European C ommission has funded a number of studies and projects looking 
to  improve our understanding  of environmental impacts  associated with  different technologies 206. 
Two  dedicated  calls  on  monitoring  environmental  impacts  of  ocean  energy  devices  have  been 

published  in  2017  and  2019  thanks  to  EMFF  financing,  and  as  indicated  in  section  5.2.1  three 
projects  have  been  launched:  Sea  Wave  project207,  WESE  Project208  and  SafeWAVE  project209. 
Although the three projects focus solely on wave energy and are still  ongoing, they aim to improve 
the  understanding  of  the  environmental  impacts  of  these  devices,  as  well  as  to  ensure  this  

knowledge is transferred and up taken by relevant authorities  and decision makers.  

Overall, recommendations and best practice to baseline data collection, modelling and assessments 

have been extracted and the  number of monitoring  programmes on  actual functioning  prototypes 
has progressively increased. Although  these  individual efforts follow  a common research goal and 

path, they are often treated individually according to the stakeholders interviewed in the course of 
this  study,  and  there  is  a  perceived  lack  of  a  common  research  agenda  at  the  EU  level  or 
coordination  among  Member  States.  Limitations  in  relations  to  the  dissemination,  collation  and 

access to data and knowledge produced are also highlighted. 

The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) 210 can also potentially play a role in the field 
of environmental monitoring for ocean energy devices as it  requires Member States to  assess and 

monitor  impacts  of  human  activities on  their  marine  waters in  order to  determine whether  these 
achieve good environmental  status.  Different descriptors 211 that  need to  be monitored  under the 
MSFD  can  bear relevance for  ocean energy devices, such  as  Descriptor 6  on  Sea  floor  integrity, 

Descriptor  7  on  Hydrographical conditions  and  Descriptor  11  on  Energy  and  noise.  The  recently 
published  assessment  of  Member  States’  monitoring  programmes  under  the  MSFD 212  however, 
reports  that  there  is  “relatively  limited  monitoring  of  energy,  including  underwater  noise” 

205 E T IPOcean (2 020) O cean energy and the environment: Research and strategic actions. Available at: 
https://www.etipocean.eu/resources/ocean-energy-and-the-environment-research-and-strategic-actions/   

206 M endoza et al. (2 019): “A framework to evaluate the environmental impact of ocean energy devices” 

207 See http://www.emec.org.uk/projects/ocean-energy-projects/environmental-monitoring/sea-wave-strategic-
environmental-assessment-of-wave-energy-technologies/  

208 See http://wese-project.eu/  
209 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/org-
details/999999999/project/101000175/program/31098847/details  

210 D irective 2008/56/EC of the European P arliament and of the Council of 17 J une 2008 establishing a framework for 
c ommunity action in the field of marine environmental policy (M arine Strategy Framework D irective).   A vailable at: 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008L0056  

211 For more information see: http://msfd.eu/site/good-environmental-status/  
212 E uropean Commission (2020) Report from the Commission to the E uropean Parliament and the Council assessing M ember 
States' monitoring programmes under the Marine Strategy Framework D irective. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2017:3:FIN  

58 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

(Descriptor 11), and no mention of dedicated measures for ocean energy is made in the assessment 
of the Programmes of Measure 213. 

5.2.4  EQ 6: What  factors have influenced effectiveness (positively or negatively), how and to 

what  extent? 

Several factors  influencing  the  effectiveness  of  the  EU  intervention  in  support  of  ocean  energy 
overall have been identified  via consultation  of expert stakeholders. Often, these  correspond with 

the  developments taking  place in  the  sector and in the  context in  which  this  operates since 2014, 
as indicated in the Relevance section 5.1.2. 

The following factors appear to have influenced the effectiveness of the EU intervention in support 
of ocean energy positively: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Increased societal awareness on climate change and increased interest  in renewable energies, 
including thanks to developments such as the adoption of the Paris Agreement214 and European 
Green Deal 215; 
The rapid improvement in performance, as well as reduction in cost, of offshore wind, presenting 
similar  characteristics  and  facing  similar  challenges  as  ocean  energy  today,  a  process  from 
which ocean energy development has learnt and will continue  to learn from; 

Increased interest of the oil and gas sector in utilising  ocean energy devices for offshore power 
production; 

Increased knowledge of the potential  for multi-use  of platforms by combining different marine 
energies (e.g. wind and wave energy); 
Increased knowledge  of  the  complementarity  of  ocean  energy with  other  renewable  energy 

technologies to support  the stability  of the energy mix, given the  predictability and stability  of 
its energy supply. 

The following factors have influenced the effectiveness of the EU intervention negatively according 
to the stakeholders consulted:  

•  High-profile  failures  in  the  industry,  discouraging  private investors  and  Member  States  from 

investing in the sector; 

•  Other sources of energy becoming considerably cheaper and more performant: with the  costs 
of more established renewable energy technology dropping dramatically, investments in  other 
sources of energy have been deprioritised; 

•  Member States previous substantial investments in other sources of renewable energy, reducing 

their willingness to subsidise yet another technology; 
Excessive focus on the  levelized cost  of energy (LC OE) measure to  assess the  technology and 

• 

poor argumentation of the benefits of ocean energy towards policymakers and investors: ocean 
energy has  been so far assessed on the  same factors as more established technologies, while 

other  factors  should  have  rather  been  given  more  consideration  e.g.  benefits  in  terms  of 
localised energy production in peripheral areas, proof of concept, predictability and reliability of 
the  technology,  potential  for complementarity and  synergies with  other  industries  could have 

also been emphasised instead. 

213 E uropean Commission (2020) Report from the Commission to the E uropean Parliament and the Council assessing M ember 
States' programmes of measures under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive. Available at: https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2018:562:FIN&qid=1533034580736 
214 P aris Agreement (2015). Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf  

215 C O MMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL, T HE COUNCIL, 
T H E EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SO CIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE O F THE REGIONS The E uropean Green D eal 
(C O M/2019/640 final). Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM%3A2019%3A640%3AFIN  

59 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

5.3  Efficiency 

This section presents the key findings concerning the efficiency of the C ommunication and the wider 

EU  support  for  ocean energy. It  considers the  costs incurred  by the  European  Union,  its  Member 
States, the private sector or other stakeholders to implement the C ommunication and the Roadmap, 
compares  the  costs  to  benefits  achieved,  and  outlines  any  inefficiencies  characterising  the 

investments in the intervention.  

5.3.1  EQ 7: To what extent are the costs of implementing the intervention justified, given the 

benefits it has achieved? 

The Blue Energy C ommunication set a two-phased action plan to assist with the development of the 

ocean energy sector. The  costs related  to  the  implementation  of this  action  plan  mainly relate  to 
the setup and coordination of the Ocean Energy Forum, as well as the development and publication 

of the Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap (First  phase of action of the C ommunication). 

The European C ommission provided financial support for the setup and operation of the Secretariat 

of the Ocean Energy Forum. The Secretariat of the Forum was appointed in 2015 and it formed part 
of a Programme financed by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund whose implementation was 

delegated to the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME). The main role 
of the  Secretariat was  to  ensure the  timely  delivery of  the  Roadmap by the  Ocean Energy Forum 
members, that  participated  to  the  Forum  in  their  own  personal capacity.  A  series of  events  was 

organised in the  course of the Forum,  including  several Steering C ommittee meetings,  workshops 
and conferences. It was not possible to obtain any quantitative information with regards to the costs 

incurred by the  European C ommission for the organisation of the Forum and related activities, nor 
the costs incurred by the Ocean Energy Forum members for their  participation to the initiative. 

For  what  concerns  the  Roadmap  itself,  this  established  four  action  plans  along  the  lines  of  the 
different  workstreams  of  the  Forum,  and  namely  the  Environment  &  C onsenting,  Finance  and 

Technology  workstreams. The  implementation  of  Action  Plan  1  to  3  required action  by  both  the 
European  C ommission,  Member  States/EU  Regions  as  well  as  industry  players.  While  indicative 

budgets for the  implementation of the different action  plans were included in  the Roadmap, it  was 
not possible to identify comprehensive quantitative information relating to the actual costs incurred 
by stakeholders for the  implementation of these  actions. Details are only available concerning the 

funding  allocated  by  the  EU to  calls  that  contribute  to  the  objectives of Action  Plan  1  and  Action 
Plan 4, respectively:  

• 

• 

20.7  million  EUR for a 2018  call  for proposals issued under Horizon  2020  and titled  ‘European 

Pre-C ommercial  Procurement  Programme  for  Wave  Energy  Research  &  Development’  
(contributing  to Action Plan 1);  
3  million  EUR  for  the  co-funding,  via  the  EMFF,  of  Sea Wave project216, WESE  Project217 and 
SafeWAVE project218 (contributing  to Action Plan 4) 

With  regards to the  Second phase of action of the  C ommunication, costs could have been incurred 
by  the  European  C ommission,  Member  States,  and  industry  and  research  organisations  in 

establishing an European Industrial Initiative. However, this initiative was not established, therefore 
no costs were incurred by any of the  stakeholders.  

216 See http://www.emec.org.uk/projects/ocean-energy-projects/environmental-monitoring/sea-wave-strategic-
environmental-assessment-of-wave-energy-technologies/  
217 See http://wese-project.eu/  

218 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/opportunities/portal/screen/how-to-participate/org-
details/999999999/project/101000175/program/31098847/details  

60 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

The second action  of the  Second phase consisted in  the  development of  sector-specific guidelines 
for the  implementation  of relevant EU  legislation.  The C ommunication did  not  specify which  actor 

should  undertake  the  development  of  these  guidelines,  however,  some  guidelines  and 
recommendations have been produced by the European C ommission with regards to the application 
of  the  EU  Nature  legislation 219  and  of  MSP  processes 220 that  are  relevant  for  ocean  energy.  No 
quantitative  evidence was identified providing indications  of the costs incurred by the  C ommission 
for  the  development of  the  Nature  legislation-related  guidelines.  The  EU  contribution  to  the  two 

projects  that  produced  recommendations  on  the  MSP  processes,  respectively  the  MARINA 
Platform 221  and  the  MUSES  project222,  amounts  to  10.6  million  EUR,  although  only  part  of  the 
deliverables of these projects bear relevance for ocean energy.  

Overall, it  was not  possible to  identify comprehensive quantitative  information with  regards to  the 
costs  or  administrative  and  regulatory  burdens  of  implementing  the  actions  inscribed  in  the 
C ommunication and Roadmap, especially for what  concerns Member States and the private sector. 

As stated  in  previous sections  of the  report, the  two  documents represent “soft  regulation” policy 
tools  which  do  not  prescribe  specific  behaviours  or  actions  of  organisations  and  individuals. 

Moreover, work is still  ongoing on the projects financed by the  C ommission to achieve progress on 
some  of  the  action  plans  inscribed  in  the  Roadmap  (as  outlined  above)  and  it  is  therefore  not 
possible to assess the benefits gained by investing in these initiatives. As a consequence and taking 

into  account the difficulty  encountered in  attributing  specific developments and benefits yielded to 
the sector with the C ommunication and Roadmap, it is not possible to draw conclusions with regards 

to the efficiency of these policy tools.  

In this context, it is important to note that no evidence was found with  regards to the costs incurred 
by different stakeholders for the  implementation  of the actions  inscribed in the  C ommunication or 
Roadmap,  aside for  comments  relating  to  the  fact  that  the  European  C ommission organised  the 

Ocean Energy Forum. When  asked about the efficiency of the EU intervention in  support for ocean 
energy, most stakeholders referred to relevant EU funding instruments  providing support for R&I.  

5.3.2  EQ 8: What  factors have influenced efficiency (positively or negatively), how and to 

what  extent? 

No  clear  evidence  of  factors  influencing  the  efficiency  of  the  C ommunication  or  Roadmap  was 
identified in the  course of the  study. 

Since many actions of the C ommunication and Roadmap were not implemented this  does not allow 
for an assessment of cost-effectiveness and the driving factors. 

In  cases were  the  actions  have  been  implemented  it  is  not  possible  to  clearly  identify  the  direct 

impacts of those actions on the development of the sector as outlined in  the effectiveness chapter. 
The  uptake  of  ocean energy  and  other  tangible  benefits  have not  developed as  assumed  in  the 

impact assessment and are limited; however, there are intangible benefits such as the signal of the 
European C ommission that they support this  sector or by bringing  together the sector. 

219 G uidance on Energy Transmission I nfrastructure and EU nature legislation . A vailable at : 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/82e2011b-be3e-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1  
220 See: https://www.msp-platform.eu/sites/default/files/sector/pdf/mspforbluegrowth_sectorfiche_tidalwave.pdf  

 See: https://muses-project.com/?page_id=45  

 See: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/241402/reporting  

221 See: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/241402/reporting  
222 See: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727451/it  

61 

 
  
 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

5.4  Coherence 

This section presents the key findings  concerning the external coherence of the C ommunication 
compared to other relevant pieces of EU policy and support, as well as the extent to which  it is 

internally consistent. 

5.4.1  EQ 9: To what extent are the components of the intervention coherent internally; are 

there any overlaps, inconsistencies, or incoherencies? 

Overall, the  C ommunication and  Roadmap  appear to  be  internally  coherent,  as  no  evidence has 
been found demonstrating  incoherence.  

The actions build logically on each other and do not overlap or contradict each other. 

In particular, the actions proposed in the Roadmap are in line with  the needs and challenges faced 

by the sector at  the time, as identified in the  Impact Assessment and C ommunication according to 
the stakeholders consulted.  

5.4.2  EQ 10: To what extent is the intervention coherent with wider EU policy and initiatives? 

Overall, the  C ommunication and  Roadmap are coherent with  the  wider  EU  policy  framework that 
supports Ocean Energy. 

The  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  as  overarching  policy  framework  makes  clear  reference  to  the 
importance of  marine-based energy infrastructures. The  C ommunication and  Roadmap refine  this 

by putting  a specific focus on Ocean Energy. 

Most  of  the  actions  inscribed  in  the  Roadmap  were  transposed  in  the  SET  Plan  Implementation 
Plan 223, there is  substantial  alignment  between these  two  documents, which  represent the  centre 
pieces of the EU action to  support the uptake of ocean energy.  

The  objectives of  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap are  also  clearly in  line  with  the  EU’s  efforts 

towards innovation in clean energy technologies. 

There are a number  of EU  funds open  to  financing  Ocean Energy development, including  Horizon 
2020  funding,  the  NER300  programme  as  well  as  Interreg  funding  (for  more  information,  see 
paragraph  on  the  “European  Union’s  investments  in  ocean  energy  since  2014,  including  R&D 

funding”,  under EQ 4, in  section 5.2.2). 

In general, it is clear that  the goal of increasing the uptake of ocean energy is in line with the wider 
renewable energy and climate policy targets. Ocean Energy is a renewable energy source with high 

potential  with  could  be  an  important  piece  in  the  energy  mix towards  climate  neutral  Europe by 
2050. 

A  possible  inconsistency  has  been  identified  in  the  fact  that  the  integration  of  ocean  energy  in 
National  Renewable  Energy Action  Plans  has  not  been  sufficiently  incentivised  nor  prioritised  by 

Member States. Due to  the perceived low  level of  development of the  technology, the  inclusion of 
ocean energy in  the  energy mix  that  should  achieve the  renewable energy targets  has so far  not 
been prioritised, and this is shown  also in  the limited commitment  to ocean energy capacity in  the 
National Energy and C limate Plans compared to 2010 224. 

223 SE T-Plan: O cean E nergy – I mplementation P lan. Available at : 
https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/set_plan_ocean_implementation_plan.pdf  

224 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  

62 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Some stakeholders highlighted potential contradictions between the approaches adopted within the 
EU policy landscape and the EU intervention supporting the uptake of ocean energy which are listed 

below.  It  should  be  noted,  however,  that  those  statements  could  not  be  supported  by  further 
evidence. 

•  C ontradiction  with  EU  energy  modelling:  the  current  energy  models  favour  the  inclusion  of 
established  technologies in  long-term  policies rather  than  emerging  technologies,  because of 
the  difficulty  to  estimate the  costs of  energy produced by  the  latter; in  this  context  the  focus 
on the Levelized C ost of Energy (LC OE) is also considered to be inappropriate for the assessment 

of an emerging technology such as ocean energy; 

•  C ontradiction  with  EU  competition  policy  and  technology  neutrality  principle:  these  establish 
that the different technologies shall compete in the market and the ones presenting lower costs 
shall emerge, but  this is  often incompatible with  the needs of an emerging technology such as 
ocean energy;  

5.4.3  EQ 11: To what extent is the intervention coherent with other relevant EU (and 

national/regional initiatives) support schemes (e.g. funding, sectorial policies), in 
particular linked to renewables and innovation? 

A part of the stakeholders mentioned that the wider EU policy framework in which  ocean energy is 
situated  might  present  some  contradictions  with  the  available  support  schemes,  in  that  the 

communicated ambition on renewables and climate neutrality targets is not always matched by the 
way the  funds are allocated e.g. stakeholders mentioned the  substantial  funding  still  disbursed to 

the fossil fuel industry instead of being channelled to renewables. 

The evidence collected so far indicates that  there is a certain degree of inconsistency between the 

overall EU intervention supporting the uptake of ocean energy and the support provided by Member 
States.  In  fact,  the  ambition  of  the  EU  with  regards  to  ocean  energy is  not  always  reflected  in 

national strategies, and even when this is the case it  relevant support schemes are lacking to back 
the ambition (e.g. persistent lack of relevant revenue support schemes). In this context, the actions 
of single  regions within  some Member States (as outlined  in  Appendix 6  and Table 5.4)  appear to 

me more aligned with the  overall EU intervention.  

5.5  EU added value 

This  section  outlines  the key findings  on  the  EU  added value of  the  Blue  Energy C ommunication, 
and  specifically  it  explores the  value  resulting  from  the  EU  intervention  that  is  additional  to  the 

value  that  would  have  resulted  from  interventions  initiated  at  other  levels  of  governance (i.e. 
national level) and from the private sector. 

5.5.1  EQ 12: What  is the additional value resulting from the intervention, compared to what 

could have been expected from private initiatives and investments, and Member States 
acting at national/regional levels?  

There is a widespread agreement among the  stakeholders consulted  that  the  C ommunication and 
Roadmap added value at  the EU  level. The majority of them  affirm that  the  intervention achieved 

results that  could  not  have been achieved at  a different level of intervention  at all,  or at least  not 
at the  same cost or with  the same result, in  particular when it  comes to  stakeholder coordination, 
the consolidation of R&D activities, the monitoring  of environmental impacts and the provision of a 

strategic direction to the sector and its stakeholders. Although not all stakeholders express positive 
views on the concrete results achieved by the intervention so far, in general, they agree that these 

instruments  were  only  ever  intended  to  be  “strategic”  and  “soft  regulation”  policy  tools,  to  be 
complemented by Member States and private sector’s actions. The views on the exact extent of the 

63 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

EU  added  value  of  the  intervention  vary,  with  some  stakeholders  considering  that  the  situation 
would  have  been significantly  worse  than  it  is  now,  and  others  thinking  it  would  have  been only 

moderately worse. Notably, a minority of stakeholders indicates that the sector would have reached 
the  current  stage  in  any  case.  This  notwithstanding,  in  general  stakeholders  agree  that  it  was 

ultimately  more  helpful  to  have  these  instruments  in  place than  to  not  having  them.  Overall, it 
appears that these tools served to provide momentum for the sector and give a common direction, 
to  increase  the  cross-country  collaboration  among  actors  as  well  as  the  confidence  of  private 

investors compared to the  baseline scenario according to some of the stakeholders interviewed. In 
addition  to  this,  stakeholders within  the  C ommission affirmed that  the  adoption  C ommunication 

helped  steer  internal  policy  discussions  and  dynamic  towards  the  provision of  support  for  ocean 
energy. The  perception  of  the  stakeholders on  the  extent  of  the  added  value varies, from  those 
believing that  the sector would not  exist in Europe now,  to those affirming that it  would simply be 

slightly less developed than  it is now.  When the overall EU  intervention is taken into  consideration 
(e.g.  including  H2020  or  Interreg funding  etc.)  benefits of  the  EU  intervention  is perceived more 

clearly, with most stakeholders affirming that this  was crucial for the sector to develop to the stage 
it  has  now.  The  fact that  most  of the  current  installed  capacity and  most  developed technologies 
benefited from EU financial support225 seems to confirm this opinion. 

5.5.2  EQ 13: What  would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the 

existing intervention? 

All  stakeholders consulted  overwhelmingly agree that  the  withdrawal  of  the  EU  support for  ocean 
energy,  intended  both  as  strategic  policy  support  and  financial  support,  would  have  negative 

consequences  on  the  development  of  the  sector  in  Europe.  In  views  of  the  majority  of  the 
stakeholders consulted, this would either substantially slow down the development of the sector or 

prevent the sector from developing at all from the stage where it is now. Different stakeholders also 
affirmed that  the withdrawal  of EU support would cause the disappearance of the  sector in the  EU. 
European ocean energy technology developers would move their companies and continue to develop 

their  technologies  abroad,  where  more  favourable  conditions  can  be  found.  Notably,  several 
stakeholders have expressed the concern that this would represent a lost opportunity for Europe to 

capitalise on its current technology leadership in the  sector and on the  substantial efforts made so 
far, for the benefit of non-European actors. In fact, today, the  EU hosts  58% if global tidal  energy 
technology developers and 61% of global wave energy developers 226 and 70% of the global 34 MW 
of ocean energy installed capacity was located in EU waters in 2019 227. Overall, EU companies hold 
66%  of  patents  in  tidal  and  44%  of  patents  in  wave  energy 228.  Not  only  this,  but  European 
leadership  in  ocean  energy  importantly  concerns  the  ocean  energy  value  chain  and  innovation 
system  as  well 229.  Reportedly,  most  of  the  current  installed  capacity  and  most  developed 
technologies benefited from EU financial  support, and, when  Member States’ support is  taken into 
account, it is noted that “internationally, no country has supported the development of ocean energy 
with similar funds” 230. In this context, it has also been maintained that the withdrawal of the support 
would  have  consequences on  the  sector  globally  at  least  in  the  short  term,  as  the  EU  is  leading 

225 J RC (2019) Technology Market Report  
226 E uropean Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020 

227  D avide M agagna - JRC (2020) O cean E nergy in Europe Analysis of the s tate of play of the O cean Energy s ector in E urope 

and implications moving forward. Retrieved from: https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/2030-

V ision-Launch-Davide-Magagna.pdf  

228 E uropean Commission (2020) EU s trategy on offshore renewable energy 
229 E uropean Commission (2020) Report on progress of c lean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from: 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/report_on_clean_energy_competitiveness_com_2020_953.pdf  
230 J RC (2019) Technology Market Report 

64 

 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

most  of the  international tables  of discussions on  ocean energy and the  majority of ocean energy 
technologies developed globally present a substantial  part of “EU  content”. 

65 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

6.  CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LESSONS 

LEARNED  

This chapter presents the conclusions and lessons learned derived from the findings of this support 

study.  The  conclusions  are presented according  to  the  five  main  evaluation criteria  of  relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency,  coherence and  EU  added value  of  the  Blue  Energy  C ommunication and 

Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap.  

6.1  Relevance 

Conclusion  1.1:  The  objectives of  the  Blue  Energy Communication  and  Ocean  Energy 
Strategic Roadmap were appropriate to address the needs and challenges faced by the 

sector in 2014 overall. 

In  general,  the  objectives  identified  in  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  were  considered 
appropriate  to  address the  needs  and  challenges faced  by  the  sector as  identified  in  the  impact 
assessment.  These  documents  also  created  momentum  and  provided  a  common  direction  and 

priorities for the  further development of the sector in a moment when this  was much  needed. This 
notwithstanding,  it  appears that  the documents  were overoptimistic on  the  stage of  development 

of the  technology  and in  the  expectations of  additional  support to  be  provided by  Member States 
and  the  private sector.  A posteriori,  certain elements  could  have been better  considered or been 
expanded on  at  the  time,  for  instance  the  link  with  Member  States  strategies and  approaches to 

ensure their future interventions, the different business cases for ocean energy, the needs of certain 
technologies  and  the  connection  to  specific  funding  instruments  for  the  implementation  of  the 

actions described.  

Conclusion  1.2:  Most  of  the  objectives of  the  Communication  and  Roadmap  remain 
relevant today, although these would benefit from an expansion as recent developments 
in the sector have caused additional needs and challenges to emerge for the ocean energy 

sector.  

Due  to  the  insufficient  progress  registered  in  the  achievement  of  certain  objectives  of  the 
C ommunication and  Roadmap (e.g.  in  terms  of access to  finance,  de-risking of  the  technologies, 
improvement of  administrative  processes and  environmental monitoring),  most  of  the  objectives 

and  actions inscribed  thereof  remain relevant  to  address  the  bottlenecks  of  the  sector  today.  In 
addition to this, developments took place since 2014 that would require an adaptation or expansion 

of  the  actions  and  approaches identified  in  these policy  tools.  For  instance,  additional  efforts  to 
ensure that  dedicated  support  is  provided  to  ocean  energy to  avoid  that  this  needs  compete for 

support with  other more advanced technologies, to  engage Member States and private companies 
in  the  investment  for  ocean  energy,  to  adapt  the  financing  to  the  new  developments  of  the 
technologies  (e.g.  more  focus  on  market  pull  mechanisms  to  stimulate  commercialization),  to 

exploit emerging synergies with  other industries,  and to  avoid that  the  Brexit and the  outbreak of 
C OVID-19 have a negative impact  on the  development of the sector.  

Recommendation: The European C ommission, as well as its Member States and the private sector 
should continue to undertake activities aimed at achieving progress on the objectives set out in the 

C ommunication and  Roadmap, in  particular for what concerns the  facilitation of access to finance, 
guarantee  and  insurance  products,  and  the  improvement  of  administrative  practices  and 

environmental monitoring.  A comprehensive assessment study focusing on examining whether the 
needs of the  sector have changed and whether additional objectives or actions shall be pursued to 

66 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

address  additional  bottlenecks  of  the  sector  could  be  undertaken,  perhaps  in  the  context  of 
collaborative initiatives such as OceanSET or other.   

6.2  Effectiveness 

Conclusion  2.1:  Partial  progress has been  made  in  the  implementation of  the  actions 
inscribed in the  Communication and Roadmap,  but relevant work is  ongoing for two  of 
the four action plans set out in the Roadmap, for what concerns wave energy. 

The  EU  successfully implemented  the  actions  included  under  Phase  1  of  the  C ommunication, by 
setting  up  the  Ocean  Energy  Forum  and  supporting  the  adoption  of  the  Ocean Energy  Strategic 
Roadmap.  For  what  concerns  the  actions  under  Phase  2,  some  progress has  been  made  in  the 
development of sector-specific guidelines for the implementation of relevant legislation, in relations 

to  the  EU  Nature  legislation  and  partially  also  MSP  processes. No  progress was  registered  in  the 
establishment of and European Industrial Initiatives for ocean energy, although the intention to not 

move forward with  this  had already been communicated in 2014. 

With regards to the four action plans inscribed in the Roadmap, work is ongoing thanks to European 
C ommission  funding  on  the  development  of  a  European  phase-gate  technology  development 
process   (Action  Plan 1)  and on the  monitoring  of environmental impacts of  ocean energy (Action 

Plan 2), but  only for what  concerns wave energy. Although an Investment Support Fund  for ocean 
energy farms (Action  Plan 2),  nor an Insurance and Guarantee Fund  for ocean energy (Action Plan 

3) have been created to date, and financing and de-risking of the technologies still represent major 
bottlenecks for the sector, some upcoming initiatives might represent relevant steps forward in this 
direction, such as the  Blue Invest Fund and the InvestEU programme.  

Recommendation: The European C ommission, as well as its Member States and the private sector 

should  continue  with  the  ongoing  work  on  the  phase-gate  technology  development  process and 
monitoring  of  environmental  impacts,  including  by  expanding  current  approaches to  other  ocean 

energy technologies. Further efforts should be made to improve access to funding for demonstration 
projects,  as  well  as  to  provide  insurance  and  guarantee  products  for  the  development  and 
deployment  of  ocean  energy  technologies.  Additional  and  more  sector-specific  guidance  on  the 

application of relevant EU legislation could be developed to help streamline administrative processes 
related to  the licensing and consenting of ocean energy projects.  

Conclusion 2.3 Progress on the achievement of the objectives of the Communication and 

Roadmap has been very limited, and it  is  challenging to establish a causal relationship 
between the achievements and these policy tools.  

The main  objectives of the  C ommunication were to increase the uptake  of ocean energy, to  bring 
stakeholders together to  foster  the  competitiveness of the  sector  through  coordinated actions,  to 

facilitate  the  industry’s  access  to  finance  and  to  improve  the  administrative  practices  and 
environmental monitoring.   

Overall, there has  been an  increase in  the  uptake of  ocean energy in  the  EU,  and  the  sector has 
made  significant  steps  forward  in  terms  of  technological  development  over the  past  5  years,  in 

particular  for  tidal  energy.  However,  this  progress  has  been  slower  than  expected,  and  current 
levels of installed capacity are far away from the expectations outlined in the C ommunication. While 

it is not possible to directly attribute  these developments to the C ommunication and the Roadmap, 
the  wider  EU  support has  played a key role, as  the  majority of the  current  installed  capacity and 
the most advanced technologies developed have benefited from EU financial support.  

It is unclear to what  extent the objective on enhanced stakeholder coordination has been achieved, 

as  very  little  documentary  evidence  is  available  on  this.  While  some  sources  indicate  that 

67 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

stakeholder coordination  is  still  insufficient,  the  majority of  the  expert stakeholders consulted  in 
this  study maintain that  the  sector is much more structured,  organized and synergetic than it  was 

in  2014.  This  is  also  because of  the  multiple  stakeholder coordination  initiatives  undertaken  or 
supported  by  the  EU,  which  however are  not  linked  to  the  publication  of  the  C ommunication or 

Roadmap and rather predate their adoption. 

Access to  finance  is  still  one  of  the  major  bottlenecks  for  the  ocean  energy  sector.  Despite  the 
substantial  support  provided by the  EU  and  other actors,  developers still  find  it  difficult  to  access 
available funding because of high competition, restrictive requirements and burdensome application 

procedures. The  availability of  private  funding  for  the  sector is  still  limited  by  the  high  risks still 
associated with the development of the technology, particularly in the absence of an Insurance and 

Guarantee fund,  and  by  the  lack of  revenue  support  schemes within  Member  States.  Funding  is 
particularly lacking for the  demonstration of ocean energy technologies. 

Administrative  practices  related  to  consenting  and  licensing  of  ocean  energy  are  still  long  and 
characterized by  uncertainties,  and  the  monitoring  of environmental  impacts  is  still  very limited. 

Despite relevant individual efforts being undertaken to collect data, best practices and lessons learnt 
in these fields, the  progress registered is considered insufficient, and it  still represents a deterrent 

for technology developers’ willingness to test and operate devices.  

Recommendation: Further  efforts  should  be undertaken  by the  EU,  Member States  and  private 

investors to  facilitate  access to  finance, including  by taking  into  account the  specific needs of  the 
ocean  energy  sector  and  the  stage  of  development  of  the  different  technologies.  Financial 

instruments  to  support  the  demonstration  and  pre-commercial projects  should  be  put  in  place, 
including  revenue support  schemes  within  Member  States.  The  creation  of  an  EU  Insurance and 
Guarantee fund,  as foreseen in the  Roadmap and in the  SET-Plan Implementation Plan, or at least 

similar insurance products that could be used by ocean energy developers, should also be advanced. 
Ongoing  work on  the  facilitation  of  administrative procedures and  improvement of  environmental 

monitoring should be continued and reinforced, in particular with  a view to ensuring the results are 
disseminated and up taken by the relevant actors, including public authorities.    

Conclusion 2.3:  The effectiveness of the EU  intervention in support of  the development 
of ocean energy has been affected by several external factors.  

Different factors have influenced the effectiveness of the overall EU intervention in support for ocean 
energy, and  in  the  most  part  these coincide  with  developments that  have occurred in  the  sector 
and in the context in which this operates since 2014. For instance, the increased societal awareness 

on climate change and increased interest in renewable energy, including  by different industries, as 
well  as the  lessons learnt from  the development of  other offshore renewable energy technologies 
have had a positive impact  for the  development of the  sector. On  the other  hand, factors such as 

high  profile failures in  the ocean energy industry,  the increased competitiveness of other forms of 
renewable  energy technologies,  as  well  as  the  somewhat  poor  argumentation  in  favor of  ocean 

energy have had a negative impact on Member States and private investors’ willingness to support 
ocean energy. The limited support received by these actors compared to the expectations have had 
a negative influence on the overall effectiveness of the EU  intervention.  

Recommendation: The  EU  could  assess the  influence  that  current  and  future  external factors, 

such  as the  ones outlined  above, can have on  the  effectiveness of  its  intervention  in  support  for 
ocean energy, and take them into account in the context of a possible future revision of its approach 
to support the sector.  

68 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

6.3  Efficiency 

Conclusion  3.1:  It  is  not  possible to  identify quantitative information on  the  costs  or 

administrative  and  regulatory  burdens  related  to  the 
Communication and Roadmap, as these are “soft regulation” policy tools. 

implementation  of  the 

The  costs  related  the  implementation  of  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  relate  to  the  costs 
incurred by the European C ommission, Member States and private sector to implement the actions 

inscribed in  these policy tools.  

The European C ommission provided financial support for the setup of the Ocean Energy Forum and 
for the related development of the  Roadmap. It moreover provided funding support to launch calls 
under Horizon 2020  and the EMFF  to  realize the objectives of two  out  of four action  plans outlined 

in  the  Roadmap. Quantitative  information is  only available on  the  amounts  provided for the  calls, 
but  as work  on  those  projects is  still  ongoing,  it  is  not  possible to  assess the  benefits  gained by 

investing in these initiatives.  

Overall, it  was not  possible to  identify comprehensive quantitative  information with  regards to  the 
costs  or  administrative  and  regulatory  burdens  of  implementing  the  actions  inscribed  in  the 
C ommunication and Roadmap, especially for what  concerns Member States and the private sector. 

The two instruments  are “soft regulation”  policy tools, which  do not prescribe specific behaviors or 
actions of organisations and individuals. In light  of this, it is not possible to draw conclusions on the 

efficiency of the EU intervention. 

6.4  Coherence 

Conclusion 4.1: The Communication and the Roadmap are internally coherent and in line 
with  the wider EU policy framework. 

The  actions  within  the  C ommunication and  the  Roadmap, as  well  as  the  C ommunication and  the 
Roadmap, seem to  be coherent as no evidence for incoherencies could be found. 

The C ommunication and the Roadmap are also coherent with the wider policy framework supporting 

Ocean Energy. While some potential minor misalignments between policy tools have been brought 
up by stakeholders, no further evidence could be found to support this. 

Conclusion 4.2: A degree of inconsistency persists between the EU intervention on ocean 
energy and Member States’ strategies and activities in the sector. 

The C ommunication and Roadmap, as well as the broader EU intervention in favor of ocean energy 
development establish  a  common direction  and  ambition  for  the  development of  the  sector.  This 
ambition is not  always reflected in national strategies, such as National Energy C limate Plans, that 

instead  indicated  a  limited  commitment  of  Member  States  to  further  develop  ocean energy as  a 
means  to  achieve  their  renewable  energy  targets.  Where  the  ambition  is  reflected  in  national 
strategies, this is often not matched by the establishment of appropriate support mechanisms, such 

as revenue support, and this represents a considerable challenge for the advancement of the sector 
in practice.  

Recommendation: Further efforts should be undertaken to improve alignment of Member States’ 

strategies with  the  EU  ambition on  ocean energy and to  enhance their engagement in  support for 
the  sector.  This  could  be  done  by  exploiting  current  dialogue  initiatives  such  as  ETIP  Ocean and 
OceanSET  or  dedicated  bilateral  discussions.  In  this  context,  it  will  be  crucial  to  improve  the 

69 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

understanding of the benefits of investments into  the sector, as well as how national interventions 
can address current bottlenecks. 

6.5  EU added value 

Conclusion  5.1:  The  Communication  and  the  Roadmap  provide  EU  added  value  in 
particular in  terms  of  defining a  common strategic agenda for  the  sector, although  it 
remains unclear whether  the  sector would  be  substantially different now  had they not 

been adopted. The EU  added value of  the  broader EU  intervention for ocean energy is 
perceived more clearly. 

The  C ommunication  and  the  Roadmap  achieved  results  that  could  not  have  been  achieved  at 
different levels of intervention, in particular in terms of bringing  the sector’s stakeholders together 

around a specific strategic  agenda. It  remains unclear to what  extent the  implementation of these 
instruments  is directly responsible for the  limited progress witnessed in the  sector up to  now, and 

whether  this  would  be  much  different  had  they  not  been  adopted.  This  notwithstanding,  it  is 
important  to  note  that  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  were  only  ever  intended  to  be  “soft 
regulation” policy tools,  representing only a part  of the picture,  to be complemented by additional 

interventions by the EU,  Member States and the private sector. When the broader EU intervention, 
in  particular  the  financial  support  provided,  is  taken  into  consideration,  it  is  clear  that  this  was 

crucial for the development of the sector.  

Conclusion 5.2:  The EU holds global leadership on ocean energy technologies thanks to 
the support provided by the EU and its Member States so far and a potential withdrawal 
of its intervention would have negative consequences for the sector internally, and also 

potentially abroad. 

Driven by the substantial support provided by EU institutions  and its Member States the EU-27 have 
gained undisputed global technological leadership in the ocean energy sector. Around 70% of global 

ocean energy installed capacity is located in EU  waters, and EU companies hold around half of the 
patents for tidal and wave energy globally. As most of current projects still benefit or have benefitted 
from EU’s support,  the withdrawal  of EU’s  financial (e.g. Horizon 2020  and Interreg) and strategic 

(including  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap,  but  also  general  strategic  support)  intervention  in 
favor of ocean energy would have very negative consequences for the  sector. Given the high  level 

of “EU content” in ocean energy technologies developed abroad, this might also have consequences 
in the rest of the world. What is more, this withdrawal  would represent a missed chance for the EU 
to  capitalize  on  its  first  mover advance and  on  the  substantial  investments  made so  far,  for  the 

benefit of global late comers.  

Recommendation: The  EU  should  continue  to  provide  support  for  the  implementation  of  the 
actions  inscribed in  the  C ommunication and  Roadmap, as  well  as  to  support  additional  initiatives 

promoting the development of ocean energy, in particular on matters where a coordinated and EU-
level  approach  are most  functional  (e.g.  the  creation  of  an  Insurance  and  Guarantee Fund,  the 
development of sector-specific guidelines for the application of relevant EU  legislation etc.).   

70 

 
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Appendix 1 – Evaluation question matrix 

71 

 
  
 
 
Cri
t. 

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 

consultations: PC 
Stak e holder 

consultations: targeted 
consultations 

• 
• 

• 

• 

EQ  1.  To what e x tent have 

• 

1.1 To what extent were  

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

The re  is e vidence in the 

the  objectives of the 
inte rve ntion proven 

to be  appropriate for 
re sponding to the 

ne e ds identified in 
the  im pact 
assessment? 

the  specific and 
ope rational obje ctives of 

the  Blue  Energy 
C om munication and the 

O ce an Energy Roadmap 
appropriate to addre ss 

cost reduction, financial 

and profitability needs? 
Has this changed over 

time and to what extent 
are they still 
appropriate? 

• 

1.2 To what extent were  

the  specific and 

ope rational obje ctives of 

the  Blue  Energy 
C om munication and the 
O ce an Energy Roadmap 
appropriate to addre ss 

infrastructure needs 
(e.g. grid planning,  port 

facilities and vessels)? 

Has this changed over 
time and to what extent 

are they still 
appropriate? 

• 

Paper, e valuations, 

re ports etc. agree that 
the  Blue  Energy 

C om munication and the 
O ce an Energy Roadmap 

we re  appropriate for 

supporting the uptake of 
oce an energy 
te chnologies 

•  Q uantitative indicators: 

•  % of stakeholders 

agre eing that the Blue 

Ene rgy C ommunication 

and the O cean Energy 
R oadmap we re  

appropriate for 
supporting the uptake of 
oce an energy 
te chnologies 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

Ide ntified current needs 
within the  EU pe r 

cate gory of stakeholders 
(public; private; 

lite rature that the Blue 
Ene rgy C ommunication 

and the O cean Energy 
R oadmap we re  

appropriate for 
supporting the uptake of 

oce an energy 
te chnologies 

• 

Stak e holders agree that 
the  objectives have 

be e n appropriate and 
re le vant for supporting 

the  uptake of ocean 
e ne rgy technologies 

• 

The re  is e vidence in the 
lite rature that the 

original objectives Blue 
Ene rgy C ommunication 

and the O cean Energy 

R oadmap corre spond to 
the  curre nt needs of 

diffe rent stakeholders’ 
cate gories 

• 

Stak e holders are able to 

ide ntify their curre nt 

ne e ds 

72 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Cri
t. 

• 

Stak e holders agree that 

the  original objectives 

continue to corre spond 
to the ir ne eds 

re se arch community; 
citize ns) 

• 

Ide ntified changes in 

ne e ds within the EU per 
cate gory of stakeholders 

(public; private; 
re se arch community; 
citize ns) since 2014 

• 

Papers, e valuations, 

re ports etc. agree that 
the  original objectives of 

the  Blue  Energy 
C om munication and the 

O ce an Energy Roadmap 

still corre spond to 
stak eholders’ needs 

• 

1.3 To what extent were  

the  specific and 
ope rational obje ctives of 

the  Blue  Energy 
C om munication and the 

O ce an Energy Roadmap 
appropriate to addre ss 

administrative & 

regulatory needs (e.g. 
licensing and consenting 
procedures)? Has this 
changed  over time and 

to what extent are they 
still appropriate? 

• 

1.4 To what extent were  

the  specific and 

ope rational obje ctives of 
the  Blue  Energy 
C om munication and the 
O ce an Energy Roadmap 

appropriate to addre ss 
environmental needs 

(e.g. research and 

development, better 
exchange of information 

on environmental 
impacts of OCEN 
installations)? Has this 
changed  over time and 
to what extent are they 
still appropriate? 

EQ  2.  To what e x tent do 

• 

2.1 To what extent do 

the  objectives of the 

the  objectives of the 

•  Q uantitative indicators: 

73 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Cri
t. 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
E

Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

inte rve ntion remain 

C om munication and the 

•  % of stakeholders 

appropriate in the 

R oadmap correspond to 

agre eing that the Blue 

light of the evolution 
of the  EU e nergy, 

clim ate, maritime and 
R &I policies? 

the  current needs of the  
oce an energy sector in 

Ene rgy C ommunication 
and the O cean Energy 

light of the evolution of 
EU e ne rgy, climate, 

R oadmap re main 
re le vant policy 

m aritime and R &I 

policie s (e.g. new 
re ne wable energy 

targe ts etc.)? 

•  EU clim ate policy 
•  EU m aritime policy  
•  EU R &I policies 

• 

e volution 

EQ  3.  W hat progre ss has 

• 

3.1 W hat progre ss has 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

be e n m ade in 
im plementing the 

activitie s of the 
inte rve ntion? 

be e n m ade in 
im plementing the O cean 
Ene rgy Forum? 

•  Evide nce  on 

progre ss/achievement of 
actions 

• 

3.2 W hat progre ss has 

•  Q uantitative indicators: 

be e n m ade in 

im plementing the O cean 
Ene rgy Strategic 
R oadmap? 

•  Actions and activities 

achie ved in re lation to the 
planned outputs  

• 

3.3 W hat progre ss has 

be e n m ade in 

im plementing the 

Europe an Industrial 
Initiative? 

• 

3.4 W hat progre ss has 

be e n m ade in 
im plementing the 

se ctor-specific 
guidelines? 

• 

The re  is e vidence  in the  
lite rature  that  actions 

re commendations 

and 
have  been achieved 

• 

Lite rature re view 

74 

 
 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Cri
t. 

EQ  4.  W hat have been the 

• 

4.1 How m any new 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

The re  is e vidence in the 

quantitative and 
qualitative effects of 
the  inte rvention? 

ocean energy projects 
have  been installed and 

deployed in Europe  since  
2014? 

•  O the r papers, 

e valuations, re ports e tc. 
agre e that the Blue 

Ene rgy C ommunication 
and the O cean Energy 

R oadmap contributed to 

the  uptake of ocean 
e ne rgy 

•  Q uantitative indicators: 

•  Num be r of proje cts 

de ployed and planned 
com pared to what could 

be  e x pected in the 
baseline scenario 

• 

Installed capacity 
com pared to what could 

be  e x pected in the 
baseline scenario 

lite rature that the Blue 
Ene rgy C ommunication 

and the O cean Energy 
R oadmap have 

contributed to the 
uptake of ocean energy 
te chnologies 

• 

Stak e holders agree that 

the  objectives have 
be e n appropriate and 

re le vant for supporting 
the  uptake of ocean 
e ne rgy technologies 

• 

The  intervention is 

found to have an effect 
(com pared to the 
baseline) 

• 
• 

• 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 

consultations: PC 
Stak e holder 

consultations: targeted 
consultations 

• 

4.2 How m uch has been 

• 

Inve stment into the 

invested in the  ocean 
e ne rgy sector since 

2014 (both public and 
private  investments)?   

• 

4.3 How m uch have 

Member States 
supported the  uptake of 

oce an energy since 2014 
(including re venue 
support schemes)? 

• 

• 

se ctor compare d to what 
could be e xpected in the 
baseline scenario 

Am ount of Member State 

financial  support 

for 

oce an e nergy, including 
re venue 
diffe rentiated 

support 
schemes, 
com pared to what could 
be   e x pe cted 
the  
baseline scenario 

in 

75 

 
 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Cri
t. 

• 

4.4 How m uch have the 

capital costs for the  

de ployment of ocean 

e ne rgy been reduced 
since  2014? 

• 

4.5 W hat is the extent of 

the  investments in R&D 

for oce an energy since 
2014 (public and 
private )? 

• 

4.6 To what extent has 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

C apital cost reduction 

com pared to what could 

be  e x pected in the 
baseline scenario 

C apital 

cost 

re duction/R&D spending 
e valuation 
ove r 

the  

pe riod compared to what 
could be  e xpected in the  

baseline scenario 

Ex te nt to which the 

the  de velopment of the 

se ctor is contributing to 

oce an energy sector 

the  EU’s wide r jobs, 

contributed to job 
creation, economic 

growth  or EU’s 
sustainability objectives 
since  2014? 

• 

5.1 To what extent has 

• 

the  uptake of oce an 
e ne rgy increased? 

growth and 
sustainability objectives 

com pared to what could 
be  e x pected in the 
baseline scenario 

Partly answe red by EQ  
4.1  

• 

5.2 To what extent have 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

the  stakeholders been 

• 

brought  together and 
coordinated  their action 
to e nhance  technological 
innovation and 

Papers, e valuations, 
re ports etc. agree that 
the  Blue  Energy 
C om munication and the 
O ce an Energy Roadmap 
re ache d their objectives 

EQ  5.  To what e x tent have 
the  objectives of the 

inte rve ntion been 
m e t so far? 

• 

The re  is e vidence in the 

lite rature that the Blue 

Ene rgy C ommunication 
and the O cean Energy 

R oadmap re ached their 
obje ctives 

• 

Stak e holders agree that 
the  Blue  Energy 
C om munication and the 

• 
• 

• 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 
consultations: PC 

Stak e holder 

consultations: targeted 
consultations 

76 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Cri
t. 

com petitiveness? 
(spe cific obje ctive) 

•  Q uantitative indicators: 

•  % of stakeholders 

agre eing that the Blue 

Ene rgy C ommunication 
and the O cean Energy 

R oadmap re ached their 
obje ctives 

O ce an Energy Roadmap 
re ache d their objectives 

• 

The  intervention is 

found to have an effect 
(com pared to the 

baseline) 

• 
• 

• 

5.3 To what extent has 

oce an energy’s access to 

finance be e n facilitated? 
(spe cific obje ctive) 

Papers, 

e valuations, 

re ports  e tc.  agre e  that 

the  
Energy 
C om munication and the  

Blue  

O ce an Ene rgy Roadmap 
to 
im proved  acce ss 

finance  for  te chnology 
de ve lopers 

•  % 

of 

stakeholders 

agre eing  that  the   Blue  
Ene rgy  C om munication 

and  the   O ce an  Energy 
improved 
R oadmap 

acce ss  to  finance  for 

te chnology developers 

• 

5.4 To what extent have 

• 

Proportion of the 

the  administrative 

adm inistrative cost 

practices and 

environmental 
monitoring be e n 

im proved? (specific 
obje ctive) 

com pared to the total 

proje ct costs compared 
to what could be 

e x pected in the baseline 
sce nario231 

231 Should the available sources not provide s ufficient data the contractor will s end a s hort s urvey to technology developers.  

77 

 
 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Cri
t. 

• 

5.5 To what extent has 

• 

Proportion 

of 

cost reduction  be ing 
achie ved via the 

consolidation of R&D 
activitie s? (operational 
obje ctive) 

• 

5.6 To what extent has 

• 

the  efficiency of the 
planning and  licensing 

procedures be e n 

im proved? (operational 
obje ctive) 

the  

cost 

adm inistrative 

com pared  to  the   total 
proje ct  costs  compared 

could 

to  what 
be  
e x pected in the  baseline 
sce nario232 

Le ad time length (i.e. the 
total tim e  tak e n to  get 

building consent and grid 

conne ction 
pe rmits) 
com pared to what could 

be   e x pe cted 
baseline scenario 233 

in 

the  

• 

5.7 To what extent has 

• 

Num be r of collaborative 

the  synergy with other 

industries (e .g. offshore 
wind) be e n enhance d, 

including on grid 

planning matters? 
(ope rational objective) 

unde rtakings  compared 
be  
to  what 

could 

e x pected in the  baseline 
sce nario 

• 

5.8 To what extent has 

• 

Availability  of  re levant 

the  monitoring of 
environmental impacts 

of O C EN te chnology and 
the application of the 

relevant environmental 
protection legislation 

baseline  e nvironmental 

data com pared to  what 
could be  e xpected in the  
baseline scenario 234 

232 Should the available sources not provide s ufficient data the contractor will s end a s hort s urvey to technology developers.  
233 Should the available sources not provide s ufficient data the contractor will s end a s hort s urvey to technology developers.  

234 Should the available sources not provide s ufficient data the contractor will s end a s hort s urvey to technology developers.  

78 

 
 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

be e n supported? 
(ope rational objective) 

• 

• 

Tim e  and resources 

spe nt satisfying the 
re quirements of the EIAs 

com pared to what could 
be  e x pected in the 
baseline scenario 235 

• 

6.1 W hat factors 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

The  factors are found to 

• 

Factors identified on the 
basis of Literature 
re vie w and interviews 

have  had an impact on 
the  e ffectiveness 

• 
• 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 
consultations: targeted 
consultations 

EQ  6.  W hat factors have 
influe nced 

influe nced the 

e ffe ctiveness 

e ffe ctiveness of the 

(positively or 
ne gatively), how and 
to what e x tent? 

C om munication/Roadma
p positively? How did 

the y influence 
e ffe ctiveness, and to 
what extent? 

• 

6.2 W hat factors 

influe nced the 

e ffe ctiveness of the 
C om munication/Roadma

p negatively? How did 

the y influence 
e ffe ctiveness, and to 
what extent? 

EQ  7.  To what e x tent are  
the  costs of 
im plementing the 

• 

7.1 W hat have been the 

•  Q ualitative 

• 

The  e xtent to which the 

costs of implementation 
of the  

indicators/quantitative 
indicators: 

be nefits outwe igh the 
costs of the intervention 

inte rve ntion justified, 

C om munication/Roadma

• 

C osts of implementation 

give n the benefits it 
has achieved? 

p for the  different 
stak eholders?  

(adm inistrative costs as 
we ll as funding) 

• 
• 

Lite rature re view 
Stak e holder 

consultations: targeted 
consultations 

Cri
t. 

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
E

235 Should the available sources not provide s ufficient data the contractor will s end a s hort s urvey to technology developers.  

79 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Cri
t. 

• 

7.2 W hat progre ss has 

• 

Information of EU 

be e n m ade in te rms of 
EU funding allocated to 
oce an energy? 

funding for ocean 
e ne rgy (e.g. including 
INTER R EG, ER DF e tc.) 

• 

7.3 W hat progre ss has 

• 

Information of Member 

be e n m ade in te rms of 

State s funding for ocean 

Member States’ funding 
allocated to ocean 
e ne rgy? 

e ne rgy (e.g. national, 
re gional e tc.) 

• 

7.4 W hat benefits 

• 

Be ne fits of 

(dire ct, indirect) have 

im plementation (see 

be e n achieved to date 
for differe nt 
stak eholders? 

e ffe ctiveness questions 
– spe cifically EQ 4) 

• 

7.5 Are  the  costs and 

• 

Information on the 

benefits proportional for 

com parison betwe en 

the  different 
stak eholders? 

costs and benefits of 
im plementation 

EQ  8.  W hat factors have 

• 

8.1 W hat factors 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

The  factors are found to 

influe nced e fficiency 

(positively or 
ne gatively), how and 
to what e x tent?   

influe nced e fficiency 
positively? 

• 

• 

8.2 W hat factors 

influe nced e fficiency 
negatively? 

Factors identified on the 
basis of Literature 
re vie w and interviews 

have  had an impact on 
the  e fficiency 

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

EQ  9.  To what e x tent are  
the  com ponents of 
the  inte rvention 
cohe re nt internally; 
are  the re any 

ove rlaps, 

• 

9.1 Are  the re internal 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

Abse nce of evidence  of 

inconsistencies within 
the  Communication? 

• 

9.2 Are  the re 

duplications or overlaps 

• 

The  e xtent to which 

ove rlaps, gaps, 
contradictions or 
discre pancies e xist 
within the  interve ntion 

ove rlaps, gaps, 
contradictions or 
discre pancies within the 
inte rve ntion 

• 
• 

• 
• 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 
consultations: targeted 
consultations 

Lite rature re view 
consultations: targeted 
consultations 

80 

 
 
  
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Cri
t. 

inconsistencies, or 
incohe rencies? 

within the  
C om munication? 

EQ  10. To what e x tent is the 
inte rve ntion coherent 

with wide r EU policy 
and initiatives? 

• 

10.1 Are  there 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

Abse nce of evidence  of 

inconsistencies or 

contradictions be twe e n 

the  
C om munication/Roadma

p and wide r EU policy 
and initiatives? 

• 

The  e xtent to which 

ove rlaps, gaps, 
contradictions or 

discre pancies e xist with 
wide r EU policy 

ove rlaps, gaps, 

contradictions or 

discre pancies with wide r 
EU policy 

• 
• 

• 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 

consultations: PC 
Stak e holder 

consultations: targeted 
consultations 

• 

10.2 Are  there 

duplications or overlaps 
be twe e n the 

C om munication/Roadma

p and wide r EU policy 
and initiatives? 

EQ  11. To what e x tent is the 

• 

11.1 Are  there 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

Abse nce of evidence  of 

The  e xtent to which 
ove rlaps, gaps, 
contradictions or 

discre pancies e xist with 
support in other sectors 

e .g. EMFF, INTERREG, 
ER DF e tc. 

ove rlaps, gaps, 
contradictions or 

discre pancies with other 
C om mission initiatives 

inte rve ntion coherent 
with othe r re levant 

inconsistencies or 
contradictions be twe e n 

• 

EU (and 
national/regional 

initiatives) support 
sche mes (e.g. 

funding, sectorial 

policie s), in particular 
link e d to re newables 
and innovation? 

the  
C om munication/Roadma

p and other EU support 
sche mes (in particular 

link e d to re newables and 
innovation)?  

• 

11.2 Are  there 

duplications or overlaps 

be twe e n the 
C om munication/Roadma
p and other EU support 
sche mes (in particular 

link e d to re newables and 
innovation)? 

• 
• 

• 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 

consultations: PC 
Stak e holder 

consultations: targeted 
consultations 

81 

 
 
  
 
Cri
t. 

e
u
l
a
V
d
e
d
d
A
U
E

Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

• 

11.3 Are  there 

inconsistencies or 
contradictions be twe e n 

the  
C om munication/Roadma

p and national/regional 
initiatives? 

• 

11.4 Are  there 

duplications or overlaps 
be twe e n the 

C om munication/Roadma

p and national/regional 
initiatives? 

EQ  12. W hat is the additional 

• 

12.1 Is there  evidence 

•  Q ualitative and 

• 

A m ajority of 

value  re sulting from 

for added value re sulting 

quantitative indicator: 

stak eholders re cognise 

the  inte rvention, 
com pared to what 

could have been 

e x pected from 
private  initiatives and 

inve stments, and 
Me m ber States acting 

at national/regional 
le ve ls?  

from  EU intervention in 
support of the ocean 
e ne rgy sector?  

• 

12.2 To what e xtent 

would the  same results 

have been achieved at 

inte rnational, national or 
re gional le vel without EU 
inte rve ntion? 

• 

Ex te nt to which 

stak eholders agree that 
additional value has 

re sulted from the 

inte rve ntion compare d 
to what could 

re asonably have been 
achie ved at other levels 

the  EU added value of 
the  inte rvention 

• 

• 

Stak e holder 

consultations: PC 
Stak e holder 

consultations: targeted 
consultations 

EQ  13. W hat would be the 
m ost likely 

conse quences of 
stopping or 
withdrawing the  
e x isting intervention?  

• 

13.1 W hat would be the 

•  Q ualitative indicators: 

• 

m ost likely 

consequences of 
stopping or withdrawing 
the existing EU 
intervention in oce an 
e ne rgy? 

• 

Lik e ly consequences 
ide ntified on the basis of 

lite rature re view and 
inte rvie ws 

Lik e ly consequences are 
ide ntified 

• 
• 

• 

Lite rature re view 

Stak e holder 
consultations: PC 

Stak e holder 
consultations: targeted 
consultations 

82 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Appendix 2 - Summary of evidence from the literature and overview 

of database assessment 

83 

 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Summary of evidence  from Literature  Review 

This annex provides a summary of the evidence gathered literature review conducted by the study 
team. For  all sources that  provided evidence, key findings  are reported and linked to  the  relevant 
evaluation question(s) they help to  answer. 

The evidence for each question is assessed at the  sub-question level and is based on the analysed 
evidence collected. As such, it  includes 45  documentary sources. A list  of the sources consulted is 

provided  below.  Each  source  has  been  schematically  coded  using  the  coding  software  NVivo  to 
ensure a sound evidence base which  will  be used in  the  triangulation  of the  data in  the  draft final 

report.  

Source type 
Commission 
publications 

Scientific 
papers 

A uthor(s)/Publisher  Year  Title 
Europe an Commission   2020  R e port on progress of cle an e nergy competitiveness  
2020  Blue  Economy Report 2020 
Europe an Commission 
2020  EU strate gy on offshore re newable e nergy 
Europe an Commission 
2020  O ce an Energy in Europe Analysis of the state of play of 
Joint R esearch Center 

Europe an Commission 

2019 

the  O ce an Energy sector in Europe 
and im plications moving forward 
Inte rre g re port on Pegalos: Strategic re search Agenda 
towards innovation in Blue energy 

Europe an Commission 

2019  Guidance  on Ene rgy Transmission Infrastructure and EU 

nature  legislation 

Joint R esearch Center 
Joint R esearch Center 
Joint R esearch Center 
Europe an Commission 

2019  O ce an e nergy Technology Market R eport 
2019  O ce an e nergy Technology Development R eport 
2019  O ce an e nergy supply chain 
2019  Study on impacts of EU actions supporting the 

Te m porary W orking 
Group on Ocean 
e ne rgy 
Europe an Commission 

de ve lopment of R enewable Energy technologies 
2018  SET-Plan Oce an energy – Implementation Plan 

2018  The  2018 annual economic re port on the EU blue 

e conomy 

Europe an Commission 
Europe an Commission 

2017  Study on lessons for Ocean energy 
2017  Le adership in re newables – O cean e nergy: the impact 

Europe an Commission 
Europe an Commission 

Europe an Commission 
Jacques De lors 
Institute 
Me ndoza e t al. 

Dalton 
Magagna e t al. 
C opping 

Pisacane 

of EU R &D funding 

2016  O ce an e nergy Strategic R oadmap 
2014 

Im pact Assessment accompanying the Communication 
on O ce an e nergy 

2014  Blue  Ene rgy C ommunication 
2020  The  Member State compartment of the InvestEU Fund: 

how doe s it work ? W ill it fly? 

2019  A fram e work to evaluate the environmental impact of 

oce an energy devices 
2018  O ce an e nergy Wave and tide 
2018  O ce an e nergy in Europe 
2018  The  state of k nowle dge for e nvironmental e ffects – 

driving consenting and permitting for the marine 
re ne wable energy industry 

2018  Marine  Energy Ex ploitation in the Mediterranean 
R e gion: Steps Forward and Challenges 

Me lik oglu 

2017  C urre nt status and future of ocean e nergy sources: A 

Este ban 

global re view 

2017  R e ce nt developments in ocean energy and offshore  
wind: financial challenges and e nvironmental 
m isconceptions 

Kingston 

2017  Ex am ining the e ffectiveness of support for UK Wave 

Ene rgy Innovation since 2000 

O ’Hagan et al. 

2016  W ave  energy in Europe – Views on e xperiences and 

progre ss to date 

W right e t al. 

2016  Establishing a legal research agenda for ocean e nergy 

84 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Source type 

Other 
documents/r
eports 

A uthor(s)/Publisher  Year  Title 
Magagna e t. al 

2015  O ce an e nergy development in Europe: Current status 

and future perspectives 

ETIPO cean  

2020  Strate gic R esearch And Innovation Agenda For O cean 

Ene rgy  

ETIPO cean  

2020  O ce an e nergy and the e nvironment: Research and 

strate gic actions 

O ce anSET 
O ce an Energy Europe 
SETIS Magazine 
DT O ce an 

2020  O ce anSET First Annual R eport 
2020  O ce an e nergy key tre nds and statistics 2019 
2019  O ce an e nergy 
2019  Advanced Tools for Ocean energy Systems Innovation, 

De ve lopment and Deployment 

O ce an Energy Systems  2019  Annual Report 2019 
IR ENA 
ETIP O cean 
Se anergy, EY 

2018  R e newable Energy and Jobs Annual review 2018 
2018  Powe ring homes today, powe ring nations tomorrow 
2016  O ce an e nergies, moving towards competitiveness: a 

m ark et overview 
O ce an Energy Systems  2016  C onsenting Processes for O cean Energy. Update on 

Barrie rs and Recommendations 

SI O ce an 

2014  W ave  and Tidal Energy Market Deployment Strategy for 

Websites 

The thys we bsite 
O ce an Energy Forum 
W e bsite 
DG MAR E we bsite 
C O R DIS we bsite 

Europe  
R e gulatory Frameworks for Marine Renewable Energy 

n/a 
n/a  O ce an Energy Forum 

n/a 
n/a 

Europe an Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
Spe cific projects 

The  tables below  are organised into  three  columns.  The first  column  provides a ‘snapshot’  of  the 
key findings  which  have emerged from  the  coding. The  second column  displays the  sources used 
and the  final  column  provides information  on the  strength  of the  evidence found. This  judgement 

will  help  to  identify  any  eventual  gaps  of  evidence and  thus  inform  where  other  data  collection 
methods may be better suited to cover.  

The analysis of the evidence’s strength is based on the following criteria:  

Ranking of Evidence  

Explanation of ranking of quality of evidence 

Satisfactory 

The re  are several differe nt source s of e vidence  with variety in document 
type s, and all the indicators within each sub-question are addressed.  

Indicative but not conclusive 

The re  is m ore than one source , or ve ry cle ar e vidence in one source  of 

good  quality,  but  the   source s  ste m   from   sim ilar  docum ent  types; 
additionally,  the   e vidence  available  ne e ds  to  be   confirm ed  by 
stak eholders’ opinions through interviews or quantitative evidence. 

Weak 

Null 

Evide nce  is limited to a single source.  

No e vide nce is available 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

RELEVANCE 
EQ 1: To what  extent have the objectives of the intervention proven to be appropriate for responding to the needs identified in the 
impact assessment? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk 
research evidence 

1.1 To what e x tent we re  the specific and operational objectives of the Blue Energy C ommunication and the O cean e nergy R oadmap appropriate to address cost reduction, 
financial and profitability needs 236? Has this changed over time and to what extent are they still appropriate? 

The  specific objective of bringing together stakeholders se ems to 
re m ain appropriate to address cost needs. R ecent publications report 
that the  lack of coordination among stakeholders still causes 
duplications of efforts and the repetition of e rrors, and this can hamper 
the  te chnical development of devices and there fore ultimately slow 
down cost re ductions [1].  

The  lack of coordination among funding bodies can also be re sponsible 
for ine fficient funding allocation, as grants may be allocated to projects 
that are  too similar for this reason [2] [3].  

At the  same time, this specific obje ctive can generate suspicion in 
private  stakeholders trying to preserve their competitive advantage on 
the  m ark et. Sharing k nowle dge and sensitive information on the 
te chnologies often re presents an issue for these actors [1].  

Inte re st of Mediterranean countries for the development of ocean 

[1] European C ommission (2017): “Study on lessons for O cean 

e ne rgy”  

[2] SI O ce an (2014): “Wave and Tidal Energy Market 
De ployment Strategy for Europe”  

[3] Te mporary W orking Group on Ocean e nergy (2018): “SET-
Plan Oce an energy – Implementation Plan”  
[4] Interre g re port on PELAGOS (2019): “Strategic re search 
Age nda towards innovation in Blue energy”  

[5] JR C (2019): “Ocean e nergy Technology Market R eport” 
[6] G. Pisacane e t al (2018) Marine Energy Ex ploitation in the 
Me diterranean R egion: Steps Forward and Challenges 

Satisfactory 

236 C ost reduction needs:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

Reduce c ost of electricity generated from ocean energy (cost is higher than other renewables because of high technology c osts caused by residual technical uncertainties, lack of 
know- how, high operation and maintenance c osts) and due to the high risk of damage to ocean energy devices due to extreme and adverse weather c ondition) 

I mprove profitability of oc ean energy ( oc ean energy  is not profitable without grants or revenue support at the moment) 

Reduce risk related to investments in ocean energy (it is risky because of the novelty of the technology, s mall project sizes, high c apital c osts relative to operating c osts, lack of 
full c ompetitiveness on the market, s trong dependence on s upportive policy) 

Reduce number of oc ean energy technologies –  the high number of ocean energy technologies in place dilutes R&D efforts and this s lows down progress towards capital cost 
reduction for the sector. 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk 
research evidence 

e ne rgy has revived only in re cent years [6]. 

The  specific objective to facilitate the industries access to 
finance has been re peated many times as an important measure to 
re duce  costs both in 2014 and in m ore re cent publications. It has been 
stre ssed, that the influx of private funds into the industry must be 
incre ased [1] [3] [4]. Also, m arket-pull m easures (e.g. feed-in tariffs 
e tc.) are  important to help ocean e nergy proje cts with 
com m ercialization, as we ll as public investments to e nsure further R&D 
activitie s [3]. 

In this context, it has also been noted that the uncertainty about the 
continuity of support policies for ocean e nergy te chnologies discourages 
private  investors and thereby re duces the spectrum of funding available 
to te chnology developers [5] This is not yet re flected adequately in the 
obje ctives. 

The  operational objective to increase synergies with othe r 
industries to re duce ocean e nergy costs is still considered as re levant 
today. In particular, synergies with the  offshore wind industry have 
be e n re garded as being potentially instrumental to achieve cost 
re ductions [4]. 

The  operational objective of consolidating R&D investment seems 
to still be  adequate to addre ss the financial and profitability needs. 
Howe ve r, it has been mentioned that the lack of market support 
m e chanisms hinders the commercialisation of ocean e nergy 
te chnologies. Many market support mechanisms are tailore d towards 
e stablished renewable energies such as offshore  wind. [5] 

Satisfactory 

W e ak 

W e ak 

87 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk 
research evidence 

1.2 To what extent we re  the specific and operational obje ctives of the Blue Energy Communication and the Oce an energy R oadmap appropriate to address 
infrastructure needs (e.g. grid planning, port facilities and vessels)237? Has this changed over time and to what extent are they still appropriate? 

The  specific objective of  increasing  stakeholder coordination  is 
considered appropriate to address infrastructure needs to date, as ocean 
e ne rgy problems still face  notable infrastructure challenges e .g. issues 
with  grid conne ction [1]. C oordination of stakeholders (in the  form of 
consortia) can  be  re garded as a  m e an to  im prove acce ss to capital 
inte nsive  infrastructure  such  as  te sting  facilities.  Acce ss  to  te sting 
infrastructure [1] and adequate k nowle dge transfers [2] are  im portant 
for the  commercialisation for ocean e nergy te chnologies. 

The   operational  objective  of  improving  synergies  with  other 
industries  is  still  considered  as  be ing  re le vant  to  addre ss  the  
infrastructure needs of the ocean energy sector. In particular, it appears 
that  syne rgies  with  the   ports  and  harbour  industries  should  be  
e ncouraged [3]. 

[1] SETIS Magazine (2019): “Oce an energy”  
[2] Se anergy, EY (2016): “Ocean e nergies, moving towards 

com petitiveness: a mark et overview” 

[3] Interre g re port on PELAGOS (2019): “Strategic re search 
Age nda towards innovation in Blue energy” 

Indicative but not 
conclusive 

W e ak 

237 I nfrastructure needs: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

I mprove grid c onnection (increase grid c apacity and improve access to the transmission network for ocean energy technologies that are often located in low population density and 
peripheral regions) also in light of future needs 

Strengthen grid interconnections in Europe 

C larify who bears the costs of grid c onnection and access 

Reduce lead time (time to get building consent and grid c onnection permits) and c osts  

I mprove availability of s uitable port facilities and s pecialised vessels (for transportation, assembly, installation, repair of O CEAN ENERGY devices) 

88 

 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk 
research evidence 

1.3 To what e x tent we re  the  specific and operational objectives of the Blue Energy C ommunication and the  O cean e nergy R oadmap appropriate to addre ss administrative 
& regulatory needs (e.g. licensing and consenting procedures) 238? Has this changed over time and to what extent are they still appropriate? 

The  operational obje ctive to improve the efficiency of planning and 
licensing  procedures was wide ly re cognised as appropriate to address 
the  adm inistrative and re gulatory ne eds in the  pe riod 2014-2016, as 
te stified by a number of mark et analysis and strategic re ports [1] [2] [3]. 
The  needs was e xpressed at the time that the number of authorities that 
are  re sponsible for the consenting processes could be re duced. One-stop-
shop licencing procedures (a procedure whe re only one public agency or 
authority is re sponsible for  all aspe cts of lice nsing an oce an e nergy 
proje ct) would re duce costs and duration of re ce iving permits for ocean 
e ne rgy projects [2]. 
The  objective of re ducing the  complexity of consenting and im proving 
coordination be twe en authorities can be  considere d to re m ain re levant 
nowadays, particularly in Me mber State s whe re  no de dicated process 
e x ists for ocean energy developments or the ce ntralisation of the process 
is ye t to be  realised [5].  

[1] Se anergy, EY (2016): “Ocean e nergies, moving towards 

com petitiveness: a mark et overview”  
[2] SI O ce an (2014): “Wave and Tidal Energy Market 
De ployment Strategy for Europe”  

[3] Magagna e t. al (2015) “Ocean energy development in 
Europe : Current status and future perspectives” 

[4] O ce an Energy Systems (2016) “Consenting Processes for 
O ce an Energy. Update on Barriers and Recommendations” 
[5] Thethys we bsite (2020) “Regulatory Framework s for Marine 
R e newable Energy” 

Satisfactory 

1.4 To what e x tent we re  the  specific and operational obje ctives of the  Blue Ene rgy C ommunication and the O cean e nergy R oadmap appropriate to addre ss environmental 
needs (e.g. research and development, better exchange  of information on  environmental impacts of ocean energy installations) 239? Has this changed over time and to 
what extent are they still appropriate? 

still  appropriate 

The  specific  objective  to  improve  administrative practices  and 
environmental  monitoring 
to  address 
is 
e nvironmental needs.  
It  has be e n stre ssed alre ady in  2014  [2],  2015 [5],  2016 [6]  and 
re ite rated in 2019 [1], that a harm onised approach to e nvironmental 
im pact assessment of oce an e nergy proje cts is needed. A streamlined 
e nvironmental impact assessment process would significantly re duce the 
lice nsing process and would re sult in better choices for location and set-
up of oce an e nergy de vices. It was suggested to include oce an energy 
planning into MSPs. [1] 

The re  is still uncertainty about the impact of oce an e nergy technologies 
on the  e nvironment. More re search is ne e ded in orde r to re duce the  
unce rtainty. [3] [4] The uncertainty m ight constrain future  development 

[1] Interre g re port on PELAGOS (2019) “Strategic re search 
Age nda towards innovation in Blue energy”  
[2] SI O ce an (2014) “Wave and Tidal Energy Market 
De ployment Strategy for Europe”  

[3] Me likoglu (2017) “Current status and future of ocean 

e ne rgy sources: A global re view”  

[4] Me ndoza e t. Al. (2019) “Renewable and Sustainable Ene rgy 

R e vie ws”  

[5] Magagna e t al. (2015) “Ocean energy development in 
Europe : Current status and future perspectives” 

[6] O ce an Energy Systems (2016) “Consenting processes for 

Satisfactory 

oce an energy. Update on Barriers and 
R e commendations” 

Satisfactory 

89 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk 
research evidence 

of  oce an  e ne rgy  te chnologies,  as  we ll  as  incre ase  costs  and  delay 
lice nsing  proce dures.  The   operational  objective  to  assist  with 
environmental  monitoring  is  the re fore  still appropriate to address 
e nvironmental needs. 

EQ 2: To what extent do the objectives of the intervention remain appropriate in the light of the evolution of the EU energy, climate, 
maritime and R&I policies? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

2.1 To what e x tent do the objectives of the Blue Ene rgy C ommunication and O cean Ene rgy Strate gic R oadmap correspond to the  current  needs of the  oce an energy 
se ctor in light of the evolution of EU e nergy, climate, maritime and R &I policies (e.g. new re newable e nergy targets etc.)? 

The  EU R&I policy  have  been instrumental for the  de velopment of 
oce an energy te chnologies, particularly with funding instruments such 
as Horizon 2020. Other funding instruments liked to the EU regional 
policy (e .g. Interre g) or EU climate policy (e .g. NER 300) have also 
significantly contributed to re se arch and innovation in the  se ctor. 
Howe ve r, this support, also taken in com bination with national and 
re gional support, has not always been able to se cure the  success in 

[1] JR C (2019) “Oce an energy Technology Market 

R e port” 

[2] O ce anSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual R eport 
[3] European C ommission (2017): “Study on lessons for 

Satisfactory 

O ce an e nergy 

[4] Te mporary W orking Group on Ocean e nergy (2018): 
“SET-Plan Ocean e nergy – Implementation Plan 

238 A dministrative & Regulatory needs:  

Reduce length and c omplexity of c onsenting procedures 

I mprove c oordination among public bodies responsible for reviewing applications 

I nc rease knowledge of ocean energy 

I nc lude ocean energy in Maritime Spatial Plans (to mitigate conflicts over the use of marine space) 

239 E nvironmental needs:  

I mprove R&D and flow of information on ocean energy’s environmental impacts 

C larify application of EU environmental legislation (to avoid placing additional administrative burdens on project developers in relations to c onsenting procedures for the installation of oc ean 

energy technology) 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

the  de velopment and commercialisation of ocean e nergy te chnology 
[1]. 

Som e  of the  objectives of the C ommunication and R oadmap remain 
re le vant today (e.g. objectives on cost re duction) because insufficient 
progre ss has been re gistere d in their achievement so far, compared 
to what was e x pected. Se veral re ce nt publication re iterate some of 
the se obje ctives [1] [2] [3] [4].  

EFFECTIVENESS 

EQ 3: What  progress has been made in implementing the activities of the intervention? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

3.1   W hat progress has been made in implementing the Ocean energy Forum? 

The  O cean e nergy Forum was created in 2014. The Forum brought 
toge ther m ore than 100 ocean e nergy e xperts and stakeholders over 
a pe riod of two ye ars. The forum was formed by three work ing groups 
cove ring the  topics of Te chnology, Finance and Environment and 
C onsenting. Each of the  work ing groups had a Ste e ring Committee 
and a C hair. A Se cre tariat supported the  work  of the  Forum , and it 
e nsured the  de livery of the  O ce an Ene rgy Strategic R oadmap, as 
fore seen in the Blue Energy Communication [1] [2].  

[1] Dalton (2018) “Ocean e nergy W ave and tide” 
[2] O ce an Energy Forum Website (2020) 

3.2 W hat progre ss has been made in implementing the Oce an energy Strategic R oadmap? 

In  Nove m ber 2016, the  O ce an e ne rgy Forum cre ate d the  ‘Ocean 
e ne rgy Strategic R oadmap’. The R oadmap put forward four k ey Action 
Plans [1]. This was considere d to be  a ‘De claration of Intent’ of the 
oce an e ne rgy industry, agre ed  by  the   EU  C ommission, R e gions, 
Me m ber State s, Stak eholders and the  O ce an e ne rgy Industry itself 

[1] Dalton (2018) ”Ocean e nergy W ave and tide”  
[2] ETIP Ocean (2019) “Powe ring homes today, powe ring 

nations tomorrow”  

[3] JR C (2019) “Technology Market Report” 

Satisfactory 

Satisfactory 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

[4]. The evidence  with re gards to the progress in the implementation 
of the  four key action plans is outlined below. 

[4] Te mporary W orking Group Ocean energy (2018) 

“SET-Plan Ocean e nergy Implementation Plan” 

Action  Plan 1  -  A  Europe an phase-gate te chnology development 
proce ss for sub-systems and devices:  

•  W ork  has be gun on stage gate funding structure for wave 
e ne rgy. A Horizon2020 call (2017) invited national funding 
authorities  to  propose  a  Pre -C ommercial  Procurement 
Programme,  with  up  to  EUR 20m  contribution  from   the  
Europe an Commission [2] [6] 

• 

Action Plan 2 - An Investment Support Fund for ocean e nergy farms:  
The  European C ommission is le ading work  on se tting up a 
Europe an ‘Blue Economy’ Investment Platform. It will focus 
on m aritime-based industries, including ocean energy. It has 
be e n noted that this platform will m ost likely re quire projects 
to be  bankable, and thus have access to re venue support on 
top of e lectricity sales [2] 
The  Europe an C ommission e stablished the   InnovFin EDP 
facility , which e nables the EIB to finance  innovative first-of-
a-k ind demonstration projects at the  pre-commercial stage 
that contribute to  the  e ne rgy transition, including in the  
fie lds of re ne wable e nergy te chnologies, with  the  aim  of 
contributing to de -risking the  te chnologies and re assuring 
financial investors of their commercial viability [7] 

• 

•  Me m ber States’ initiatives such as France’s Bpifrance can be 
re le vant in providing targeted support for ocean e nergy [5] 
Acce ss to  the se  instruments is  still challe nging for  oce an e nergy 
actors, due to the eligibility re quirements. [5] 

Action Plan 3 - Demonstration & Pre -Commercial: An EU Insurance 
and Guarantee Fund to underwrite  proje ct risks:  

•  No  e vide nce on progress has been found. Sources inform 
that  insurance   costs  for  oce an  e ne rgy  proje cts  re main 

[5] O ce anSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual R eport 
[6] C ordis we bsite (2020) 
[7] InnovFin EDP we bsite (2020) 
[8] InvestEU we bsite (2020) 
[9] Jacques De lors Institute (2020) The Member State 

com partment of the InvestEU Fund: how does it 
work ? W ill it fly?  

[10] DG MAR E Website (2018) O cean e nergy - A ne w 

source  of green, blue powe r 

[11] EASME we bsite 
[12] Se aWave project we bsite  
[13] W ESE project we bsite 
[14] SafeWave proje ct we bsite 

Satisfactory 

Satisfactory 

Satisfactory 

92 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

• 

• 

prohibitive  to  date ,  and  that  an  EU-le ve l  instrument  to 
addre ss this issue is not ye t available at the moment [2] 
In 2018 O cean Ene rgy Europe submitted a proje ct proposal 
unde r Horizon 2020 aimed at defining how the EU Insurance 
and Guarantee Fund would work . W hile the proposal was 
se le cted for funding, the grant agre ement preparations were 
te rm inated by the  consortium due to the  withdrawal of one 
k e y m ember of the project consortium. [5] 
For  the   ne x t  Multi-annual  Financial  Fram ework   (MFF) 
cove ring the  2021-2027 pe riod, the  European Commission 
proposed to bring together under one roof the  different EU 
financial  instruments  curre ntly  available  that  provide 
financing in the form of loans and guarantees. This will lead 
to  the   cre ation  of  Inve stEU,  a  platform  that  will  boost 
inve stment, innovation and job cre ation by triggering at least 
EUR 650 billion in additional investments thanks to the  EU 
budgetary guarantee. The guarantee will cove r part of the  
risk  of inve stment projects of EU strategic intere st with the  
aim  of m obilising additional amounts of private  and public 
capital for the se proje cts . The  Inve stEU Programme will 
finance proje cts in differe nt domains, including sustainable 
e ne rgy, and as such, it can provide support and guarantees 
for  e m e rging te chnologies such  as oce an e ne rgy.[8] [9] 
Inve stEU can re pre sent an im portant opportunity for the  
oce an energy sector in terms of increasing the confidence of 
inve stors and reducing costs [10]  

Action Plan 4 - De-risking environmental consenting through an 
inte grated programme of measure s: 

• 

• 

The  Europe an C ommission has awarde d contracts to two 
inte rnational consortia, who will  gather, analyse and share 
data on the   e nvironmental im pacts from  7  wave   e nergy 
de vice  deployments. [2] 
In 2017 and 2019 the  European C ommission published two 
calls  on  “Environmental  m onitoring  of  wave   and  tidal 
de vice s” under the  EMFF. Following the  publication of the 

Satisfactory 

93 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

2017 call for proposal, the Se a W ave project and the WESE 
Proje ct we re  cum ulatively funded with 1.5 m illion EUR  from 
the  EMFF  and launched in O ctober-November 2018. Both 
proje cts are  under way and will run until 2021. The 2019 call 
gave  light to the SafeWAVE project, started in October 2020 
and running until 2023. The thre e ongoing projects focus on 
incre asing the  amount of e nvironmental data available and 
to im prove the k nowle dge on assessing possible impacts of 
oce an energy devices, including to improve the planning and 
conse nting proce dures. [11] [12] [13] [14] 

Base d  on  re com mendations  from   the   O ce an  e ne rgy  Strategic 
R oadmap, the  SET Plan on  Ocean energy has put forward two 
actions, recalling the initiatives set for in the Roadmap:  

• 

• 

It proposed the cre ation of an Investment Support Fund for 
oce an energy farms 
It proposed the  cre ation of an EU Insurance and Guarantee 
Fund [3] [4] 

3.3 W hat progre ss has been made in implementing the European Industrial Initiative? 

3.4 W hat progre ss has been made in implementing the sector-specific guidelines? 

In 2019 the European C ommission published the “Guidance on Energy 
Transmission Infrastructure and EU nature le gislation” , with the  aim 
to  provide  guidance   to  proje ct  de ve lopers,  transmission  system 
ope rators and authorities re sponsible for the  pe rmitting of e nergy 
transmission  plans  and  proje cts  on  how  be st  to  approach  the  
installation, ope ration and de commissioning of e nergy transmission 
infrastructure in re lation to Natura 2000 sites and species protected 
unde r the EU Habitats and Birds Directive. [1] 
The  MSP Platform published a document   in 2018 outlining some 
ge neral re com mendations on how  to  support the  de ve lopment of 
wave  and tidal e nergy proje cts alongside other sectors and interests. 
The  MUSES project , ye t to be completed, is going to develop an action 

[1] European C ommission (2019) Guidance on energy 
transmission infrastructure  and EU nature legislation 
[2] MSP Platform we bsite 
[3] MUSES project we bsite 
[4] C ordis we bsite 

Indicative, but not conclusive 

Null 

Satisfactory 

94 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

plan to address the challenges and opportunities for Multi-Uses of the 
oce ans, including by addressing issues re lating to the deployment of 
wave   and tidal e ne rgy. More over, the  MAR INA Platform Project , 
concluded  in  2014,  produce d  a  se t  of  protocols  cove ring  the  
e ngineering  and  e conomic  e valuation  of  m ulti-purpose  Marine 
R e newable Energy platforms, including wave and tidal devices, taking 
into account also non-energy uses and planning & consenting issues 
surrounding the ir de ployment, which are  re le vant in the  context of 
the  spatial planning decisions [2] [3] [4] 

EQ 4: What  have been the quantitative and qualitative effects of the intervention? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

4.1 How m any new oce an e nergy projects have been installed and deployed in Europe since  2014? 

Installation and deployment  
In 2014, oce an e nergy combined operational capacity was 10 MW [9], 
and this grew to 16.4 MW in 2015 [1]. 
At the  e nd of 2016, Europe had 13 MW of installed tidal powe r capacity 
[8]. At  this stage, 52% of the  companies de veloping tidal  e nergy 
te chnology we re  in the  EU (highest de velopment: UK, ND, FR , IE – 
countrie s with m ajor tidal re source s; other DE, SE). At the  e nd of that 
ye ar, 21 tidal turbines we re  de ployed in EU wate rs [8]. Other major 
playe rs we re  US, C A. The UK had the highest number of developers 
of wave  e nergy, followe d by DK, USA, AUS, NO. At the time, between 
70- 100 wave  e ne rgy de sign concepts we re  under de velopment, but 
only a fe w actually made it to full scale prototype testing [1] [6].  
W hile  significant growth in the  installation of oce an e nergy de vices 
has be en re gistered in re ce nt ye ars, and the  EU has be en leading 
particularly in tidal stream installations [7], curre nt deployments are 
falling behind pre vious optimistic predictions for 2019 [1].  

[1] Dalton (2018): “Ocean energy Wave and Tide” 
[2] ETIP Ocean (2019): “Powe ring homes today, 

powe ring nations tomorrow” 
[3] JR C (2019): “Ocean e nergy supply chain” 
[4] Magagna e t al. (2018): “Ocean energy in Europe” 
[5] O ’Hagan et al. (2016): “Wave e nergy in Europe – 
Vie ws on e xperiences and progre ss to date” 

[6] Se anergy, EY (2016): “Ocean e nergies, moving 

towards competitiveness: a market overview” 

[7] DT O cean (2019): “Advanced Tools for O cean e nergy 
Syste m s Innovation, Development and 
De ployment” 

[8] Interre g re port on PELAGOS (2019): “Strategic 

re se arch Agenda towards innovation in Blue 
e ne rgy” 

Satisfactory 

95 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

Look ing at the e nergy production overtime, it has been re ported that 
the  tidal energy sector produced 33.7 GW of electricity between 2002 
and 2018. W ith a le ss m ature industry, wave e nergy delivere d 1.8 GW 
of e lectricity betwe en 2008 and 2015 [7]. Interestingly enough, more 
powe r has been generated by tidal stream since the start of 2017 than 
in the  pre vious 13 ye ars combined [2]. 

[9] European C ommission (2014): “Impact Assessment 

accom panying the Communication on O cean 
e ne rgy” 

[10] Trinomics (2019): “Study on impacts of EU actions 

supporting the development of Renewable 
Ene rgy te chnologies” 

It had be en forecasted that 40 MW of tidal and 26 MW of wave  area 
would be  deployed by the end of 2018 [12], and that 160 MW of tidal 
capacity could be deployed by 2021, and additional 1.5 GW by 2025 
[13]. Furthermore , significant deployments have been announced for 
the  2019-2023 period:  

• 

Tidal energy: up to 3.4 MW of tidal stream deployments are 
planned  for  2020  [16].  Be twe e n  2019  and  2027,  it  is 
e x pected that around 1 GW of capacity will be deployed, 959 
MW  of which are e xpected to be deployed in EU [11] [4] 
•  W ave  energy: it is expected that up to 3 MW of wave  energy 

de vice s will be  deployed in 2020 in the EU [16] 

Most re ce nt tre nds and statistics [16] on ocean e nergy installation in 
Europe  provide the following picture: 

[11] JR C (2019): “Technology Mark et Report” 
[12] Me likoglu e t. al (2018): “Current status and future  

of oce an energy sources, a global re view” 

[13] SETIS magazine (2019): “Ocean e nergy” 
[14] Este ban (2017): “Recent developments in ocean 

e ne rgy and offshore wind: financial challenges 
and e nvironmental m isconceptions” 
[15] Kingston (2017): “Examining the effectiveness of 
support for UK W ave Energy Innovation since  
2000” 

[16] O cean Energy Europe (2020) “Ocean e nergy key 
tre nds and statistics 2019” 
[17] ETIPOcean (2020) Strategic R esearch And 
Innovation Agenda For O cean Energy 

• 

Tidal stream: 1.52 MW have been added in 2019 tidal stream 
installed capacity. This is less than the capacity deployed in 
2018 (3.7 MW) but this is supposedly caused by the fact that 
m any developers are  preparing substantial de ployments for 
2020. Installed capacity in EU wate rs am ounts to 10.4 MW 
today, the largest share of which is located in France  and the 
UK.  Ele ctricity  production 
farms  and 
de m onstration projects gre w by 50% from 2018. 

from  

tidal 

•  W ave  energy: 0.6 MW have been added in 2019 wave  energy 
installed capacity. Installed capacity in EU wate rs amounts 
to  1.5 MW   today. These de vices are  located in Be lgium, 
France , Portugal and UK coasts in particular. 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

According to the  O cean SET re port , com piling information from a 
surve y dire cted to EU Me mber States, the average annual e lectricity 
production  pe r  installed  capacity  was  1,762  MW h/MW  for  tidal 
e ne rgy[17]. 

Notably, in the  period 2014-2019, the ocean e nergy sector has also 
witne sse d the decommissioning of a number of installed de vices [6] 
[11].  A  portion  of  the   installed  capacity  was  re m oved  or 
de commissioned at the end of their te sting and demonstration phase. 
In particular, according to re cently collected data , 10.4 MW  of tidal 
stre am  is  curre ntly  ope rating,  while   17.3  MW   have   been 
de commissioned  following  the   succe ssful  com pletion  of  te sting 
programmes. O f the 11.8 MW  of wave  e nergy deployed since 2010, 
only 1.5 MW  is curre ntly in the  wate r, while   10.3 MW  have been 
de commissioned  as  we ll.  [17]  In  som e  case s,  oce an  e nergy 
com panies  also  de clared  bankruptcy  [2]  [14]  [15].  Notably,  a 
downturn in UK wave  e ne rgy innovation pe rformance le d to e nergy 
utilitie s, manufacturers, investors withdrawing from the sector [15]  

Manufacturing 
O ce an e nergy m a nufacturers (O EM) are  regaining  interest in the  
oce an energy sector, after a significant period whe re  engagement was 
lack ing on the ir side. It is e xpected that OEMs will be  attracted back 
into the  sector as confidence in the te chnology grows [3] 
C om ponents are  generally produced ad hoc for spe cific projects by 
m anufacture rs located in the  country of origin of the te sting device. 
Manufacturing and assembly facilities are  e xpected to be  located in 
high-resource are as whe re  the  de vice is going to be  de ployed. This 
will  be nefit  local  com panies  in  coastal  re gions.  So  far,  all  pre-
com m ercial tidal energy deployments use EU technology [3] 
New manufacturing facilities we re  announce d in Normandy (Naval 
Ene rgy, form er DC NS), in She tland (e x pansion of local tidal blades 
com pany) [3]. By 2020, the  annual production of tidal turbines is 
e x pected to be above 200 [4] 

Satisfactory 

97 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

4.2 How m uch has been invested in the oce an energy sector since 2014 (both public and private investments)?   

Public support 
As of 2019, oce an e nergy is m ostly funded by initial public support 
and private  inve stors join whe n it  transitions from  R &D stage to 
de m onstration stage. Public funding is used to le verage private capital 
[2] 

[1] Dalton (2018) “Ocean e nergy W ave and Tide” 
[2] DT O cean (2019) “Advanced Design Tools for O cean 
e ne rgy Systems Innovation, Development and 
De ployment” 

[3] European C ommission (2014) “Blue Energy 

W e ak 

EU support 
In the  pe riod of 1980s –  2014, 90 m illion EUR  have be en spent on 
oce an energy by the EU under the R esearch Framework Programmes 
and Intelligent Ene rgy Europe Programme [3]. R eportedly, in 2007-
2018, the EU has invested 864 million EUR in ocean energy projects 
[8] [9].  
EU source s of grant funding for ocean e nergy include [1] [7] [8]:  

• 

•  Horizon 2020: this has be en the  m ost im portant source of 
grant funding, disbursing around 140  MLN EUR   to  ocean 
e ne rgy projects in the period 2014-2020 [12] 
EU  structural funds e .g. European R e gional Development 
Fund, Interre g [8] 
EMFF -EASME 
LIFE Programme  

• 
• 
•  O ce an e nergy ERA-NET Cofound 
• 
•  NER 300: largest push support fund EU-EIB, m ain market 
ince ntive scheme. It will be  followe d by the Innovation Fund 
(e x pected to be launched in 2020) 

InnovFIN EDP 

EU e ntities such as InnoEnergy have taken e quity into oce an energy 
com panies to complement the funding needs [8] 
According  to  the   e ne rgy  com petitiveness  re port,  the   total  R&I 
e x penditure on wave  and tidal in the  EU was 3.84 billion EUR  from 
2007 to 2019, with 2.74 billion EUR coming from private sources and 
436 m illion coming from national R &I programmes. In this context, 
EU  contribution from R &I funds was around 650 m illion EUR  (this 
include s R &I programmes as we ll as contributions from NER 300 and 
Inte rre g proje cts). [13] 

C om munication” 

[4] JR C (2019) “Technology Market Report” 
[5] SI O ce an (2014) “Wave and Tidal Energy Market 
De ployment Strategy for Europe” 

[6] Trinomics (2019) “Study on impacts of EU actions 

supporting the development of Renewable 
Ene rgy te chnologies” 

[7] ETIP Ocean (2019) “Powe ring homes today, powe ring 

nations tomorrow” 

[8] O ES (2019) “Annual Report” 
[9] SETIS m agazine (2019) “Ocean energy” 
[10] European Commission (2017) Study on lessons for 

oce an energy development  

[11] Kingston (2017) Ex amining the Effectiveness of 

Support for UK Wave Energy Innovation since 
2000  

[12] JR C (2019) Technology De velopment R eport 
[13] European Commission (2020) R eport on progre ss of 

cle an e nergy competitiveness 

[14] European C ommission (2020) Blue Economy R eport 

2020 

Satisfactory 

98 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

In te rm s of tre nds, while  private investments in the sector decreased 
be twe e n 2010 and 2016, national and EU R &D funds increased. By 
contrast, betwe en 2017 and 2019, private R &D investments started 
incre asing again, while  EU and national support slightly de creased. 
[14] 

Private support:  
O ve r 600-700 million  EUR have  been invested in ocean energy by 
the  private sector over the period of 2007-2014 [3] [5]. Reportedly, 
as of 2016, the oce an energy industry had invested 1 billion EUR in 
capital to m ove concepts to deployment in EU wate rs [2]. 
As of 2019, OEE m embers re porte d having invested more than 1 
billion  EUR in R &D activitie s in 2009-2019 period [6] 

4.3 How m uch have Member States supported the  uptake of ocean energy since 2014 (including re venue support schemes)? 

Member States:  
National inve stments in R &D have  be en growing slowly since  2011, 
with 56 million  EUR a ye ar in 2014 and 2015, accounting for 21 % 
of total inve stment for the  same ye ars [4]. The JR C re ported that 
Me m ber  State s  spe nt  around  100  m illion  EUR   in  oce an  e nergy 
be twe e n  2014  and  2015  [14],  while   othe r  source s  inform  that 
contribution from national R &I programmes amounted to 463 million 
EUR  in the  period 2007-2019 [13]. According to a re cent re port from 
O ce anSET, the  contribution from  Me mber State s amounted to 26.3 
m illion EUR in 2018 [15]. 
Diffe re nt Market support schemes with push and/or pull mechanisms 
are  available [1].  
Examples of countries with push mechanisms (FR , PT, UK)[2] 

• 

Brittany, Norm andy, W ales re gional governments invested in 
oce an energy projects [1] 

•  National  financial  instruments  e .g.  Scottish  Government 

Ene rgy Investment Fund [1] 

[1] Dalton (2018): “Ocean energy Wave and Tide” 
[2] DT O cean (2019): “Advanced Design Tools for Ocean 

e ne rgy Systems Innovation, Development and 
De ployment” 

[3] European C ommission (2014): “Blue Energy 

C om munication” 

[4] JR C (2019): “Technology Market R eport” 
[5] SI O ce an (2014): “Wave and Tidal Energy Market 

De ployment Strategy for Europe” 

[6] Trinomics (2019): “Study on impacts of EU actions 

supporting the development of Renewable 
Ene rgy te chnologies” 

[7] ETIP Ocean (2019): “Powe ring homes today, 

powe ring nations tomorrow” 

[8] O ES (2019): “Annual R eport” 
[9] SETIS m agazine (2019): “Ocean e nergy” 
[10] European Commission (2017) Study on lessons for 

Examples of countries with pull mechanisms: 

oce an energy development  

• 

C apital and re venue support m echanisms e .g. Fe ed in tariffs: 
France , Germany, Ireland, Italy , Ne therlands [2] [5] 

[11]  Kingston  (2017)  Ex am ining  the   Effe ctive ness  of 
Support for UK Wave Energy Innovation since 2000 

Indicative, but not conclusive 

Indicative, but not conclusive 

99 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

Example of decrease in national support:  
Since   2018,  the   UK  Gove rnment  has  m ove d  from   de dicated 
R e newable O bligations Certificates (ROCs) for ocean energy projects, 
to  C ontract for Diffe rence  (C fD) support schemes, in which  ocean 
e ne rgy te chnologies have to bid in the same pool of proje cts with 
m ore  advanced and e stablished te chnologies, such as bottom fixed 
offshore wind. This re sulted in no ocean e nergy te chnology projects 
be ing awarded support. [4] [11] 

O pe n Se a Test Site s, two to thre e  pe r country, are  available in the  
Ne the rlands, Ire land, Portugal, Spain, De nmark , Be lgium, Sweden 
and France  [8]  

[13] European C ommission (2020) R eport on progress of 
cle an e nergy competitiveness 
[14] JR C (2019): “Technology De velopment Report” 
[15] O ceanSET (2020) Oce anSET First Annual Report 

4.4 How m uch have the capital costs for the deployment of ocean energy been reduced since 2014? 

In 2013, high te chnology costs we re  associated with oce an energy [1] 
In 2018, C APEX values varied for pilot projects for wave  e nergy (e  
10- 50 M/MW) and tidal e nergy (e 5-20 M/MW), with  lowe r  values 
be ing attributed to the latter in this stage. The C APEX value converges 
whe n the  commercial stage is re ached, with e 3-6 M/MW for both wave 
and tidal energy [2]. 
In 2019, the development of oce an e nergy is still associated with high 
capital e x penditure (C APEX) high ope rational e x penditure  (O PEX). 
This is also accompanied by low capacity factors and low re liability of 
the  de vices. [3] 

[1] European C ommission (2014) “Impact Assessment 

accom panying the Communication on O cean 
e ne rgy” 

[2] Dalton (2018) “Ocean e nergy W ave and Tide” 
[3] JR C (2019) “Technology Market Report” 

4.5  W hat is the e xtent of the investments in R&D for oce an energy since 2014 (public and private)? 

The  EU is considered to have world-leading public R&D budget 
for ocean energy, with the  caveat that R&D budgets from China are 
not fully k nown. EU  and Me m ber State s’ R &D funding have been 
e ffe ctive in establishing and maintaining a le ading academic position 
globally on oce an technologies. This is also demonstrated by the fact 
that the  EU has a le ading position in publications on oce an e nergy [4]. 
The  European Energy Research (EER A) was funded with the aim to 
e x pand and optimise EU e nergy re search and capabilities by building 

[1] Dalton (2018) “Ocean e nergy W ave and Tide” 
[2] DT O ce an (2019) “Advanced De sign Tools for O cean 
e ne rgy Syste ms Innovation, De ve lopment and 
De ployment” 
[3] O ES (2019) “Annual Report” 
[4]  Trinomics (2019) “Study on im pacts of EU  actions 
supporting the development of renewable energy 
te chnology” 

Satisfactory 

Satisfactory 

100 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

[5] Europe an C ommission (2017) “Study on le ssons for 

oce an energy development” 

[6] JR C (2019) Technology Development Report 

on national re search initiatives, sharing national facilities and re alising 
joint  EU  and  national  programmes.  W ithin  the   EER A,  a  joint 
programme for investment in ocean e nergy has been set up, the NER  
300 [1]. 
The  Research  Framework  Programmes and Inte lligent Energy 
Europe  Programme provided up to EUR  90 MLN  for  oce an e nergy 
de ve lopment from 1980-2014. O ther sources re port that 124 MLN 
EUR  have been allocated to ocean energy from 2005 to 2014. Horizon 
2020 has provided over EUR  60 m illion EUR  to ocean e nergy R&D 
proje cts be twe en 2014-2015 alone [1]. Since  2014, it has provided 
m ore  than EUR 140 million EUR  for ocean energy R &D [6] 
C ontinuity of re search topics has allowe d for high im pact projects. 
The re  are numerous e xamples of successful proje cts that benefit from 
the   re sults  of  pre vious  EU-funded  proje cts  and  show  a  clear 
succe ssion  in  the   work   throughout  the   diffe rent  Fram e work 
Programmes [4]. 

Acce ss to R&D funding is sometimes considere d challenging for ocean 
e ne rgy developers. It is difficult for them to dire ctly compete for R&D 
funding with m ore  m ature te chnologies. It has been stated that if  
oce an e nergy is to be  taken se riously, it cannot be assessed by the  
sam e crite ria as other re newables. [5] 

Global public  renewable energy R&D budget incre ased between 
the  1970s and started to de crease in 1980s. It re mained e ssentially 
stable around 1% of the total share of re newable e nergy R&D budgets 
until 2008, whe n it starte d to incre ase again and re ached a peak 
around 2% in 2014. It slightly decre ased just below 2% afte r 2016. 
Be twe e n 1974 and 2018, IEA countries had a cum ulative budget of 
EUR  2.5 BN for oce an e nergy R &D. In 2018, this share was EUR  88 
MLN, accounting for 2.6 % of the total renewable R&D budget for that 
ye ar [2]. 

W e ak 

4.6 To what extent has the development of the oce an energy sector contributed to job creation, economic growth or EU’s sustainability objectives since  2014? 

Job creation 

Satisfactory 

101 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

[1] O ce an energy Forum (2016): “Ocean e nergy Strategic 
R oadmap 2016, building oce an energy for Europe” 
[2] SETIS m agazine (2019): “Ocean e nergy” 
[3]  Se anergy,  EY  (2016):  “O ce an  e ne rgies,  m oving 
towards competitiveness: a market overview” 
[4] ETIP Ocean (2019): “Powe ring homes today, powe ring 
nations tomorrow” 
[5] IR ENA (2018): “Renewable Ene rgy and Jobs Annual 
re vie w 2018” 
[6] O ES (2019): “Annual R eport” 
[7] Trinomics (2019): “Study on im pacts of EU actions 
supporting  the   de ve lopment  of  re ne wable  e nergy 
te chnology” 
[8] Dalton (2018): “Ocean energy Wave and Tide” 
[9]  Europe an  C om mission  (2017):  “Le adership  in 
re ne wables  –  O ce an  e ne rgy:  the   im pact  of  EU  R &D 
funding” 
[7] Europe an C ommission (2020) Blue Economy Report 

2020 

[8]  Europe an  C ommission  (2020)  The   2018  annual 
e conomic re port on the EU blue e conomy 
[9] O ce anSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual R eport 
[10] European C ommission (2020) EU strategy on offshore 
re ne wable energy 

In 2010, the EU and O ES e stimated that ocean e nergy would create 
ove r 26,000 dire ct and 13,000 indirect jobs, for a total of close  to 
40,000 by 2020. The European C ommission in 2014 indicated that 
10,500–26,500 pe rmanent jobs and up to 14,000 te mporary jobs 
could be  cre ated by 2035. In 2016, OES e stimated that 680,000 direct 
jobs would be cre ated by 2050 [8]. 
More  re ce nt e stimates, re port that ocean e nergy e mployed around 
1000  people in  2018.  This is lowe r than 2017, for which IR ENA 
re porte d 4,870 global ocean jobs, of which 723 in UK and 324 in Spain 
[5]. A study on the blue e conomy by DG MARE estimated that the EU 
oce an e nergy se ctor curre ntly ge nerates 1,350 direct jobs across 
Europe , with total employment in the sector at about 2,000 jobs [2] 
[7] 
O the r e stimates have been found re porting that the  ocean e nergy 
se ctor has ge nerated around 2,000 jobs, both through dire ct and 
indire ct   job cre ation, in 2018 [8]. O ther source s [9] inform that 
TR L7+ projects in wave  e nergy have cre ated 121 jobs in 2018, and 
those  in tidal energy have created 78. According to the Blue Economy 
R e port [7], 2250 jobs we re  ge nerated by the ocean energy sector in 
2019, with ove r 430 companies being involved in different stages of 
the  supply chain in the EU. 

In 2018, it was re ported that wave and tidal studies on jobs/MW 
were too limited and data and models were lacking [8]. In 2019, 
O ES  re porte d that  m e thodologies to  asse ss the   num ber of  jobs 
cre ate d or m aintained with the  de ployment of oce an e nergy was in 
the  process of being prepared [6] 
De spite the lack  of cle ar-cut statistics, the first oce an e nergy farms 
have  demonstrated that the industry contributes to local economies, 
and that sk ills and infrastructure from  le gacy industries such as oil 
and gas can be re purposed for oce an e nergy. The im pact of tidal 
e ne rgy has also be nefited businesses across EU, not only coastal 
re gions. [4] 

Economic growth 

Indicative, but not conclusive 

102 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

In 2016, it was fore casted that oce an e nergy could cre ate a market 
of up to EUR  653 billion EUR  (or 575 BN EUR , according to C arbon 
Trust) be twe e n 2010 and 2050, with up to 53 billion EUR  annually 
be nefitting the EU economy [1]. 
R e portedly, ocean energy proje cts will particularly benefit islands, by 
cre ating ne w activitie s for the  im plementation of proje cts and their 
follow up operation [2]. 

Patents 
The  number of EU patents filed for oce an e nergy te chnologies has 
be e n reducing. Since  2006, above 170 ocean e nergy patents have 
be e n filed every ye ar. The number of EU patents increased until 2009, 
whe n 313 pate nts we re  file d, after which it de cre ased again to pre-
2007 le vels. The re ason for this decrease appears to be a shift away 
for de ve loping ne w de vice s to im proving e x isting ones. In addition, 
ince ntives and (te st) proje ct sites outside of the  EU have  increased 
ove r the  past years. [7] [9] 

Sustainability 
In  2019, it  was  re porte d that  incre asing oce an e ne rgy installed 
capacity would help re ducing e missions and comply with the  e nergy 
policy agenda of Member States [2]. 
The re  is wide spread confidence in the  fact that a developed ocean 
e ne rgy  se ctor  will  contribute  to  providing  e conomic  be nefits,  in 
particular to EU  pe ripheral are as, as we ll as to the  re duction of EU 
GHG e m issions and the achievement of the clim ate neutrality target 
by 2050, including by supporting the  de carbonisation of EU islands. 
[7] [10] 

EQ 5: To what extent have the objectives of the intervention been met so far? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

5.1 To what extent has the uptake of ocean e nergy increased? 

Indicative, but not conclusive 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

103 

 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

[1] JR C (2019): “Ocean e nergy supply chain”  
[2] JR C (2019): “Technology Market R eport” 
[3] ETIP O ce an (2019): “Powe ring homes today, powering 

nations tomorrow” 

[4] O ’Hagan et al. (2016): “Wave energy in Europe – Views 

on e x periences and progress to date” 

[5] SETIS m agazine (2019): “Ocean e nergy” 
[6] Europe an C ommission (2017): “Study on le ssons for 

oce an energy development” 

[7]  Europe an C ommission (2020) R e port on progress of 

cle an e nergy competitiveness 

[8] ETIPOce an (2020) Strategic R esearch And Innovation 

Age nda For O cean Energy 

[9]  Europe an C ommission (2020) Blue  Econom y R eport 

2020 

The  EU  re m ains a  global  leader  in  the   de ve lopment of  ocean 
e ne rgy, as it is home to 50% of the world’s tidal e nergy developers 
and 60% of wave  e nergy de velopers. The EU has 70% of world’s 
oce an e nergy re search and te sting infrastructure and m aintains its 
le adership position with re gards to installed capacity at global level 
[1]. Moreover, 78 % of the ocean energy installed capacity is located 
within Europe an wate rs (24.7 MW) [2] 

In ge ne ral, it is re cognised that the  EU oce an e nergy industry has 
m ade significant steps forward [2][5] [7]. 

According to the  EU, tidal te chnologies ‘can be  considere d as being 
at pre -commercial stage’, with a number of proje cts and prototypes 
be ing de ployed across Europe [7] (with TR L of m ost de vices being 
around 6-8)[8] . The  progre ss m ade by tidal e nergy has been judged 
supe rior to the  e xpectations, in particular in te rm s of the  re liability 
of the  de vices, as we ll as their ability to provide stable input to the 
grid [9]. By contrast, wave  energy technologies appear to still be at 
the  R &I stage (with m ost of the  approaches being at TR L 6-7) [7], 
and  substantially  lagging  be hind  in  te rm s  of  pe rformance,  in 
particular whe n e lectricity generation is taken into account . In both 
case s, te chnological m aturity varies amongst developers. [7] 

Installed capacity of oce an e ne rgy  worldwide   incre ased by  50% 
be twe e n  2016  and  2017  [2].  Progre ss  of  installed  capacity 
worldwide : 
• 
• 
• 

2015: 4.6 MW tidal vs 4.8 MW wave  [2] 
2017: 25 MW [2] 
2018: 31.4 MW (10 MW wave vs 20 MW tidal) [2] 
Tidal stream has established its re cord of powe r production in 2019, 
and this shows “how far the te chnology has come”: more  power has 
be e n ge nerated by tidal stre am since the  start of 2017 than in the  
pre vious 13 years combined. [1]  
C om pared to 2016, the  wave  energy se ctor has shown slow but 
ste ady progress in the  de ployment of wave  e nergy devices, with 
incre asing concertation of devices at TRL 6 and 7 [2] 

Satisfactory 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

Le ss re ce nt sources ne vertheless re port that the  progress in  the 
uptake of ocean energy has been “limited” and “slow”  due  to 
the   te chnologies  still  be ing  too  costly  to  com pete  with  the  
alte rnatives  [2]  [4].  Stak eholders  raise d  the   lack   of  long-term 
gove rnment ambitions as a m ajor barrie r in this context [6] 

5.2 To what e x tent have the  stakeholders been brought  together  and coordinated  their  action  to e nhance te chnological innovation and competitiveness? (specific 
obje ctive) 
In ge neral, EU support enabled the creation of platforms aiming 
to facilitate the development of a European-wide coordinated, unified 
and streamlined oce an sector [5]. R elevant initiatives in this context 
are : 
• 

[1] JR C (2019) “Technology Market Report” 
[2] O ES (2019) “Annual Report” 
[3] SETIS m agazine (2019) “Ocean energy” 
[4] Inte rre g re port on Pe galus (2019) “Strategic re search 
Age nda towards innovation in Blue energy” 
[5]  Trinomics  (2019)  “Study  on  im pacts  of  EU  actions 
supporting  the   de ve lopment  of  R e newable  Ene rgy 
te chnologies” 
[6] JR C (2019) “Oce an energy supply chain” 
[7]  Kingston  (2017)  “Ex amining  the   Effe ctive ness  of 
Support for UK Wave Energy Innovation since 2000” 

The Enhanced European Innovation Council (EIC) was 
e stablished  by  the   Europe an  C ommission  to  support 
innovators, small com panies and re searches (Funded by 
Horizon 2020) [1] 
The  ELBE  project  (funded  by  DG  GR O W   “C luster  Go 
Inte rnational”), gathers five  EU  cluste rs and fosters the  
de finition of a joint internationalisation strategy for O CEAN 
ENER GY [2] 
The  Technology  Collaboration  Programme on  O cean 
e ne rgy Systems (OES) started in 2001. As of December 
2019, 24 Member C ountries and the European Commission 
are  active  members [2] 
The  European C ommission is le ading a task to build global 
conse nsus on stage gate metrics (or e valuation criteria) 
for oce an energy [3] 
The  European Strategic R e search Agenda (SR A) for Ocean 
e ne rgy, delivere d by TP O cean in November 2016. 
Eve nts  such  as:  Europe an  W ave   and  Tidal  Ene rgy 
C onference ,  O ffshore  Ene rgy  Ex hibition  &  C onference, 
W ave EC Annual Seminar, Marine Ene rgy Week [2] 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

W ithin Me m ber State s, the   Dutch  Marine  Ene rgy  C e ntre fosters 
coope ration betwe en business and universities [2]. 

Satisfactory 

105 

 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

In 2017, stakeholders still e xpressed conce rns with re gards to the  
curre nt “do it alone” approach in ocean energy, lam enting that 
the re  was not enough open source  research, nor sharing on failures 
or  succe sses, which ultim ately re sulted in slowe r  progre ss being 
re gistere d overall. C ertain stakeholders in particular still show little  
inte re st in e ngaging in the  se ctor, such as m anufacturers, which 
ultim ately contributes to hindering progre ss [6]. 
In the   case  of the  UK, the   lack  of stak eholder coordination was 
e x e mplary in this context. He re, knowle dge e xchange was hindered 
by  a  lack   of  k nowle dge  codification,  m e aning  that  k nowledge 
ge nerated from RD&D proje cts remained tacit and was limited to the 
e x perience s  of  the ir  staff  rathe r  than  the   wide r  se ctor.  Actor 
k nowle dge  e x change  was  considered  to  be   constrained  by  a 
com bination of: a culture of de velopers operating secretively in order 
to prote ct IP; UK’s decentralised model of innovation that prioritises 
com petition  ove r  collaboration;  strong  focus  on  de vice-level 
innovation  funding,  which  re m oved  the   ince ntive  for  actors  to 
de ve lop com mon solutions to  share d problems. Industry–science 
collaboration here was constrained by fundamental differences in 
the   work ing  culture s  and  tim e frames  adopted  by  the   two 
com m unities, as we ll as a lack of joint industry–science funding that 
offe red a jointly acce ptable work ing arrangement [7]. 
5.3 To what extent has ocean energy’s access to finance be en facilitated? (specific objective) 

Acce ss to finance is till perce ived as a challenge for the ocean energy 
se ctor [1] [3] [] 
Evide nce  consulted to date re ports that support instruments for 
ocean energy are still lacking, and this is reportedly still affecting 
the   de ve lopment  of  the   se ctor.  This  is  particularly  true   for 
com m ercial insurance products covering e arly development risks [2]. 
For  this  re ason, the   status of  a  num ber  of  proje cts that  we re  
e x pected to be  deployed by 2018 and 2019 re mains unce rtain. The  
inve stors  and  policy-makers  appe ar  m ore   re luctant  to  de velop 
support syste ms, and put  trust  in  forthcom ing te chnology cost-
re duction, though it has be en re ported that in m any cases these 

[1] JR C (2019) “Technology Market Report” 
[2] ETIP O ce an (2019) “Powe ring homes today, powe ring 

nations tomorrow” 

[3]  Europe an C ommission (2017) “Study on le ssons for 

oce an energy development 

[4] O ce anSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual R eport 

Indicative, but not conclusive 

106 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

actors  are   not  aware   of  the   full  spe ctrum  of  innovation  and 
de ve lopment that is actually taking place [1] [3]. 
In particular, revenue support schemes are  ofte n available but 
inacce ssible to an innovative sector such as ocean e nergy, as these 
instrum ents te nd to be targeted to re newable e nergies in general 
rathe r than to specific te chnologies. This re sults in oce an energy 
having to compete for support against more  established and cheaper 
te chnologies [2]. In this conte xt, the  lack  of re fle ction of o cean 
e ne rgy targets (from the  SET  plan) in  the  National Ene rgy and 
C lim ate Plans of Me mber States, also re presents a problem with 
re gards to acce ss to finance as this re duces m ark et visibility for 
oce an energy [2]. 

According to the  O ce anSET re port, 5  EU  Me m ber State s provide 
re ve nue support for oce an e nergy (wave  and tidal), namely the  
Ne the rlands, Spain, Be lgium, Swe den, France . Notably, France is the 
only country that ring-fences funding for oce an e nergy. In all other 
countrie s, “attempt to  com pete against other, m ore e stablished, 
re ne wables, which have  alre ady been able to lowe r costs through 
de ploying substantial capacity. As a result, where  revenue support is 
not ring-fe nced, the  payment to oce an e nergy proje cts is typically 
EUR 0. The absence  of de dicated re ve nue support for oce an energy 
has be e n m e ntioned as one  of  the   factors discouraging private  
inve stments in the sector by the  stakeholders consulted in the course 
of the  study, together with the  scarcity of cle ar national strategies 
and targets for ocean e nergy deployment, that would give confidence 
on the  e xistence of future potential m arkets for the technology [4] 
5.4 To what extent have the administrative practices and environmental monitoring be en improved? (specific obje ctive) 

According to re ce nt e stimates , only thre e  Member States, namely 
France , Italy and Portugal, re ported having consented wave  or tidal 
proje cts in 2018. Ave rage lice nsing tim e among Me mber States is 
about three years and average consenting time is around two years 
for  wave   and tidal projects. The  le ngth of the  proce ss has been 
re cognised as a possible deterre nt for the willingness of developers 
to te st and operate ocean energy technologies [11].  

[1]  C opping  (2018)  “The   state   of  k nowle dge  for 
e nvironmental  e ffe cts –   driving  conse nting  and 
pe rm itting  for  the   m arine  re ne wable  e nergy 
industry” 

[2] ETIP O ce an (2019) “Powe ring homes today, powe ring 

nations tomorrow” 

[3] Me ndoza e t al. (2019) “A fram ework  to e valuate the 

e nvironmental impact of oce an energy device s” 

Satisfactory 

107 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

In 2016, it was re ported that only a few European countries had 
for  oce an  e nergy 
streamlined  the  consenting  process 
de ve lopments by introducing a single point of contact or ‘one-stop-
shop’ system (such as De nmark, the United Kingdom or Portugal). 
O the r countries, including Spain and Swe den still re ly on m ultiple 
authorities to process consenting applications for ocean e nergy and 
othe r m arine activities [10] [6]. At  the  sam e tim e , it  has been 
m aintained that the variation in the interpretation and application of 
the   e nvironmental  im pact  asse ssment  dire ctive   and  Habitats 
Dire ctive  re quirements across the EU can have direct impacts on the 
ope ration of national consenting proce sses [5]. 

The   situation  on  administrative  procedures  differs  across 
Europe, de pending the approach and re sources of different licensing 
authorities [2]. There  is widespread variation in the application 
and execution of EIA s across the EU. In Swe de n, for example, 
all oce an energy proje cts are classiﬁed as ‘‘environmentally harmful 
activitie s” and, thus, re quire an EIA. In Portugal, as the  original 
transposing  EIA  le gislation  did  not  e x plicitly  include   m arine 
re ne wable e nergy, a decision was m ade to include it in subsequent 
le gislation.  This  stipulates  that  an  EIA  is  re quire d  only  if  a 
de ployment  is  within  a  Natura  2000  site ,  a  national  Ecological 
R e serve or Protected Area and if the re gional licensing authority is in 
agre ement  [3].  Else whe re ,  com petent  authorities  tak e   a  more  
traditional approach and de cide whe the r an EIA is re quire d on the  
basis of size, nature  and location of the de velopment [5]. So far, 
im pact  assessment  case s  for  oce an  e ne rgy  de vice s  we re   only 
available for deployments in the UK, USA, C anada, Swe den, Portugal, 
Japan, Denmark, and Germany [3]. 
Many de velopers and institutions still ﬁnd  it  diﬃcult  to  assess 
impacts,  partly  be cause  of  the   lack  of  a  comprehensive 
framework,  and  this  is  wide ly  k nown  and  acce pte d  [3].  The  
colle ction of pre- and post-installation m onitoring data still places 
substantial  cost  burdens  on  de vice   and  proje ct  de velopers, 
thre atening the  financial viability of this  young industry. This is 
be cause re gulators have interpreted laws as requiring a high degree 
of  ce rtainty, and colle cting sufficient data to satisfy this le vel of 

[4] O ES (2019) “Annual report” 
[5] O ’Hagan e t al. (2016) “W ave e nergy in Europe – Views 

on e x periences and progress to date” 

[6]  W right  e t  al.  (2016)  “Establishing  a  le gal  re search 

age nda for ocean e nergy” 

[7]  Europe an C ommission (2017) “Study on le ssons for 

oce an energy development” 

[8]  Trinomics  (2019)  “Study  on  im pacts  of  EU  actions 
supporting the de velopment of R enewable Energy 
te chnologies” 

[9]  Mulle r e t.  al  (2010) “C e ntre s for  Marine R e newable 

Ene rgy in Europe and North America” 

[10] O ce an Ene rgy Systems (2016) “C onsenting Processes 
for  O ce an  Ene rgy.  Update  on  Barrie rs  and 
R e commendations.” 

[11] O ceanSET (2020) Oce anSET First Annual Report 
[12] ETIPOce an (2020) O cean e nergy and the e nvironment: 

R e search and strategic actions 

[13] Me ndoza e t al (2019) A fram e work to e valuate the  

e nvironmental impact of OCEAN e nergy device s 

[14]  Europe an  C om mission  (2020)  R e port  from   the  
C om mission to the  European Parliament and the  
C ouncil  assessing  Me m ber  State s'  m onitoring 
programmes under the  Marine Strategy Framework 
Dire ctive  

[15]  Europe an  C om mission  (2020)  R e port  from   the  
C om mission to the  European Parliament and the  
C ouncil assessing Me mber State s' programmes of 
m e asures under the  Marine Strate gy Fram ework 
Dire ctive  

108 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

ce rtainty can be challenging [1]. While there must be sufficient data 
to analyse potential e ffects, it may not be possible  to evaluate 
ce rtain  risk s  until  significant  num bers  of  de vice s  are   de ployed. 
C om mercial-scale  MR E  de ve lopment  has  be e n  slow  and  data 
colle cte d about the  e nvironmental e ffects of MR E de ployments are  
ge nerally limited to small-scale or single devices. [1] [8]  

institutions  as  we ll  as 

O ce an  e ne rgy  falls  within  the   m andate  of  m ultiple  m arine 
gove rnance 
inte rnational  te chnical 
organisations  (institutional  fragmentation);  cooperation  among 
those  should be  im proved [5]. In  this  conte xt,  Marine  Spatial 
Planning  proce sses are  considered capable of having a positive 
e ffe ct in  e nabling coordinated m arine de cision-making, providing 
clarity  and  transpare ncy  to  conse nting  syste ms,  re conciling 
conﬂicting se a uses, protecting the  e nvironment and e ncouraging 
inve stment. [6] [5] 

Knowle dge  and  unde rstanding  of  the   e nvironmental  im pact 
associated with different oce an e nergy technologies are  important 
factors  whe n  it  com e s  to  facilitating  lice nsing  and  consenting 
proce sses. The m ain potential im pacts   so far associated with the  
de ployment of ocean e nergy relate to potential collision with marine 
biodiversity, the cre ation of   underwater noise and e lectromagnetic 
fie lds that can disturb m arine species, changes in m arine habitats 
(e .g. seabed conditions, sedimentation patterns e tc.) that can occur 
as a conse quence of the installation of devices. The assessment of 
e nvironmental im pacts largely depends on the type  of conversion 
te chnology used, on their operation m ode and on the specific location 
of the  de vice. Due to the  fact that m ost im pacts are  site-specific, and 
that the re is a limited number of ocean e nergy devices installed and 
m onitored in EU wate rs, the re  is still substantial uncertainty with 
re gards to the e nvironmental impacts of ocean e nergy. The “lack of 
cohe re nt,  ge neralised  inform ation,  strate gies  and  the   lack   of 
m onitoring and m itigation plans” are  considered to be  obstacles to 
the  de velopment of ocean energy around the world to date , and the 
prolife ration of re al-world observations and long-term m onitoring of 
im pacts are still highlighted as a k ey needs for the sector [12] [13] 

109 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

The   Marine   Strate gy  Fram e work   Dire ctive   (MSFD)  can  also 
pote ntially play a role  in the  fie ld of e nvironmental m onitoring for 
oce an e nergy de vices as it re quire s Me mber State s to assess and 
m onitor impacts of human activities on their m arine wate rs in order 
to  de te rm ine whe the r the se achieve good e nvironmental status. 
Diffe re nt descriptors  that need to be monitored under the MSFD can 
be ar re le vance for oce an e nergy de vice s, such as De scriptor 6 on 
Se a floor inte grity, De scriptor 7 on Hydrographical conditions and 
De scriptor  11  on  Ene rgy  and  noise .  The   re ce ntly  published 
assessment of Member States’ m onitoring programmes under the  
MSFD   howe ve r, re ports that there is “re latively limited m onitoring 
of  e ne rgy, including unde rwater  noise” (De scriptor 11),  and no 
m e ntion of de dicated m easure s for oce an e nergy is m ade in the  
assessment of the Programmes of Measures. [14] [15] 

5.5 To what extent has cost reduction be ing achieved via the consolidation of R &D activities? (operational obje ctive) 

[1] Trinomics (2019) “Study on impacts of EU actions 

supporting the development of Renewable Energy 
te chnologies” 
[2] O ES (2019) “Annual Report” 
[3] SETIS m agazine (2019): “Ocean e nergy” 
[4] JR C (2019) “Technology Market Report” 

Data on cost tre nds is still limited, due to the  lack  of commercial 
scale  applications and e stimates are  m ostly drawn  by  analysing 
baseline cases [1]. 
According to the sources consulted, the C APEX costs of ocean energy 
are  on  a  decreasing  tre nd (e x cept for  O TEC ) and the  industry 
progre sses up the   le arning curve .  EU  funding, and in  particular 
Horizon 2020, has he lped incre ase k now-how and de crease C APEX 
[1] [3]. In the  case of tidal e nergy, a re duction of m ore than 40% 
has been registered betwe en 2015 and 2019 (from 0.60 EUR/kWh to 
0.34- 0.38 EUR/kWh) [3]. Based on the collected baseline cases and 
with  furthe r succe ssful development, it is e x pecte d that both wave  
and tidal energy will be  able to re ach the cost targets defined in the 
Europe an  Strate gic  Ene rgy  Te chnology  Plan,  whe re   EUR 150-
100/MWh is proje cted by 2025-2030 for tidal and EUR150-100/MWh 
for wave  by 2030-2035 [2].  

De spite this, the  costs of ocean energy are still above the cost 
of other  renewable  energy sources. It would appe ar that this 
situation is not likely to change in the short period as a large part of 

Satisfactory 

110 

 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

the  investments at the moment are still being directe d towards more 
profitable te chnologies e .g. offshore wind and there fore away from  
oce an e nergy. Since deployment at scale is re quired to drive the  
cost-re duction ne cessary for the  te chnology to be  com petitive, the  
lim ite d  inve stments  allocated  m ight  lim it  the   de ployment  of 
additional proje cts [4].  

5.6 To what extent has the efficiency of the planning and licensing procedures be e n improved? (operational objective) 

Procedures  for  consenting  of  ocean  energy  are  still 
considered  time  consuming.  The   m ain  obstacles  to  issuing 
conse nting  for  oce an  e ne rgy  proje cts  are   re pre sented  by  the  
unce rtainty about e nvironmental impacts of ocean e nergy and by the 
pote ntial  conflicts  with  othe r  m arine  use rs,  that  re quire s  the  
consultation of a number of stakeholders[2]. The lack of k nowledge 
about the m arine e nvironment in the  le gal sector is also slowing 
down proce dures, including contract management-related issues for 
te chnology developers [1]. 

Se e  e vidence  under EQ  5.4 

[1]  Europe an C ommission (2017) “Study on le ssons for 

oce an energy development” 
[2] SETIS m agazine (2019) “Ocean energy” 

Satisfactory 

5.7 To what extent has the synergy with other industries (e .g. offshore wind) been enhanced, including on grid planning matters? (operational objective) 

Installation and grid connectivity have been, and remain, an 
important barrier. The  lack of tailored grid connection components 
(cable s, connectors, substations) and m ethods (cable laying and 
conne ction) persist. Installation difficulties are  a m ix of exogenous, 
te chnological and supply chain barriers, and these appear to remain 
challe nging to date [1]. 

[1]  Europe an C ommission (2017) “Study on le ssons for 
oce an energy development” 

W e ak 

5.8 To what e x tent has the  monitoring of environmental  impacts of oce an e nergy te chnology and the application of the relevant  environmental protection  legislation 
be e n supported? (operational obje ctive) 
In the  last ye ars, the re has been a considerable increase in  the 
number  of  studies  undertaken  (193, com pare d to 164 in  the  
pre vious 27  ye ars) on  the  environmental  impacts  of  ocean 
energy [3]. W hile unce rtainties re main about how m arine animals 
and habitats will be  affe cted by and inte ract with single de vices in 
the   oce an,  the re   is  a  re asonable  unde rstanding  of  likely 
e nvironmental  e ffe cts  of  oce an  e ne rgy  te chnology  [1].  Se veral 
initiatives have been undertaken in this re gard:  

[1] SETIS m agazine (2019) “Ocean energy” 
[2]  W right  e t  al.  (2016)  “Establishing  a  le gal  re search 
age nda for ocean e nergy” 
[3] Me ndoza e t al. (2019) “A fram ework  to e valuate the 

e nvironmental impact of oce an energy device s” 

[4] O ES (2019) “Annual report” 

Satisfactory 

111 

 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

• 

• 

• 

The Thetys online management system was cre ated, where 
inform ation about e nvironmental risks is collected, curated 
and disseminated [1] 
The   Europe an  C ommission  published  two  calls  on 
e nvironmental monitoring of wave  and tidal devices, via the 
Europe an Maritime and Fisheries Fund [2] 
The  EU is funding the WESE project, which aims to identify 
spe cific  k nowle dge  gaps  and  appropriate  m onitoring 
m e thodologies  on  the   e nvironmental  e ffe cts  of  ocean 
e ne rgy and to improve e xisting m odelling tools to contribute 
to ove rall understanding of the potential cumulative impacts 
of  future  large r scale  wave  e ne rgy de ployments and to 
propose e ffective m itigation m easures, among other things 
[1] 

•  O ES  has  e stablished  a  proje ct  on  the   “assessment  of 
Environm ental Effects and Monitoring Efforts”, that seeks to 
be  the  first international programme e ngaged in bringing 
toge ther inform ation and practitioners on  e nvironmental 
e ffe cts of marine renewable energy (MRE) development [4] 
two  draft  environmental  guidance 
In 
documents  we re   published  to  he lp  de ve lopers  and 
consultants  conduct  e nvironmental  assessments  and  to 
spe cifically outline data and m onitoring re quirements for 
de ployments in Irish wate rs [1] 

Ire land, 

• 

Unfortunately, it appears that many of the issues raised by the early 
scholarship on e nvironmental m onitoring for oce an e nergy remain 
pe rtinent some 40 ye ars later [2] 

112 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

EQ 6: To What factors have influenced effectiveness (positively or negatively), how and to what extent? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

6.1 W hat factors influenced the e ffectiveness of the Blue Ene rgy C ommunication/Ocean Ene rgy Strategic R oadmap positively? How did they influence e ffectiveness, 
and to what extent? 

6.2 W hat factors influenced the e ffectiveness of the Blue Ene rgy C ommunication/Ocean Ene rgy Strategic R oadmap negatively? How did they influence e ffectiveness, 
and to what extent? 

Null 

Null 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

EFFICIENCY 

EQ 7: To what extent are the costs of implementing the intervention justified, given the benefits it has achieved? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

7.1 W hat have been the costs of implementation of the Blue Energy C ommunication/Ocean Energy Strategic R oadmap for the different stakeholders?  

The  European C ommission provided financial support for the  setup 
and operation of the  Se cretariat of the  O cean Ene rgy Forum. The 
Se cre tariat of the Forum was appointed in 2015 and it formed part of 
a Programme financed by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 
whose  im plementation was de legated to the  Ex ecutive Agency for 
Sm all and Me dium-sized Enterprises (EASME). The m ain role of the  
Se cre tariat was to ensure the timely delivery of the R oadmap by the 
O ce an Ene rgy Forum members, that participated to the Forum in their 
own pe rsonal capacity [1] 

[1] O ce an Energy Forum we bsite 

Indicative, but not conclusive 

7.2 W hat progre ss has been made in terms of EU funding allocated to ocean e nergy? 

Se e  e vidence  under EQ 4.2 and EQ 4.5 

Satisfactory  

7.3 W hat progre ss has been made in terms of Member States’ funding allocated to ocean e nergy? 

Se e  e vidence  under EQ 4.3  

7.4 W hat benefits (dire ct, indirect) have been achieved to date for different stakeholders? 

W hile  it is understood from previous analysis that a significant level 
of  inve stment is  re quired for the   se ctor, it  is  e stimated that an 
inve stment of circa EUR 1 billion EUR in the SET Plan [wave and tidal 
industries] would re sult in a net benefit to Europe due to the creation 
of a ne w industry, which would profit from activity both within Europe 
and internationally [1] 

[1]  Te m porary W ork ing Group O ce an e ne rgy (2018): 

“SET-Plan Ocean e nergy Implementation Plan” 

7.5 Are  the  costs and benefits proportional for the  differe nt stakeholders? 

W e ak 

W e ak 

Null 

114 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

EQ 8: What  factors have influenced efficiency (positively or negatively), how and to what  extent?   

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

8.1 W hat factors influenced efficiency positively? 

8.2 W hat factors influenced efficiency negatively? 

Null 

Null 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

COHERENCE 

EQ 9: To what extent are the components of the intervention coherent internally; are there any overlaps, inconsistencies, or 
incoherencies? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

9.1 Are  the re internal inconsistencies within the Blue Energy Communication? 

9.2 Are  the re duplications or overlaps within the Blue Energy Communication? 

9.3 Are  the re any gaps within the Blue Energy Communication? 

Null  

Null 

Null 

EQ 10: To what extent is the intervention coherent with wider EU policy and initiatives? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

10.1 Are  there inconsistencies or contradictions be twe en the Blue Energy Communication /Ocean Energy  Strategic Roadmap and wider EU policy and  initiatives? 

10.2 Are  there duplications or overlaps be twe en the Blue Energy Communication /Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap and wide r EU policy and initiatives? 

Null  

Null 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

EQ 11: To what extent is the intervention coherent with other relevant EU (and national/regional initiatives) support schemes (e.g. 
funding, sectorial policies), in particular linked to renewables and innovation? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

11.1 Are  there inconsistencies or contradictions betwe en the Blue Energy Communication /Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap and other EU support schemes (in particular 
link e d to re newables and innovation)?  

The   complex  relationship  between  the  available  EU  funds 
(Horizon 2020, Structural Funds, NER 300, Juncker Funds) and the 
funds on national and regional level re quire  principles to ensure  
that  the y  are   m utual  supportive  for  oce an  e ne rgy  te chnologies. 
Technology readiness has been suggested as one possible principle 
[1] 
Inte rnal inconsistencies have been re ported betwe en funding for R&D 
and  strict  re gulations  on  com petition  and  state   aid  for  private  
e nte rprises [1]. 

[1] European C ommission (2017): “Study on lessons for 

W e ak 

O ce an e nergy” 

11.2 Are  there duplications or overlaps be twe en the Blue Energy Communication /Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap and other EU support schemes (in particular 
link e d to re newables and innovation)? 

Null 

11.3 Are  there inconsistencies or contradictions be twe en the Blue Energy Communication /Ocean Energy  Strategic Roadmap and national/regional initiatives? 

Null 

11.4 Are  there duplications or overlaps be twe en the Blue Energy Communication /Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap and national/re gional initiatives? 

Null 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

EU ADDED VALUE 

EQ 12: What  is the additional value resulting from the intervention, compared to what could have been expected from private 
initiatives and investments, and Member States acting at national/regional levels? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

12.1 Is there  evidence for added value re sulting from EU interve ntion in support of the ocean e nergy sector?  

12.2 To what e xtent would the same results have been achieved at inte rnational, national or re gional le vel without EU intervention? 

EQ 13: What  would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing intervention? 

Key findings 

Relevant analysed desk research sources  

Null 

Null 

Strength of desk research 
evidence 

Null 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Overview  of database assessment 

Table 6.1 Overview of database assessment 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 

coverag
e 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

IRENA  

IR ENA 

https://w

The  

This  data 

2000 

- 

 The  

Australia, 

TBC  

TBC  

EQ6 

- 

Fre e  

The re  are 

databas
e 

on 

installed 
capacity 
trends 

2017 

ww.ire na.
org/Statis

tics 
https://w

ww.ire na.
org/Statis

"Tre nds in 
re ne wabl

is 
colle cte d 

e   e nergy" 
dashboar

dire ctly 
from  

d 
provides 

m e mbers 
using  the  

tics/Vie w-

data  on 

IR ENA 

Data-by-
Topic/Cap

e le ctricity 
ge neratio

R e newabl
e   Ene rgy 

acity-
and-

or 

n 
installed 

Statistics 
que stionn

Ge ne ratio

capacity 

aire  and is 

n/Statisti
cs-Tim e-
Se rie s  

for 
se le cted 

also 
suppleme

countrie s 
and 

nte d  by 
de sk 

diffe rent 
re ne wabl

re se arch 
whe re  

e   e nergy 

official 

source s, 
including 
m arine 
e ne rgy.  

Data  on 

statistics 
not 
are  

available. 
R e newabl
e   powe r-

dashboar
d:  

Brazil, 
C anada, 

- Provides 
inform ati

C hina, 
De nmark, 

on 

on 
"Marine 

Faroe  
Islands, 

e ne rgy" in 

France , 

ge neral 
(it 

does 

Ghana, 
Italy, 

not divide  
be twe e n 

Ne the rlan
ds,  Ne w 

diffe rent 

Ze aland, 

te chnolog
ie s) 

Norway, 
Portugal, 

-  Allows 
to 

R e public 
of  Korea, 

distinguis
h 

R e union, 
R ussian 

be twe e n 

Fe de ratio

e le ctricity 
ge neratio

n, 
Singapore

and 

n 
installed 
capacity  

,  Spain, 
Swe de n, 
Unite d 

Installed 
capacity 

acce ss 
online 

also 
statistics 

Available 
for 
download 

com pared 
to  what 

could  be  
e x pected 

in 

the  

baseline 
sce nario 

on:   
- 

"R e newab
le   Ene rgy 

Pate nts 

Evolution
", 

including 
for O cean 

Ene rgy 

-  "Global 
Tre nds  in 

R e newabl
e   Ene rgy 

Inve stme
nt" 

(Source : 

Frank furt 
School) 
- 
"R e newab

le   Ene rgy 

119 

 
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

Finance 
Flows" 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

re ne wabl

ge neratio

e   power 
capacity 

n capacity 
statistics 

re pre sent

are  

s 
the  
m aximum 

re le ased 
annually 

ne t 
ge neratin

in  March. 
Additional

g capacity 
of  power 

ly, 
re ne wabl

plants 

e   power 

and other 
installatio

ge neratio
and 
n 

that 

ns 
use  
re ne wabl

re ne wabl
e   e nergy 
balances 

e   e nergy 
sources to 

data  sets 
are  

re le ased 
in July. 

produce 
e le ctricity

. For most 
countrie s 

and 

te chnolog
the  
ie s, 

data 
re fle cts 
the  
capacity 
installed 

and 

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

-  Allows 

Kingdom, 

Unite d 
State s  of 
Am e rica 

to 
distinguis

h 

be twe e n 
cum ulativ

e  and net 
additions 

(the se 
include  

ne w 

capacity 
installed 

during  a 
ye ar 
m inus 

any 
capacity 

de commis
sioned 

during 
that ye ar) 

-  Allows 

to 
distinguis

h 
be twe e n 
on-grid 
and  off-
grid 

conne ctio

120 

 
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

conne cte

d  at  the  
e nd of the 

cale ndar 

ye ar. 

C apacity 
is 

pre sented 
in 

m e gawatt

(MW), 

s 
while  

ge neratio
is 
n 
pre sented 

in 
gigawatt-

hours 
(GW h). 

n; 

howe ve r, 
for 

m arine 

e ne rgy 
data 

is 

only 
provided 

on-

for 
grid 

installed 

capacity 
and 

e le ctricity 
ge neratio
n 

-  Allows 
to 

distinguis
h 

be twe e n 
re gions (9 

re gions) 

and 
countrie s 

(21 
countrie s 
are  
re pre sent
e d  in  the  

case  

of 

121 

 
  
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

hical 
coverag
e 

ity 

m arine 
e ne rgy) 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

National 

JR C  

https://vi

The  

The   data 

Planned 

The  

All 

EU 

TBC  

TBC  

TBC  

Fre e  

The  2009 

renewab

le 
energy 

action 
plans 

and 
progress 

reports 

data 
portal 

(NREA P 
and 

Progress 

Reports 
Data 
Portal) 

source d 
from   EU 

R ES: 

2005 
2020 

database:  

- 

-  Allows 
to 

Me m ber 
State s 

sualise.jrc

"NR EAP 

are  

and 
Progre ss 

R e port 
Database

.e c.e urop
a.e u/t/NR

EAPs/vie
ws/All_NR

EAPs_R E
Data/See

Me m ber 
State s 

Achie ve d 
R ES: 

" provides 
data  on 

re porting 
unde r 

2004 
2016 

- 

AllNR EAP

the  

Article   4 

s-
AllR EData

?%3Ae m
be d=y&%

re ne wabl
e   e nergy 

and 
Article   22 

share  
in 
gross final 

of 
the  
Dire ctive  

3Adisplay

e ne rgy 

2009/28/

_count=n
o&%3Ash

consumpt
ion 

EC : 
national 

owVizHo
m e =no 

(planned 
and 

re ne wabl
e   e nergy 

achie ved) 
Ktoe  
in 

action 
plans 

(thousand 

(NR EAPs) 

tonnes  of 
oil 
e quivalen
t), 

and 
bie nnial 
progre ss 
re ports. 

including 

The  

for 
m arine 

NR EAPs 
can 

be  

distinguis
h 

be twe e n 
re ne wabl

e   e nergy 

share  
planned 

and 
achie ved 

for  each 

e ne rgy 
source , 

including 
m arine 

e ne rgy 
-  Allows 

to 

distinguis
h 
be twe e n 
all  28  EU 

Me m ber 
State s 

acce ss 

R e newabl

online 
Available 

for 
download 

e   Ene rgy 
Dire ctive  

re quire d 
the  EU to 

at 
fulfil 
le ast 20% 

of its total 

e ne rgy 
ne e ds 

with 
re ne wabl

e s 

by 

2020.  EU 
countrie s 

se t 
out 
how  they 

plan 
to 
m e e t  the  

agre ed 

individual 
targets in 
the ir 
National 

R e newabl
e   Ene rgy 
Action 

122 

 
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

re ne wabl

found  at 

e   e nergy, 
for  all EU 

the  
Europe an 

Me m ber 
State s.  

C ouncil 

Transpare
ncy 

Platform. 
The   Data 

Portal 
include s 

also 

the  

EU 
Me m ber 

State s 
re porting 
on 

re ne wabl
e   e nergy 

at 
Eurostat 

SHAR ES 
Tool) 

Plans 

(NR EAPs)
. Progress 

towards 

the se 
targe ts is 

m easured 
e ve ry two 

ye ars 
whe n 

countrie s 

publish 
national 

re ne wabl
e   e nergy 
progre ss 

re ports. 

This  data 
portal  is 

an 
inte ractiv

e   tool for 

visualisin
and 
g 

com parin
the  
g 
re ne wabl
e   e nergy 
data 

provided 

123 

 
  
  
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

in 

the  

NR EAPs 
and 

the  

progre ss 

re ports. 
60 e nergy 

indicators 
for  each 

EU 
Me m ber 

State  

cove ring 
3 se ctors: 

e le ctricity
, 
he ating/c

ooling 
and 
transport.  

The  

All 

EU 

All 

 EQ5 

- 

Fre e  

The  

Cordis 

EC  

https://co

The  

The  

rdis.europ
a.e u/en  

"C ordis 
re pository

proje ct 
inform ati

- 

re pository 
contains 

Me m ber 
State s 

1984 

(FP1) 
2020 

data  on 
R&I 

projects 

funded 
by 
EU 

the 

" provides 

inform ati
on on the  
proje cts 
funded by 

the   EU's 
fram ewor
k  

on is held 
by the  EC.  

(Horizon 

inform ati

2020 
FP8) 

- 

on 
on:  
-  Project 

de scriptio
n 
(budget, 
funding 
source , 

proje cts 
funded by 

the   EU's 

Fram e wor
k  
program
m e s 
re se arch 
and 
innovatio

for 

Num be r 
of 

acce ss 
online 

C om muni
ty 

collaborat

Available 

R e search 

ive  
unde rtaki
ngs 

for 
download 

and 
De ve lop
m e nt 
Informati

on 

Se rvice  
(C ORDIS) 

124 

 
  
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

program

for 

m e s 
re se arch 

and 

innovatio
n 

(from  

to 

FP1 
Horizon 

2020), 
including 

in 

the  

of 

fie ld 
oce an 
e ne rgy.  

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

proje ct 

coordinat
and 
ors 

participan

ts, project 
we bsite ) 

-  Project 
obje ctives 

and 
re sults 

-  Project 

re porting 
(e .g. final 
re ports) 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

n 

are  

include d 
in 
the  
re pository 

is 

the  

European 
C om missi

on's 

prim ary 
source   of 

re sults 
from   the  

proje cts 
funded by 

the   EU's 

fram ewor
k  

program
for 
m e s 
re se arch 

and 
innovatio

n  (FP1 to 
Horizon 

2020).  It 
is a public 

re positor

y  of  all 
proje ct 

inform ati
on  held 
by the  EC  
(e .g. 
proje ct 

factshee t

125 

 
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

IEA  

IEA 

https://w

The   IEA’s 

Data 

is 

2014 

- 

The  

All 

IEA 

TBC  

TBC  

EQ6 

- 

The  

IEA 

Energy 

Technolo
gy RD&D 
Budgets 

Me m ber 
State s 

ww.ie a.or

Ene rgy 

colle cte d 

2018  for 

database:  

g/re ports
/e ne rgy-

Te chnolo
gy  R D&D 

from  
ce ntral or 

oce an 
e ne rgy 

te chnolog

Budge t 

fe de ral 

y-rd-and-
d-

Database  
allows 

governme
nt 

budgets-
2019  

use rs  to 
track  

budgets, 
as we ll as 

tre nds  in 
spe nding 

the  
budgets 

by e nergy 

of  state-

owne d 
com panie
s. 

te chnolog
y  in  IEA 

countries. 
All figures 
re fe r 
to 
total 
public 

- Provides 
inform ati

on 

on 

total 
R D&D 

e x penditu
re  (Million 

/ 

USD 
Million 

EUR ) 

- 
Distinguis
he s 
be twe e n 

state -

owne d 
R &D 

Am ount 

Ene rgy 

of 
Me m ber 

Te chnolo
gy  R D&D 

State  

Budge t 

financial 
support 

for  ocean 
e ne rgy 

Database  
be  
can 

acce ssed 
free  
for 

through 
IEA  Data 

Se rvice s 

by 
logging in 
as 
GUEST. 

s, 

participan
ts, 

re ports, 

de live rabl
and 
es 

to 

link s 
ope n-

acce ss 
publicatio
ns) 

126 

 
  
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

e ne rgy 

R D&D 
e x penditu

re   data, 

conve rted 
from  

curre nt 
price s  in 

national 
curre ncie

s  to  US 

dollar 
PPPs 

in 

constant 
2018 
price s, 

using GDP 
de flators 

and  2018 
PPPs. 

e x penditu

re  (Million 
/ 
USD 

Million 

EUR)  and 
governme

nt 
de m onstr

ation 
e x penditu

re  (Million 

USD 
Million 

/ 

EUR ) 
this 
All 
data  can 

be  filtered 
spe cificall

for 

y 
oce an 

e ne rgy 
(oce an 

e ne rgy,ot

he r ocean 
e ne rgy, 

unallocat
e d  ocean 
e ne rgy) 

OES  GIS 

O ES 

- 

https://w

The  

Data 

is 

The  

The   GIS 

De nm ark 

TBC  

TBC  

Databas

O ce an 

ww.oce an

"O ffshore  

provided 

database  

database:  

Portugal  

EQ6 

- 

Installed 

The  

O ce an 

127 

 
  
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

e 

"Offshor
e 

installati

ons 
worldwi
de" 

Ene rgy 
Syste m s 

-e ne rgy-

installatio

by  O ES 

was 

- 

Unite d 

systems.o
rg/oce an-

ns 
worldwide

m e mber 
countries.  

cre ated in 
2014, but 

Distinguis
he s 

Kingdom  
Ire land  

e ne rgy/gi

" 

GIS 

provides 

be twe e n 

Japan  

s-m ap-
tool/  

database  
  an 
is 

inte ractiv
e   we b-

based 
GIS 

m apping 

applicatio
that 
n 

give s 
acce ss  to 
de tailed 

global 
inform ati

on re lated 
to  ocean 

e ne rgy. 
The  

available 

inform ati
on 

com prises 
oce an 
e ne rgy 
facilitie s, 
re sources

,  re levant 

inform ati
on 

on 

stages  of 
de ve lopm

C anada  
Unite d 

curre nt 
installatio
ns.  

e nt of the  
diffe rent 

State s  of 
Am e rica  

m arine 
e ne rgy 

facility 

(e .g. 
conce pt, 

in 
planning, 
partly 

ope ration
al) 

- 
Distinguis

he s 
be twe e n 

the  

ge opolitic
and 
al 

onshore 
laye rs 
(e .g. port, 
EEZ 
boundarie

Be lgium  
Ge rm any  

Me x ico  

Norway  
Italy  

Ne w 
Ze aland  
Spain  

Swe de n  
R e public 

of  Korea 
South 

Africa  
C hina  

C hina 

Monaco  
Singapore   
Ne the rlan
ds  
Ne the rlan
ds 
India  

s,  m arine 

France   

capacity 

com pared 
to  what 

could  be  

e x pected 
the  
in 

baseline 
sce nario 

Ene rgy 

Syste m s 
Te chnolo

gy 

C ollabora
tion 

Program
m e  (OES) 

is 
an 
inte rgove

rnm e ntal 

collaborat
ion 

be twe e n 
countries, 
which 

ope rates 
unde r 

fram ewor
k  

e stablish
e d by the  

Inte rnatio

nal 
Ene rgy 

Age ncy in 
Paris. 

128 

 
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

infrastruc

ture   and 
re le vant 

ge neral 

ge opolitic
and 
al 

ge ographi
cal 

inform ati
on, 

altogethe

r 
conjuncti

in 

on  with 
the  
re spe ctiv

e   location 
and 

distributio
n  on  a 

global 
m ap. This 

inform ati

on 
is 
provided 

for the  25 
O ES 
m e mber 
countries. 

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

prote cte d 

Europe an 

are as)  
- 

C om missi
on  

Distinguis

Europe an 

C om missi
on 
Australia  

he s 
be twe e n 

m arine 
e ne rgy 

re sources 
(e .g. tidal 

range , 

wave  
powe r, 

wate r 
te m perat
ure  

diffe rence
,  salinity) 

- For each 
facility,  it 

provides 
inform ati

on 

on 

proje ct 
owne r, 

proje ct 
de ve loper
, 
constructi
and 
on 

com m issi

129 

 
  
  
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Database 

Dataset description 

Dataset analysis 

Evaluation relevance 

A ccessibility 

Comment 

Name 

Owner 

Website 

Content 

Source 

Timeline  Granular

Geograp

ity 

hical 
coverag
e 

oning 

pe riod, 
conve rte r 

type   and 

capacity, 
to 
link  
we bsite ) 

Complet
eness 

Reliabilit
y 

Indicato
r 

130 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Appendix 3 – Factual summary report on the public consultation 

131 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Factual  summary report  on the public  consultation 

Introduction 

As  part  of  the  support  study  for  the  Evaluation  of  the  development  of  ocean  energy  policies,  the 
C ommission carried out a public consultation. The consultation  was accessible to all interested citizens 
and  stakeholders  for  a  period  of  15  weeks  (27th  August  2020  –  10th  December  2020)  on  the 
C ommission’s ‘Have Your Say’ portal 240. 

The questionnaire consisted of two parts: one consisting of high-level questions about the ocean energy 

sector in general, and one with  more detailed questions on the Blue Energy C ommunication and Ocean 
Energy  Strategic  Roadmap,  intended  with  stakeholders  who  are  more  familiar  with  the  EU  policy 

framework supporting the development of ocean energy. 

The purpose  of the  consultation  was  to  provide all interested  parties the  opportunity  to  provide their 

views on whether or not they believe the EU should continue supporting the development of the ocean 
energy sector, as well as their opinion on the relevance, effectiveness, coherence and EU added value 

of  the  EU  intervention  in  this  field.  The  results  will  contribute  to  the  evaluation  of  the  EU  policy 
supporting the development of ocean energy.  

Methodological considerations 

Public  consultation  is  a  tool  which  provides  transparency  in  the  policy-making  process.  However, 
because it  is  open to  all  rather than  targeting  specific stakeholders, the  total  population  is  unknown, 

and  there is  a  degree of  self-selection bias  in  respondents. The views  of these  respondents can  thus 
not  be considered representative of the  views of EU  citizens at large. This is especially true when only 
a small number of responses is received, as is the  case for this  public consultation. 

Of the 71 responses received, 70 were considered in the analysis as one of the responses came from a 
member of the project team. A campaign of coordinated answers 241 was identified, including  18 of the 
respondents.  

Overview of the respondents 

The 70 responses considered in the analysis came from 16 different countries, of which 12 from within 
the EU-27.  France is the most  represented country among respondents, followed by Italy, Ireland and 

the United  Kingdom. As such, the responses received are geographically unbalanced.  

240 T he dedicated consultation webpage c an be accessed via: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
s ay/initiatives/12061-Ocean-energy-evaluation-of-EU-renewable-power-generation-policy/public-consultation  

241  A  c ampaign of “c oordinated answers” was identified according to the Better Regulations Toolbox. Better Regulation Tool #54, 
page 4 9. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-54_en_0.pdf  

132 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Geographical balance of responses received (N=70) 

Most  of the respondents identified  themselves as ocean energy technology developers (26 out  of 70), 
Research organisations  (13  out  of  70)  or  EU  citizens  (13  out  of  70).  Other  groups  were  marginally 

represented:  industry  representatives  (5  out  of  70),  cluster  organisations  (3  out  of  70),  Public 
authorities/Member  States  institutions  and  bodies  (2  out  of  70),  Public  authorities/International 

organisations (2  out of 70),  Utility  companies (2 out of 70), Public authority/EU  institutions  and bodies 
(1 out of 70), C ompany/finance/insurance/investment (1 out of 70), Non-EU/EEA citizen (1 out of 70), 
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) (1  out of 70). 

Number and percentage of respondents by stakeholder type (N=70) 

A total  of 33  respondents indicated  they  were very familiar with  the  Blue Energy C ommunication. 30 
respondents affirmed being ‘more or less familiar’ with the  C ommunication, while  7 respondents were 

not aware of it.  With  regards to the Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap, 37 respondents indicated being 
very familiar and 22 were ‘more or less familiar’ with  it.  11 respondents were not aware of it.  

133 

 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Familiarity with the Blue Energy Communication and the Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap (N=70) 

Following  the  profiling  questions,  respondents were  split  into  groups  based on  those  that  wanted  to 
provide their ‘View on the sector of ocean energy’ and those who wanted to provide a ‘Detailed view on 

the  Blue  Energy C ommunication and the  Roadmap’. Most  of  the  respondents (41)  belong  to  the  first 
group,  and  their  replies to  the  general  questions  are  presented below.  The  replies  of  the  remaining 

group of respondents (29)  are presented further below under each evaluation criterion and correspond 
to  the  views of  technology developers and  research organisations.  During data  cleaning it  was found 
that  18  out  of  these  29  responses  correspond  to  “coordinated  answers”  according  to  the  Better 

Regulations Toolbox and the decision was made to segregate the data and conduct a separate analysis 
so  to  not  skew  the  results.  These  answers  were  segregated  from  the  main  dataset  and  the  main 

differences will be highlighted  in this report. 

Replies to the consultation questions – Views on the sector of ocean energy 

The respondents that  replied to the high-level questions on the sector of ocean energy indicated being 
either very familiar (26 out of 41) or more or less familiar (15 out of 41) with ocean energy technology. 
None of the stakeholders that replied to these questions indicated not being aware of this technology. 

Almost  all  the  respondents (39  out  of 41)  believe that  the  ocean energy sector  has the  potential  for 

increasing the  share of renewable energy in the European Union. 

A ssessment of the impact of ocean energy on the share of renewables in the EU (N=41) 

When asked about the  impacts of ocean energy, the large majority of the respondents strongly agree 

or agree that  ocean energy to  have an overall positive environmental impact and a positive impact on 
climate change.  

134 

 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation of the impact of ocean energy on environment and climate change (N=41) 

For  what  concerns  the  overall  views  on  the  future  of  the  sector,  38  stakeholders stated  that  they 
strongly agree or agree that ocean energy should be deployed more widely. Only 3 stakeholders don’t 

have strong views on this question.  

Views on the further deployment of ocean energy (N=41) 

Half  of the  respondents (21  out  41)  also  presented more detailed  explanations for the  feedback they 
provided  to  the  questions  above. The  majority  of  these  respondents  (16  out  of  21)  highlighted  the 

benefits of  ocean energy, and consider that  ocean energy should be  further developed as part  of the 
EU energy mix because it is a stable, low-impact, predictable and reliable form of energy that can play 
an important part in  complementing solar and wind  energy and can work synergistically with them. In 

their view, development of this technology is key for the EU to reach its climate and energy objectives, 
as  well  it  can  play  an  important  role in  job  creation.  A  small  part  of  the  stakeholders  (4  out  of  21) 

indicated  that  for  further  uptake  to  take  place,  strong  support  is  needed,  together  with  de-risking 
actions and further proofs of concepts, to  enable a commercial deployment of these technologies. The 
importance to  further  investigate  the  environmental impacts  of the  technology  was also  indicated  by 

one  stakeholder.  Some respondents also  highlight  that  ocean  energy  could  be  further  developed in 
specific areas in  Europe (e.g. Portugal) (2  out of 21)  as well as that  technologies developed outside of 

Europe (e.g. C anada) should be taken into consideration (1 out of 21). 

Replies to the consultation questions – Detailed view on the Blue Energy Communication and 
the Roadmap 

Out of the total  70 respondents, 29 provided their “detailed view on the Blue Energy C ommunication”. 
18 out of these 29 responses correspond to “coordinated answers” according to  the Better Regulations 

Toolbox, and their answers have been segregated from the main dataset and are presented as separate 
in this  report.  

135 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Relevance 

A  part  of  the  stakeholders  (8  out  of  11)  strongly  agree  or  agree  that  the  objectives  of  the 
C ommunication and Roadmap were appropriate to address the bottlenecks that  hampered the  uptake 

of ocean energy at the time of their issuance, and that  they are still  relevant today (9 out of 11). 

All the stakeholders from the coordinated answers strongly agree (16 out  of 18) or agree (2 out of 18) 
that  the  objectives  of  the  C ommunication  and  Roadmap  were  appropriate  at  the  time  of  their 

publication, and that they still remain relevant today (2 out 18 strongly agree and 15 out of 18 agree). 
Only  one  stakeholder  from  the  group  of  coordinated  answers  replied  that  they  disagree  with  the 
continued relevance of the  C ommunication and Roadmap. 

Relevance of the Communication and Roadmap (N=11) 

When asked which  of the specific objectives of the C ommunication helped the most  in addressing the 
bottlenecks of  the  sector since  2014,  8  out  11  respondents indicate  that  the  objective to  consolidate 

R&D  activities  to  enable  cost  reductions  was  the  most  useful.  One  stakeholder  considered  that  the 
objective to  enhance synergies with  other  industries  was  useful,  and  two  stakeholders consider  that 

none of the objectives helped. The objective on assisting with  the monitoring of environmental impacts 
as  well  as  the  application  of  environmental  protection  legislation,  and  the  objective  on  enhancing 
synergies  with  other  industries  are  still  relevant  today  according  to  6  stakeholders.  Two  out  of  11 

respondents affirm that  none  of the  objectives of  the  C ommunication are still  relevant today, while  3 
respondents indicate other objectives would be more relevant now  to address the current bottlenecks 

of the sector.  

Continued relevance of the Communication's specific objectives (N=11) 

136 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

The  respondents  were asked  in  an  open  question  to  identify  the  current  needs of  the  ocean energy 
sector that  should be better addressed by the European Union. 3 out  of 11  stakeholders indicated that 

financing  needs  should  be addressed, via  the  establishment  of  revenue support,  investment  support 
and  insurance  support,  including  to  allow  for  the  demonstration  of  projects.  De-risking  and  cost-

reduction needs were also mentioned by two stakeholders, one of which highlighted that multi-use and 
joint projects (e.g. between wind and wave) could be a solution  to increase confidence of the investors 
and  attract  more funding.  The  need to  increase collaboration  among Member States  to  speed up  the 

development  of  ocean  energy  was  also  mentioned  by  two  stakeholders.  In  addition  to  this,  two 
stakeholders remark that more should be done to make sure the  further development of ocean energy 

does not  harm marine resources and the other economic sectors that depend on these. In their  views, 
the environmental and social impacts of ocean energy should further be investigated, and the European 
C ommission should provide further guidance on how to monitor  and gather environmental data under 

the EIA Directive. 

All the respondents from the group of coordinated answers (18 respondents) consider that the objective 
to consolidate R&D activities to enable cost reductions was the most helpful to address the bottlenecks 

of  the  sector  at  the  time,  and  that  other  objectives  should  now  be  added  to  support  the  further 
development of ocean energy today. In light  of the  progress shown by the sector, in particular by tidal 
energy, they suggest that ocean energy technologies are now “ready for larger-scale deployment”, and 

that  the  European C ommission should  now  focus  on  engaging  with  Member  States  to  grant  revenue 
support for these technologies, as well as to enable access to sea required for this type of deployment. 

They  mention  that  these  objectives are  also  reflected in  the  recently published  Offshore Renewable 
Energy Strategy,  in  particular  the  “key action”  on  coordinating  with  national  governments to  deliver 
100MW  with  ocean energy by 2025. 

Effectiveness 

There is uncertainty with  regards to the  effectiveness of the C ommunication. The  views regarding the 
achievement of  the  four operational objectives of  the  C ommunication are quite  divergent among  the 
stakeholders who replied to these questions (11), with  a part of the stakeholders being convinced that 

the  objectives  on  consolidating  R&D  activities  and  on  assisting  with  monitoring  of  environmental 
impacts are close to being achieved (respectively, 5 and 3 stakeholders out of 11), and others affirming 
they have not been achieved at all, or at least to  a lesser extent. Limited progress on the achievement 

of  the  objective  on  improving  efficiency  of  planning  and  licensing  procedures  and  on  enhancing 
synergies with  other industries  is registered by the  stakeholders (with  progress being  mostly rated as 

3  or  4  on  a  scale  where  1  is  ‘fully  achieved’  and  5  is  ‘not  achieved at  all’).  Notably,  none  of  the 
stakeholders consider that  any of the  objectives have been fully achieved, and  a part of them  affirms 
not knowing  whether these objectives have been achieved at all (from 1 to 4 stakeholders, depending 

on  the  objective, with  the  objective on  improving  efficiency of  planning  and  licensing  being  the  one 
where the  larger uncertainty exists). 

137 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Level of achievement of the objectives of the Communication (N=11) 

The same scattered picture is present in the replies concerning some specific aspects of the objectives 

of the C ommunication. C lose to half of the stakeholders believe that improvements have taken place in 
terms of  stakeholder collaboration (5  out  of 11),  technological convergence (6  out  of 11),  integration 

of offshore renewables into  the  energy system (5  out  of 11)  and EU-wide  standardised testing  (5  out 
of  11).  Partial  improvements  have  been  registered  according  to  a  part  of  the  stakeholders  on  the 

establishment  of  a  common  understanding  of  administrative  challenges  faced  by  ocean  energy 
technologies,  on the  increased awareness of investors on  the  opportunities  offered by  the  sector, on 
the availability of relevant baseline of environmental data, on the decrease of the resources needed for 

EIAs and on the reduction of risks for investors. By contrast, improvements on the licensing procedures 
and lead time  lengths have failed to materialise according to  a part of  the stakeholders (6  out  of 11). 

In this case again, a varying number of stakeholders affirm not knowing whether the specific objectives 
have been achieved, with  the largest degree of uncertainty being registered on the objective regarding 
the decrease of the  administrative costs compared to total  project costs (5 out of 11). 

Level of achievement of specific objectives of the Communication and other relevant aspects (N=11) 

138 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Stakeholders were asked an open question regarding the  current financing needs for the sector. C lose 
to half of the stakeholders indicate that an Insurance and Guarantee Fund  is needed (6 out of 11), and 

that dedicated grants should be devised for ocean energy, or grants from existing funds could be better 
tailored to match the needs of the sector (5 out of 11). The need for revenue support is also highlighted  

by  a  part  of  the  stakeholders (4  out  of  11).  Single  stakeholders mention  the  need  for  financing  for 
demonstration  projects  and  the  need  to  use  funding  to  ensure the  acceptability  of  ocean energy  by 
other users of the sea e.g. fishermen. The EIC  Accelerator is mentioned by one stakeholder as a very 

good tool encourage the development of new approaches and technologies in this  context. In terms of 
the current bottlenecks of the sector, these stakeholders indicate the shortcomings in financial support, 

including  the  lack  of revenue support  or financing  for  demonstration projects  (6  out  of  11),  the  long 
consenting  processes (4  out  of  11),  the  lack of  insurance  and  guarantee  (2  out  of  11),  the  limited 
knowledge  of  environmental  impacts  (2  out  of  11),  the  limited  cooperation  between  academia and 

industry in R&D projects (1 out of 11),  the limited dialogue with stakeholders from other blue economy 
sectors (1 out of 11), the stronger focus put on other forms of energy, which channels funding elsewhere 

(1 out  of 11).   

According to the respondents belonging to the group of coordinated answers (18 respondents), progress 
has been made primarily on the consolidation of R&D activities and on the monitoring of environmental 
impacts  and  application  of  environmental  protection  legislation,  although  none is  considered  as fully 

achieved. Moderate  and  limited  progress are respectively reported on  the  improvement  of synergies 
with  other industries  and  on the  improvement of  the  efficiency of planning  and  licensing procedures. 

With  regards to  the  specific objectives, these  respondents indicate  that  the  objective on  stakeholder 
collaboration has  been fully  achieved, followed, in  terms  of progress, by  the  objective on  technology 
convergence, integration  of offshore renewables, the  decrease of resources for EIAs,  EU-wide  testing 

and the reduction of risks for investors. In this case again, the stakeholders affirm not knowing whether 
proportion of administrative costs compared to total project costs decreased at all. 

In  terms  of  financing  needs, the  stakeholders from  the  group  of  coordinated answers  highlight  that 

existing  EU  funds  (e.g.  Horizon  Europe,  Innovation  Fund  and  InnovFin  EDP)  could  support  large 
demonstration  projects,  but  the  number  of  calls available  under these  programmes  is  insufficient  to 
enable ocean energy to  reach the  100MW  target  by 2025.  The lack of commercial insurance products 

still  represents a challenge for developers, and the  institution  of a European Insurance and Guarantee 
Fund  to  over an  mutualise  the  technological  risks of  projects would  be welcome.  Revenue support  is 

also on the  list of financing needs for these stakeholders.  

When  asked about  the  main  bottlenecks still  faced by the  sector,  the stakeholders from the  group of 
coordinated  answers  indicate  the  lack  of  revenue  support  at  the  national  level  and  the  slowness  of 
permitting  procedures for the access to the  sea. These respondents state that  both  challenges can be 

tackled through  the strong political drive of the EU  offshore renewable energy strategy.  

Coherence 

There is little  knowledge about  the  coherence of the  C ommunication and  Roadmap with  the  wider EU 
policy framework, with  a number of stakeholders (up to 4 out of 11, for certain policies) affirming they 
do not  know whether these  instruments are coherent with certain specific policies. Overall, it  appears 

that  the objectives of these initiatives  are particularly in  line with the  Blue Growth Strategy (according 
to 7 out of 11 respondents) and EU renewable energy policy (6 out of 11),  followed by the EU  research 

and innovation policies and support (6 out of 11).  While according to  a part of the  stakeholders (5 out 
of  11)  there is  a  certain level  of  coherence between  the C ommunication and  Roadmap  and  regional 
policies,  moderate  to  little  coherence seems  to  exist  between  the  objectives of  these  tools  and  the 

national  policies  of  EU  Member  States  (according  to  5  out  of  11  stakeholders).  Three  respondents 
highlighted that ocean energy will be important for the decarbonisation of Europe, and as such “it needs 

to be advocated in all policies and legislation”, including at the national level where currently the support 

139 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

appears to  be  weaker.  According  to  two  stakeholders,  support  from  regions  within  specific  Member 
State  is  stronger  because  regional  actors  perceive  more  directly  the  potential  benefits  of  the 

development of the sector, including in terms of employment. 

Coherence of the Communication and Roadmap with the wider EU policy framework (N=11) 

The  stakeholders belonging  to  the  group  of coordinated  answers affirm that  the  C ommunication and 
Roadmap are coherent with,  and well complement, all the policies mentioned above, and only partially 

coherent with  Member States policies. In their views this is because the  further development of ocean 
energy contributes  to  the  decarbonisation of the  energy system, while  at  the  same time  ensuring an 
economically and  socially  just  transition.  Reportedly, ocean  energy  “ticks  all  the  boxes  and  fits  the 

objectives”  of  the  policies  listed  in  this  question,  because  it  will  support  the  ecological  transition,  it 
would  enable a  wider penetration of variable renewables such as wind  and solar PV, and it  will  create 

“thousands  of local  high  skilled jobs on  Europe’s coastline and  beyond”. In  their  coordinated answer, 
these stakeholder state that political  impetus, coherence and new solutions to reach commercial stage 
will  be needed for  the  further development of the  sector.  In particular,  they suggest  the  following  as 

“missing elements to accelerate the development of the sector”:  

• 

• 

“Making  the  best use of  European money to  encourage the  emergence of European champions in 
wave energy through  a PC P approach, the Europe Wave project, 

Filling  gaps in funding to reach the commercial stage and investment fund for ocean energy and an 
Insurance guarantee fund, 

•  Gathering knowledge on environmental impacts through monitoring  calls.” 

EU added value 

The  majority  of  the  respondents  from  non-coordinated  answers  (9  out  of  11)  believe  that  the  EU 
intervention  in  support  of  ocean  energy has  (strong)  additional  value compared  to  what  could  have 
been expected from private initiatives and investments, and Member States acting at national/regional 

levels.  

140 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Evaluation of EU added value of the EU intervention in terms of increasing the uptake of ocean energy 
(N=11) 

In particular, the EU support has been crucial for the consolidation of R&D activities (according to 8 out 
of  11  respondents)  and  for  the  improvement  of  the  monitoring  of  environmental  impacts  and 

simplification  of the  application  of environmental protection  legislation  (for 5  out  of  11  respondents). 
When  asked to  provide further  explanations on  this  answer, three  respondents  point  out  that  the  EU 
support,  and  especially  research  funding,  has  been  critical  for  the  progress  of  ocean  energy 

technologies.  The  same  can  be  said  for  the  improvement  of  the  understanding  of  environmental 
impacts, according to one stakeholder, although  difficulties  are encountered in ensuring the  uptake of 

this results by policymakers. One stakeholder indicates that the exclusion of other blue economy sectors 
such  as fisheries from the  discussion relating  to  ocean energy, which  has  generated a certain lack of 
trust in this sector from their side. This stakeholder also highlights that knowledge of the environmental 

impacts  of  ocean  energy  should  be  further  investigated,  including  through  inclusive  consultation 
activities  with  all  relevant stakeholders. Another  respondent  instead  highlights  that  while  EU  support 

has  had  a  clear  positive  impact  on  ocean energy,  stronger coordination  with  Member  States  is  now 
needed to move forward.  

A ssessment of the contribution of the EU  intervention on specific objectives, compared to what could 
have been expected from private or national initiatives and investments (N=11) 

The  majority  of  these  respondents believe  that  the  cessation  of  EU  support  for  ocean  energy would 
have very negative (8  out of 11) or negative (2 out  of 11)  effects on the uptake for ocean energy. 

141 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

A ssessment of the likely consequences of the cessation of the EU intervention (N=11) 

In  line with  the  above, the  responses from the  group of  coordinated answers all  indicate  that  the  EU 
intervention  in  favour of  ocean energy  brought  strong  additional  value, in  particular  in  terms  of  the 

consolidation  of  R&D  activities  and  the  monitoring  of  environmental impacts.  In  their  view,  “beyond 
R&D”,  the  existence of  EU-wide  calls “ensured  the  emergence of  European  leaders” in  ocean energy 
technology and avoided duplications  of calls. The “European environmental monitoring  calls” helped to 

increase  developers’  knowledge  of  the  sector  and  accelerated  deployments.  In  addition  to  this,  in 
general terms, the  “EU  seal  of approval” for the  technology helped to  attract  private funding.  Also in 

their  case, there  is  a widespread agreement that  the  cessation of  EU’s  intervention  would  have very 
negative effects on the uptake of ocean energy. 

Additional inputs 

Two  position  papers were received in  the  course of this  study.  One was  uploaded in  response to  the 
publication  of the evaluation roadmap, by the industry  association Ocean Energy Europe, and another 

one was uploaded in the course of the public consultation,  by the technology developer C orpower. The 
content of these position papers is summarised in the  below. 

Position paper | Offshore Renewables Strategy Ocean energy – the next European Industry – 
Ocean Energy Europe 

The position paper uploaded by Ocean Energy Europe describes the  potential for future deployment of 
ocean  energy,  as  well  as  presents  the  benefits  of  this  deployment  for  Europe  e.g.  in  terms  of  job 
creation,  decarbonisation  as  well  as  leadership  potential.  The  paper  welcomes  the  publishing  of  an 

Offshore  Strategy  including  ambitious  long-term  objectives  for  the  sector,  that  could  increase 
confidence in the sector from private investors. The paper also highlights that national revenue support 

mechanisms, blended EU  financial instruments, an EU  Insurance and Guarantee Fund,  further support 
for ocean energy from  the EIB and  the  launch of  international partnerships  with  third  countries could 
help the sector move forward. In their views, for this to happen it will be necessary to streamline project 

development and to enable large scale deployments in  Europe.  

Position paper | The role of Wave Energy – Corpower ocean 

The position paper uploaded by C orpower ocean presents a summary of the role the company sees for 
wave  energy  in  the  future  electricity  markets,  and  the  value  offered  for  electricity  producers  and 

142 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

electricity system owners. The paper highlights that wave energy is expected to have a “higher average 
value  compared  to  wind  and  solar  in  future  electricity  markets”,  that  the  demonstration  of  wave 

technology pilot arrays is expected to make the technology bankable by 2024.  The achievement of the 
bankability milestone will  unlock significant  investments into  wave energy in  their views,  and this  will 

enable the  installation of 600 MW  of wave energy capacity by 2030. 

143 

 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Appendix 4 – Stakeholder consultation synopsis report 

144 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Stakeholder  consultation  synopsis  report 

Overview  of stakeholder  consultation  strategies 

The overarching aim of the stakeholder consultation is to gather views, insights  and information on 
the  progress  made  by  the  ocean  energy  sector  since  the  publication  of  the  Ocean  Energy 

C ommunication, including by considering the developments in the wider EU policies and instruments 
affecting and supporting ocean energy adopted since then.   

The table below presents an overview of the key stakeholders and the consultation method utilised 
to reach them.   

Stakeholder 

Targeted interviews 

Public consultation 

European Institutions and bodies 

International organisations 

Member State Institutions and bodies 

Industry representatives 

Cluster organisations 

Finance/Insurance/Investment stakeholders 

Technology developers 

Utility companies 

Supply chain services providers 

Research organisations 

NGOs 

Citizens/General Public 

Public  consultation 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

The aim of the public consultation was to ensure transparency in the evaluation process by involving 
the general public,  in a way that  is complementary to the targeted consultation activities. 

Methodology and tools used to disseminate and process data 

The public consultation questionnaire was finalised and approved by the C ommission on 13th of July 
2020.  It was launched on  27th August 2020  and remained open for responses until  10th  December 
2020.  The following  dissemination strategies to  advertise the launch  of the  Public C onsultation on 
the EU  Survey Portal were implemented:  

Publication on DG MAREs website;  

• 
•  Dissemination and reminders through  social media accounts 242; 
•  Dissemination and reminders through  targeted emails; 
•  Snowballing with  the support of key stakeholders 243; 

2 4 2  D G  MARE’s twitter account: https://twitter.com/eu_mare  
243 O c ean Energy E urope, ETIP O cean. 

145 

 
 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Our  methodology  for  the  analysis  of  the  public  consultation  results  combined  quantitative 
analysis  of  closed-ended  questions  with  qualitative  analysis  of  responses  to  open-ended 

questions  and  position  papers submitted  using  Excel.  Prior to  this,  data  was  checked for  errors, 
duplicates, and organised campaigns, and appropriate measures were taken to reduce bias – if any 

– introduced by these.  

Stakeholders 

A total  of  71 respondents participated  to  the  public consultation.  Of these, one  response was  not 
taken into  account as  it  came from a  member of  the  project team,  therefore the  total  number of 
responses  analysed  is 70.  Two  stakeholders  that  were  consulted  in  the  course  of  the  targeted 

interviews  also  replied  to  the  public  consultation  (namely,  one  technology  developer  and  one 
representative of  the  European  C ommission), and  their  responses are  taken  into  account  in  the 
analysis below. All the responses received were complete. 

Responses came from 16 different countries, of which 12 from within the EU-27. France is the most 

represented country among respondents, followed by Italy, Ireland and the United  Kingdom. Most 
of  the  respondents  identified  themselves  as  ocean  energy  technology  developers,  Research 

organisations or EU citizens. 

Number and percentage of respondents by stakeholder type 

Two position papers were received in the course of this study. One was uploaded in response to the 
publication  of  the  evaluation  roadmap,  by  the  industry  association  Ocean  Energy  Europe,  and 

146 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

another  one  was  uploaded  in  the  course  of  the  public  consultation,  by  the  technology  developer 
C orpower. The content of these position papers is summarised in the last section below. 

Key results per evaluation criterion 

Profiling questions 

The majority of the respondents claimed to be ‘very familiar’ or ‘more or less’ familiar with the Blue 
Energy  C ommunication  (63)  and  the  Ocean  Energy  Strategic  Roadmap  (59),  while  only  a  small 
portion of the respondents not  aware of their existence (respectively, 7 and 11  respondents). 

Following the profiling questions, respondents were split into groups based on those that wanted to 
provide their ‘View on the sector of ocean energy’ and those who wanted to provide a ‘Detailed view 

on the Blue Energy C ommunication and the Roadmap’. Most  of the respondents (41) belong to the 
first  group,  and  their  replies  to  the  general  questions  are  presented  below.  The  replies  of  the 

remaining group of  respondents (29)  are presented further below under each evaluation criterion 
and  correspond to  the  views  of technology  developers and research organisations. The  moderate 
amount of detailed responses receive needs to be taken in due consideration when reading through 

the answers per evaluation criterion.  

During  data  cleaning it  was found  that  18  out  of  these  29  responses correspond to  “coordinated 
answers” according to  the  Better Regulations  Toolbox 244 and the  decision was  made to  segregate 
the data and conduct a separate analysis so to not skew the results. These answers were segregated 
from the  main dataset and the  main differences will be highlighted  during the analysis.  

General responses 

Of the respondents providing general views on ocean energy, most of them considered themselves 
to be very familiar (26)  or more or less familiar (15) with  the technology. 

The  large majority of  the  stakeholders who  completed  this  part  of  the  PC  believe that  the  ocean 

energy  sector  has  a  strong  potential  for  increasing  the  share  of  renewable  energy  in  the  EU. 
Moreover, they also agree that the  sector has an overall positive environmental impact, and that it 
has  a positive  impact  on  climate  change. In  general, they  all  agree that  ocean energy should  be 

deployed more widely (38). 

When  providing additional  explanation on their  feedback, the  stakeholders highlighted  that  ocean 
energy should be further developed as part of the EU energy mix because it is a stable, low-impact, 
predictable and reliable form of energy that  can play an important part in complementing solar and 

wind  energy and  can work  synergistically with  them.  in  this  context,  the  further  development of 
this  technology is key for the  EU  to reach its  climate and energy objectives, as well it  can play an 

important  role in job creation. For  the further  uptake to take place, the  respondents mention that 
strong support is needed, together with  de-risking actions and further proofs of concepts, to enable 

a  commercial  deployment  of  these  technologies.  The  importance  to  further  investigate  the 
environmental impacts  of the  technology is  also identified.  Single stakeholders also  highlight  that 
ocean energy could be further developed in  specific areas in Europe (e.g. Portugal) as well as that 

technologies developed outside of Europe (e.g. C anada) should be taken into consideration.  

244 Better Regulation Tool #5 4, page 4 9. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-
toolbox-54_en_0.pdf  

147 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Relevance 

A  part  of  the  stakeholders  (8  out  of  11)  agree  that  the  objectives  of  the  C ommunication  and 
Roadmap were appropriate to address the bottlenecks that  hampered the uptake of ocean energy 

at the  time of their issuance, and that  they are still  relevant today. In particular, the consolidation 
of R&D activities to enable cost reduction was key in helping the sector according to a part of them 

(8).  Of the  other  objectives inscribed in  the  C ommunication, enhancing  the  synergies  with  other 
industries  such  as offshore  wind,  as  well  as assisting  with  monitoring  of  environmental  impacts, 
would still  be relevant to address the bottlenecks of the  sector today according to a limited part of 

the  stakeholders (6).  3 out  of 11  stakeholders also believe that  additional objectives would play a 
major role in addressing the  bottleneck of the  sector today.   These stakeholders suggest  that the 

focus should now be placed on establishing revenue support and on reducing risks to enable larger-
scale  deployments  to  demonstrate  the  technologies  on  a  sufficient  scale.  To  this  end,  one 
stakeholder suggests that it  will  be crucial to  reduce costs  related to  operation, maintenance and 

grid-connection  of offshore energy technologies, including  potentially  by exploiting  synergies with 
one  or  more  technologies  i.e.  by  sharing  common  infrastructure.  In  addition  to  this,  two 

stakeholders remark that  more  should  be  done  to  make sure  the  further  development  of  ocean 
energy does not  harm marine resources and  the other economic sectors that  depend on these. In 

their  views, the  environmental and social impacts of ocean energy should  further be investigated, 
and  the  European  C ommission  should  provide  further  guidance  on  how  to  monitor  and  gather 
environmental data under the EIA Directive. 

The respondents belonging to  the group of coordinated answers strongly agree that  the objectives 

of  the  C ommunication  and  the  Roadmap  were  appropriate  for  addressing  the  bottlenecks  that 
hampered the uptake of ocean energy in 2014, and that these remain relevant today. In particular, 
the  consolidation of R&D activities  to  enable cost  reduction was  key in  helping the  sector. In light 

of the progress shown  by the  sector, in particular by tidal energy, they  suggest that  ocean energy 
technologies  are  now  “ready  for  larger-scale  deployment”,  and  that  the  European  C ommission 

should now focus on engaging with Member States to grant revenue support for these technologies, 
as well  as to  enable access to  sea required for this  type  of deployment.  They mention  that  these 
objectives  are  also  reflected  in  the  recently  published  Offshore  Renewable  Energy  Strategy,  In 

particular the “key action” on coordinating with  national governments to deliver 100MW with  ocean 
energy by 2025.  

Effectiveness 

There is uncertainty with  regards to  the effectiveness of  the C ommunication. The views regarding 
the achievement of the four operational objectives of the C ommunication are quite divergent among 
the  stakeholders  who  replied  to  these  questions  (11),  with  a  part  of  the  stakeholders  being 
convinced that  the  objectives on  consolidating R&D  activities  and  on  assisting  with  monitoring  of 

environmental impacts are close to being achieved (respectively, 5 and 3 stakeholders), and others 
affirming they have not  been achieved at all, or at least to a lesser extent. Limited progress on the 

achievement  of on  improving  efficiency  of  planning  and  licensing  procedures  and  on  enhancing 
synergies with  other industries is registered by the stakeholders (with  progress being mostly rated 
as 3 or 4  on a scale where 1 is  ‘fully achieved’ and 5 is  ‘not achieved at  all’). Notably,  none of the 

stakeholders consider that any of the objectives have been fully achieved, and a part of them affirms 
not  knowing  whether  these  objectives  have  been  achieved  at  all  (from  1  to  4  stakeholders, 

depending  on  the  objective, with  the  objective on  improving  efficiency of  planning  and  licensing 
being the one where the larger uncertainty exists). 

The  same scattered  picture  is  represented in  the  replies concerning  some specific aspects  of  the 
objectives of the C ommunication. C lose to half of the stakeholders believe that improvements have 

taken place in terms of stakeholder collaboration, technological convergence, integration of offshore 

148 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

renewables into  the energy system and EU-wide  standardised testing.  Partial improvements have 
been  registered  according  to  a  part  of  the  stakeholders  on  the  establishment  of  a  common 

understanding  of administrative  challenges faced by  ocean energy technologies,  on the  increased 
awareness of  investors on  the  opportunities  offered by  the  sector,  on  the availability  of  relevant 

baseline  of  environmental  data,  on  the  decrease  of  the  resources needed  for  EIAs  and  on  the 
reduction  of  risks for  investors. By contrast,  improvements on  the  licensing  procedures and lead 
time  lengths have failed to materialise according to a part  of the stakeholders. In this  case again, 

a  varying number  of  stakeholders affirm  not  knowing  whether  the  specific  objectives have been 
achieved, with  the  largest  degree of  uncertainty  being  registered on  the  objective regarding  the 

decrease of the administrative costs compared to total project costs. 

According to  the  respondents belonging  to  the  group of  coordinated  answers, progress has been 
made  primarily  on  the  consolidation  of  R&D  activities  and  on  the  monitoring  of  environmental 
impacts and application of environmental protection legislation, although none is considered as fully 

achieved. Moderate and limited progress are respectively reported on the improvement of synergies 
with other industries and on the improvement of the efficiency of planning and licensing procedures.  

With regards to the specific objectives, these respondents indicate that the objective on stakeholder 

collaboration has been fully achieved, followed, in terms of progress, by the objective on technology 
convergence,  integration  of  offshore  renewables,  the  decrease  of  resources  for  EIAs,  EU-wide 
testing  and  the  reduction  of  risks  for  investors.  In  this  case  again,  the  stakeholders affirm  not 

knowing  whether proportion of  administrative  costs compared to  total  project costs  decreased at 
all. 

Efficiency  

No questions pertaining to the  criterion of efficiency were asked in  the public consultation. 

Coherence 

There is little  knowledge about  the coherence of the  C ommunication and  Roadmap with  the wider 
EU policy framework, with a number of stakeholders (up to 4) affirming they do not know whether 

these instruments are coherent with the other policies listed. Overall, it appears that the objectives 
of these initiatives are particularly in  line with  the Blue Growth  Strategy and EU  renewable energy 

policy, followed by the  EU research and innovation  policies and support. While  according to  a part 
of the stakeholders there is a certain level of coherence between the C ommunication and Roadmap 
and  regional  policies,  moderate to  little  coherence seems to  exist  between  the  objectives  of  the 

C ommunication and Roadmap and the national policies of EU  Member States.  

According to  one stakeholder this  is because they perceive more directly the  potential  benefits of 
the development of the sector, including in terms of employment. 

The stakeholders belonging to the group of coordinated answers affirm that the C ommunication and 
Roadmap  are  coherent  with,  and  well  complement,  all  the  policies  mentioned  above,  and  only 

partially  coherent  with  Member  States  policies.  This  is  because,  in  their  views  the  further 
development of ocean energy contributes to the decarbonisation of the energy system, while at the 

same time ensuring an economically and socially just transition. 

EU added value 

Overall, the  EU  intervention  in  support  for ocean energy has  an  EU  added  value  that  justifies  its 
existence  and  continuation.  In  fact,  the  majority  of  the  respondents  believed  that  the  EU 
intervention has added to the support provided by private and national initiatives and investments. 

In  particular,  the  EU  support  has  been crucial  for  the  consolidation  of  R&D  activities  and  for  the 

149 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

improvement of  the  monitoring  of  environmental  impacts  and  simplification  of  the  application  of 
environmental protection legislation.  The majority of  these respondents believe that  the cessation 

of  EU  support  for  ocean  energy would  have negative  or  very negative  effects  on  the  uptake  for 
ocean energy. 

In line  with  the above, the  responses from the  group  of coordinated answers all  indicate  that  the 

EU  intervention in favour of ocean energy brough strong additional  value, in  particular in terms of 
the  consolidation  of  R&D  activities  and  the  monitoring  of  environmental  impacts.  In  their  view, 
“beyond  R&D”,  the  existence  of  EU-wide  calls  “ensured  the  emergence of  European  leaders”  in 

ocean  energy  technology  and  avoided  duplications  of  calls.  The  “European  environmental 
monitoring  calls”  helped  to  increase  developers’  knowledge  of  the  sector  and  accelerated 

deployments.  In  addition  to  this,  in  general terms,  the  “EU  seal of  approval”  for  the  technology 
helped  to  attract  private  funding.  Also  in  their  case,  there  is  a  widespread  agreement  that  the 
cessation of EU’s intervention would  have very negative effects on the  uptake of ocean energy. 

Recommendations 

The respondents were also asked for additional feedback on the existing bottlenecks for the  sector 
and recommendations to overcome them.  

In terms of current bottlenecks of the sector, the following were identified by the stakeholders, with 
permitting  and financing issues having the agreement of most stakeholders:  

• 

• 

Finance:  the  lack of  revenue support  at national  level, the  lack of an instrument  to  cover and 
mutualise  the  technological  risks  of  projects  and  provide  insurance  and  guarantee  for  them 

(e.g.  such  as  EU  Insurance  and  Guarantee  Fund),  the  limited  number  of  calls  and  grants 
dedicated to ocean energy; 

Permitting:  the  length  of  consenting  processes  and  procedures,  the  understanding  of 
environmental impacts; 
The availability of grid connection; 

• 
•  C loser cooperation between academia and industry; 
• 

Limited involvement of stakeholders from other blue economy sectors in the decision-making; 

One stakeholder highlighted  that  the EU  has partial traction  on  these topics, as some of them  are 
shared competences with  the Member States.  

The  stakeholders belonging  to  the  group  that  provided  coordinated  answers  identified  two  main 

bottlenecks preventing the further evolution of the sector:  

• 

Finance: “The  lack of revenue support  at national level that  prevents larger projects to attract 
private finance and reach financial close”, the risks for the investors are still too high and there 

are  no  commercial insurance  products  covering  “innovative offshore  technology”,  the  design 
and  number of  calls issued  under programmes such  as Horizon  Europe,  Innovation Fund  and 
InnovFin EDP are insufficient   to  finance enough projects to reach the 100 MW  target for ocean 

energy as set in  the Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy; 
Permitting:  The  cumbersome  permitting  procedures, that  make access  to  the  sea  for  ocean 

• 

energy technologies “very slow” and are caused by a limited understanding of the technologies 
and their potential by national authorities. 

These stakeholders are confident that both challenges can be addressed by the Offshore Renewable 
Energy  Strategy,  called  by  them  “the  successor of  the  Roadmap”,  with  the  EU  playing  a  strong 

coordination role with  Member States to ensure the achievement of the strategy’s targets for ocean 
energy. 

150 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Position paper | Offshore Renewables Strategy Ocean energy – the next European Industry – 
Ocean Energy Europe 

The position paper uploaded by Ocean Energy Europe describes the potential for future deployment 
of ocean energy, as well as presents the benefits of this  deployment for Europe e.g. in terms of job 
creation, decarbonisation as well as leadership potential.  The paper welcomes the publishing of an 

Offshore  Strategy  including  ambitious  long-term  objectives  for  the  sector,  that  could  increase 
confidence  in  the  sector  from  private  investors.  The  paper  also  highlights  that  national  revenue 

support  mechanisms,  blended  EU  financial  instruments,  an  EU  Insurance  and  Guarantee  Fund, 
further  support  for  ocean  energy from  the  EIB  and  the  launch  of  international  partnerships  with 
third  countries  could  help  the  sector  move  forward.  In  their  views,  for  this  to  happen  it  will  be 

necessary to streamline project development and to  enable large scale deployments in Europe.  

Position paper | The role of Wave Energy – Corpower ocean 

The position paper uploaded by C orpower ocean presents a summary of the role the company sees 
for wave energy in the future electricity markets, and the value offered for electricity producers and 
electricity  system  owners.  The  paper  highlights  that  wave  energy is  expected  to  have  a  “higher 

average value compared to wind  and solar in future electricity markets”, that the demonstration of 
wave  technology  pilot  arrays  is  expected  to  make  the  technology  bankable  by  2024.  The 

achievement of  the  bankability  milestone  will  unlock significant  investments  into  wave  energy in 
their views, and this  will enable the installation  of 600  MW of wave energy capacity by 2030. 

Targeted  consultations 

The targeted  consultations  feed into  several aspects of  this  study.  Primarily, they are a source of 
information  to  feed  into  the  analysis. However, selected  interviews  will  also  be conducted  where 
considered relevant for other aspects such as complex analytical problems, definition of the baseline 
or for forming/testing  of conclusions and recommendations. 

Methodology and tools used to disseminate and process data 

The interviews served a dual purpose:  

• 

• 

To  gather  stakeholder specific qualitative  evidence in  relation  to  the  evaluation  questions  for 

which qualitative data was judged to be an important source; 
To complement the other tasks of this study and fill data gaps emerging from other consultation 
tools. 

The targeted interviews were semi-structured, following interview guides designed for the different 
stakeholder categories during the  inception  stage.  Detailed interview  notes  were written  for  each 
interview,  which  were subsequently  analysed using  the  Qualitative  Data Analysis (QDA) software 

NVivo. 

Stakeholders 

A  total  of  25  interviews  were  conducted  at  the  EU  level,  with  European  C ommission  staff  (2), 
International  Organisations (1),  Member States and  Regional institutions  and  bodies (7),  industry 
representatives and  cluster organisations (2),  representatives of the  finance and  insurance sector 

(2),  technology  developers  (7),  supply  chain  providers  and  utility  companies  (1),  research 
organisations (3). 

151 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Key results per evaluation question 

Relevance 

There is  a  widespread agreement among all  different  stakeholder groups that  the  objectives and 
scope of the C ommunication and Roadmap (the latter  in particular) were aligned with  the needs of 

the ocean energy sector at the time of its publication. Although none of the stakeholders were able 
to  refer to  the  specific  objectives  of  the  C ommunication  or  the  Roadmap,  the  majority  of  them 

asserted  that  the  publication  of  a  cohesive  document  by  the  European  Union  in  favour  of  the 
development  of  the  ocean  energy  sector  was  instrumental  to  create  momentum  around  ocean 
energy, as well  as to  set a  common direction and  priorities and as  such to  give confidence to  the 

investors,  which  was  needed  at  the  time.  This  was  particularly  true  in  the  years  immediately 
following  their  adoption.  The  documents  provided  visibility  to  the  industry,  as  well  as  clear 

recommendations and guidance based on the needs expressed by the sector at the time. As such, 
they  contained  the  “right  elements” to  guide  the  sector in  identifying  the  workstreams where  its 
resources should  focus on. Some of the  representatives of national  and regional agencies pointed 

out that these documents were particularly helpful for the development of their own strategies with 
regards to ocean energy, or as elements to  build ‘the business case’ for ocean energy towards key 

stakeholders (e.g. national authorities). 

This  notwithstanding,  a  part  of  the  stakeholders  highlighted  that  the  C ommunication  and  the 
Roadmap were not  sufficient in and of themselves, but  that  they were only ever intended  to be “a 
part  of the  solution”  for ocean energy, in  substance  “strategy documents”  that  would  need to  be 

subsequently complemented by other tools, both EU’s and Member States’ (e.g. financing and other 
support instruments). 

A  part  of  the  stakeholders  identified  the  following  aspects  lacking  in  the  C ommunication  and 
Roadmap:  

• 

• 

• 

Lack of a clear link with  national interests and polices, as well as of an approach to facilitate or 

secure the  engagement of and  coordination among  the  European Member States  and regions 
that  are active in  ocean energy; 

The  limited  consideration of  some aspects,  including  the  needs of  OTEC  and  salinity  gradient 
technologies, the  need to  support the  business case for ocean energy (e.g. by  highlighting  its 
benefits  in  terms  of  predictability,  the  advantages  of  localised  energy  production),  the 

importance of the sector for different regions in EU (e.g. including the  Mediterranean); 
Lack of dedicated budget  or link to a funding  instrument  for the  implementation of the  actions 

set in the C ommunication and the Roadmap. 

While a part of the stakeholders maintain that the sector still faces some of the challenges identified 
in 2014  (e.g.  risk, need to  demonstrate projects and  to cross the valley of death),  the  majority of 
the  stakeholders involved pointed  out that  the EU  policy in support  of the uptake of ocean energy 

could benefit from a revision or adaptation, in light of the developments that took place in the sector 
and in the context in which this operates. These developments include: the progress made by ocean 

energy  technologies  (in  particular  tidal  energy),  the  advancements  in  other  renewable  energy 
sources outcompeting  ocean  energy, the  reduction  in  the  support  provided by  the  private  sector 
and Member States, as well as wider developments such as Brexit and the outbreak of C OVID-19. 

In general, while the stakeholders consulted agree that there are different policy instruments at the 

EU  level  that  can  indirectly  support  the  uptake  of  ocean  energy  (e.g.  renewable  energy policy, 
climate  policy,  maritime  policy,  R&I  policy),  most  of  them  assert  that  due  to  its  early  stage  of 
development,  ocean  energy  necessitates  targeted  support  if  it  is  to  play  a  role  in  the  overall 

European  energy  mix.  It  has  been  reiterated  several times  that  it  will  be  extremely difficult  for 

152 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

ocean energy to progress if it  needs to compete for support with other more established sources of 
renewable energy e.g. offshore wind. 

Effectiveness 

Only  a part  of  the  stakeholders consulted  was  able to  provide feedback on  the  progress made in 
the  implementation  of  the  activities inscribed  in  the  C ommunication,  and  this  recalls the  limited 
knowledge  of  stakeholders  in  general  when  it  comes  to  the  details  of  the  C ommunication  and 

Roadmap.  In  the  view  of  these  stakeholders,  the  first  phase  of  activities  included  in  the 
C ommunication took place, as  the  Forum  was organised, and  it  produced a  Roadmap. They  were 
not  able  to  provide feedback on  the  second phase.  With  regards to  the  actions  inscribed  in  the 

Roadmap, in their view only actions 1, 2, 4 took place to a certain extent.  

In  terms  of  the  objectives  of  the  C ommunication,  in  the  view  of  the  stakeholders consulted  the 
coordination of the players in the sector has been enhanced substantially, and in general it appears 
that  the sector is more mature, informed and structured than it was in 2014.  

With regards to the uptake of ocean energy, part of the stakeholders indicates that while the sector 

is  not  where  it  was  expected  to  be  at  this  time,  considerable  progress  has  been  made  in  the 
development of  these  technologies.  This  can  be  linked  to  the  fact  that  funding  for  research and 

development  has  significantly  increased  since  2014,  and  that  in  general  access  to  funding  has 
slightly  improved,  although  not  for  all  times  of  technologies.  This  notwithstanding,  while  some 
believe that  this  has been  “reasonably good”,  “sufficient”  or  “adequate”,  at  least at  the  EU  level, 

other  maintain  that  the  funding  has  not  been  sufficient  nor  appropriate,  and  they  assert  that 
increased funding would be needed, particularly at the Member State level.  

Little  information  has been provided with  regards to  the  improvement of administrative  practices 

and environmental monitoring. 

According to the stakeholders consulted, several factors have influenced the effectiveness of the EU 

intervention  in  support  of  ocean energy, including  that  of the  C ommunication and  the  Roadmap, 
both positively and negatively.  

Among the positive factors influencing effectiveness, the stakeholders consulted have mentioned: 

• 
• 

• 

Increased societal awareness on climate change and increased interest in renewable energies; 
The rapid development of offshore wind, sharing some characteristics and challenges with ocean 

energy  and  demonstrating  that  such  marine  technologies  can  rapidly  improve  performance 
beyond expectations with the  appropriate level of support; 

Increased interest of the oil and gas sector in utilising  ocean energy devices for offshore power 
production. 

According to the stakeholders consulted, the abovementioned factors have contributed to increasing 
the  confidence and interest  of private and public  sector stakeholders in  ocean energy to  a certain 

extent. 

Among the  factors influencing  negatively the  effectiveness of the  EU  intervention  in  favour of  the 
uptake of ocean energy, stakeholders have mentioned: 

• 

The  limited  support  provided  by  Member  States  and  private  actors,  potentially  affected  by 
factors such  as high-profile  failures in  the  industry  discouraging  investments, long  time  scale 

for the harnessing of the benefits of the investment, substantial  previous investments in  other 
forms of renewable energy etc.  

•  Other sources of energy (e.g. offshore wind, and the emerging floating offshore wind) becoming 
considerably  cheaper  and  more  performant,  also  because  of  the  considerable  funding  they 

153 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

previously received, and  leading  to  a  de-prioritisation  of  the  investments  in  other  sources of 
marine renewable energy; 

• 

Inappropriate arguments used to advocate for ocean energy by industry stakeholders: different 
arguments should have highlighted  better instead e.g. benefits to peripheral regions; 

•  Brexit, removing a strong actor, and investors, in ocean energy; 
•  C OVID-19 crisis, that  might cause the decrease or slowdown of funding but  can also represent 

an opportunity, where states want to recover based on low carbon strategies. 

Efficiency 

While  none of the  stakeholders consulted were able to  provide feedback with  regards to the  costs 
of  implementation  related  to  the  C ommunication  and  the  Roadmap,  they  all  highlighted  the 
importance  of  different  EU  funds  in  support  of  ocean  energy.  The  most  important  for  the 

development  of  the  sector  so  far  were  Horizon  2020,  Interreg and  ESIF  funds,  NER  300,  EMFF, 
InnovFin EDP.  

With regards to the efficiency of the overall financial support provided so far by the EU,  most of the 
stakeholders  maintain  that  this  was  not  always  guaranteed,  as  some  of  the  funding  went  to 

technologies that proved to be unfit  for purpose. The efficiency of the funding  was also affected by 
specific  characteristics  of  the  funding  process,  including  the  high  level  of  competition,  the  time 

consuming  and  complicated  application  procedures,  as  well  as  the  high  expectations  placed  on 
project outcomes, which put  excessive pressure on the technologies.  

This  notwithstanding,  the  majority  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  believe  that  the  benefits  of 
investing  in  ocean  energy  substantially  outweigh  the  costs,  in  particular  when  the  potential 

contribution  of the technology to the achievement of the climate targets and the stability of the EU 
energy mix,  as well  as  the  potential  job creation  and  the  generation  of EU  added value (e.g.  for 
export of the technology) are taken into account. 

Coherence 

None  of  the  stakeholders were able  to  provide concrete examples of  overlaps, inconsistencies or 
incoherence within  the C ommunication or the Roadmap, aside for the fact that  the development of 
OTEC  and salinity gradient technologies were not  granted sufficient consideration compared to the 

objectives set.  

The opinions with regards to the  coherence of the C ommunication and Roadmap with the wider EU 

policy framework are mixed. 

A part of the stakeholders asserts that most of the current EU policies adequately complement each 
other and seem to  “move in the  same direction” “broadly coherent” e.g. renewable energy targets 

and  climate neutrality  targets.  These stakeholders were unable  to  identify policies  that  contradict 
with the development of the ocean energy sector, also positively noting the Green Deal also favours 
the development of this  technology. 

Another  part  of  the  stakeholders  consulted  believes  that  there  might  be  a  certain  degree  of 

incoherence between the  EU  ambition  on renewables and  climate neutrality  on  the  one  side, and 
the allocation of EU funds on the other. In this respect, they mention that substantial  resources are 

still allocated to the fossil fuel industry or to nuclear energy, and that this  could in principle be seen 
as being incoherent with  the intentions  to develop ocean energy to a certain extent.  

A limited portion of stakeholders mentioned additional potential contradictions between approaches 
adopted in the EU policy landscape and the interventions to favour the uptake of ocean energy: 

154 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

•  C ontradiction  with  EU  energy  modelling:  the  current  energy  models  favour  the  inclusion  of 
established  technologies in  long-term  policies rather  than  emerging  technologies,  because of 

the difficulty to  estimate the costs of energy produced by the latter; 

•  C ontradiction  with  EU  competition  policy  and  technology  neutrality  principle:  these  establish 
that the different technologies shall compete in the market and the ones presenting lower costs 
will  emerge, but  this  is  often incompatible  with  the  needs of  an emerging technology such  as 
ocean energy; 

•  C ontradiction with  the EU  State Aid rules: the  notification  threshold for state  aid to renewable 
energy projects is quite low and this can discourage Member States from creation of substantial 

support schemes for ocean energy. 

Lastly,  an  additional  possible  inconsistency has  been  identified  in  the  fact  that  the  integration  of 
ocean energy in National Renewable Energy Action Plans has not been sufficiently incentivised. Due 
to  the  perceived low level of  development of  the technology,  the  inclusion of  ocean energy in  the 

energy mix that should achieve the renewable energy targets has so far been deprioritised.  

With  regards to the  coherence between the  EU intervention and available support schemes, rather 
than pointing at specific contradictions, the stakeholders interviewed mentioned that the abundance 

of different funds that can contribute to ocean energy might be confusing for technology developers. 
Also,  they  mentioned  that  the  application  requirements  differ  substantially  among  the  funding 
instruments,  and this  signals a lack of coordination among these entities.   

With  regards to  the  relationship between the  EU  intervention  and Member  State support,  none of 

the  stakeholders were able  to  identify  specific contradictions.  Nevertheless, the  large majority of 
them  indicated  that  there is  a  certain level  of incoherence between  the  EU  and  National  policies, 
indicating  that these are not always aligned. Specifically, relevant Member States don’t take ocean 

energy sufficiently  into  account in  the  development of their national  renewable energy strategies, 
or when  this is  done it  is not  linked to  concrete support  actions (e.g. the  establishment  of market 

pull  mechanism). By contrast,  the  alignment between the  EU  intervention and  single strategies at 
the  level  of  relevant  regions  within  Member  States  is  more  prominent,  although  substantial 
differences persist  in the  types  of support  provided across regions interested in  developing ocean 

energy. 

EU added value 

The  large  majority  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  confirmed  that  the  C ommunication  and  the 
Roadmap added  value at  the  EU  level. They all  agree  that  the  intervention  achieved  results  that 

could not  have been achieved at a different level of intervention at  all, or at least not  at the  same 
cost  or  with  the  same  result.  Although  not  stakeholders  express  positive  views  on  the  results 
achieved by  the  intervention,  and  some  believe that  there  wouldn’t  been significant  differences, 

they  all  agree that  the  situation  would  have been  worse  than  it  is  now.  They  suggest  that  at  a 
minimum, it  was able to: 

• 
• 
• 

Provide momentum for the  sector and set a common direction for the  actors involved; 

Increase confidence of the  investors; 
Increase collaboration and organisation of the sector. 

The  perception  of  the  added  value  of  the  intervention  varies  among  stakeholders,  with  some 
affirming that  the ocean energy sector would not exist in Europe at the  moment, others that  there 

would certainly be less uptake in ocean energy. Only one stakeholder from a research organisation 
affirmed that other instruments would have taken the place of the C ommunication and the Roadmap 
had these not been published. 

155 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

All  stakeholders consulted  overwhelmingly believe  that  the  withdrawal  of EU  support  would  have 
negative  consequences  on  the  ocean  energy  sector  in  Europe.  In  their  views,  this  would 

demonstrate  that  the  EU  does  believe in  the  validity of  the  technology, and  this  would  have  the 
following consequences:  

•  Ocean  energy activities  in  Europe  would  dramatically decrease or  stop,  and  the  sector itself 
could completely disappear, as investors would not be interested in investing in a technology in 
which the  EU itself is not showing confidence  
EU technology developers would either shut down or move their companies abroad and continue 

• 

developing  the  technologies  in  countries  with  more  favourable conditions  can  be  found  e.g. 
C anada, USA, Japan, C hina – but capitalising on all the investments already poured in the sector 

• 

by the EU 
The  withdrawal  of  EU  support  could  also have  negative influence  on  the  development of  the 
sector overall (also abroad) given the importance they have also abroad “everybody is watching 

what the  EU is doing” – the EU  leads most international discussions on OC EN  

Most  of  the  stakeholders  agree  that  this  would  be  a  lost  opportunity  for  the  EU,  to  exploit  a 
technology  with  high  levels of  “EU  content”,  and  it  would  be  a  waste  of the  efforts made  so far, 

considering the  scale of the investments that have been made to  date.  

Recommendations 

The  stakeholders interviewed were  also  invited  to  provide suggestions  and  recommendations for 
the future of the EU  support in the sector. Their suggestions can be summarised as follows:  

• 

• 

• 

The  EU  should  continue  to  show  leadership  in  the  sector  by  providing  political  support  to 
increase confidence in ocean energy by depicting  a clear route for ocean energy technologies, 

including OTEC  and salinity gradient; 
The  EU  should  increase  the  collaboration  with  relevant  Member  States  to  stimulate  their 
intervention  (e.g.  including  in  terms  of  revenue  support)  and  involvement  in  the  decision-

making process regarding the sector, including by further highlighting  the benefits of investing 
in the sector; 

The EU and Member States should improve efforts to help ocean energy technologies ‘cross the 
valley of  death’,  including  by facilitating  the  achievement of  an  appropriate balance  between 
market push and market pull  mechanisms, and by fostering the de-risking of the technology. 

Privacy 

Precautions to  secure the  privacy of  respondents  were taken.  For  both,  the  PC  and  the  targeted 
consultation  the  columns  of  the  datasheets  containing  personal  information  (e.g.  names, 
organisational names, and email addresses) were used for duplicate checks, but  then deleted from 
the  datasets  on  our  system.  Moreover,  access  to  the  folders  containing  the  PC   datasets  were 

restricted to the analysts who analysed them. Whilst  on our own system, the datasets were stored 
in encrypted form, safeguarding them from access by unauthorised persons. Once this assignment 

is over, the datasets will be deleted from our system in accordance with GDPR rules. Thus, we take 
rigorous steps to ensure the privacy of participants. 

156 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Appendix 5 – Intervention logic 

157 

 
 
Study - Evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Figure 6.1 Intervention Logic 

158 

 
 
 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Appendix 6 – Overview of Member States’ support policies

159 

 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Overview  of the main  national  and regional  support  policies  for 

ocean  energy 

This document provides and overview of the main national and regional support policies established 
by Member States, and regions within  these, that  contribute  to the  development of ocean energy. 

Where  a  sub-chapter  on  regional  support  is  not  available,  this  is  because it  was  not  possible  to 
identify sufficient evidence on this type of support in the context of the study.  

France 

National support policies 

The general strategy for renewable energies in France is laid out in the Energy Act (Loi de Transition 
Energétique  pour la  C roissance Verte) from  2015,  which  sets  the  target  producing of  40%  of  the 

electricity with  renewable energy technologies by 2030. While this law sets out targets for installed 
capacities  for  electricity  productions  from  various  renewable  energy  technologies,  there  is  no 
specific objective towards the  installed capacity of ocean energy technologies. 245  

Support policies for ocean energy are managed under the “Investment for the Future” programme, 
which is coordinated by the Ministry for the Ecological and Solidary Transition. Grants and loans are 
provided by the  Public  Investment  Bank (BPI), the  Environment  and Energy Agency (ADEME),  or 

the National  Research Agency (ANR), depending on the TLR. In 2019, ADEME funded projects with 
an estimated amount of 68 million  EUR, and the  ANR spent 4 million  EUR on ocean energy project. 
246 

For commercial farms, the  cost of the  export cable is to  be supported by the French  Transmission 
System Operator, which also takes over more legal and financial responsibilities with  respect to the 
availability of electricity exportation. 

Two  tidal  energy projects  have been  provided  a  feed-in  tariff  of  173  EUR/MWh  in  the  past.  Both 

projects  are  on  hold,  showing  that  the  provided  support  was  insufficient  for  the  commercial 
production of tidal energy.  

Since 2017,  a simplified consenting process is effective. Ocean Energy developers must provide an 
Environmental  Impact  Assessment,  apply  for  a  license  to  occupy  territorial  waters  and  an 
authorization from the Ministry of Energy (for projects >50MW) 247. 

Regional support for ocean energy  

Regional actors are also active in  the support of Ocean Energy. The region of Brittany for instance 
channels European funds in favor of maritime renewable energy production and  provides port and 
testing facility infrastructure. 248 A notable project is the tidal range energy power plant in the Rance 

245 See: 
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichLoiPubliee.do?idDocument=JORFDOLE000029310724&type=general&legislature=14 

246 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 
247 See: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/regulatory-frameworks-marine-renewable-energy#France 

248 See: https://bretagneoceanpower.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/plaquette-emr-gb-juin-2019-bd.pdf 

160 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

estuary  (Brittany) 249  which  operates  since  1966.  It  is  currently  the  world’s  second  largest  tidal 
energy plant with  a power capacity of 240  MW. 

The  region  of  Pays  de  la  Loire  has  a  very active  ocean  energy  ecosystem,  that  focuses  on  tidal 
energy development. It is organized by the Solutions&C o 250, the economic development agency for 
the Pays de la Loire region. 

Both regions are partners in the Ocean Energy ERA-NET C ofund. 

Special  interest  in  ocean  energy  lies  among  local  authorities  in  the  French  overseas territories, 
which  could  be less  constrained  than  onshore  renewable energies such  as  solar in  terms  of  land 

requirements. Energy self-sufficiency has become a major concern, since energy production is very 
costly on remote island locations. 

Ireland  

National support policies 

In 2019,  Ireland launched an ambitious C limate Action Plan, which  states to  increase the  share of 
renewable energies of the  electricity  production to  70%  by  2030,  including  a planned  increase of 

offshore renewables from 25  MW  to 3.5  GW by 2030.  While the  actions of the  C limate Action Plan 
heavily focus on offshore wind energy production, the three actions (Action 25, 26 and 27) covering 
offshore renewable energies will also benefit tidal and wave energy development. 251 

Since  2014,  Ireland  also  has  a  Offshore  Renewable  Energy  Development  Plan  (OREDP),  which 
identifies  Ireland as  the most  fruitful  coast  in Europe for  harnessing offshore renewable energies. 
The report predicts an installed  capacity of wave and tidal energy being between 75 and 1500 GW 
by 2030. 252  

Under  the  OREP,  Ocean  Energy  Ireland  was  founded.  It  serves as  a  platform  for  ocean  energy 
technology developers and most  importantly provides free and  accessible data on wave, tidal  and 
environmental impact studies. 

The main framework for supporting ocean energy projects is provided by the Renewable Electricity 

Support Scheme (RESS). It is the main policy instrument  in Ireland to support renewable energies 
– including  ocean energy – with  funding opportunities.  

Besides, public funding programmes include the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland’s Prototype 
Development  Fund  (65  projects  subsidized  since  2009,  15  new  projects  in  2015)  and  the 

OC EANERA-NET scheme, an innovative component of the European Union’s Framework Programme 
which supports cooperation of national/regional research funding programmes. 253 

The  Science  Foundation  Ireland (SFI)  Research C entre for  energy,  climate  and marine  (MaREI), 

coordinated by the  Environmental Research Institute  (ERI) at University C ollege C ork, coordinates 
12 partner institutes with over 200 researchers. It delivers high quality research on maritime energy 

249 See: https://tethys.pnnl.gov/project-sites/la-rance-tidal-barrage  
250 See: https://www.solutions-developpement-paysdelaloire.fr/  

251 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 
252 See: https://www.dccae.gov.ie/documents/20140204%20DCENR%20-
% 2 0Offshore%20Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20Plan.pdf 

253 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 

161 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

technologies,  including  cross-cutting  topics  such  as  societal  and  economic  impact  of  ocean 
energy. 254  

Regional support for ocean energy 

Information  on activities  of  regional  authorities  in  supporting  ocean energy are  scarce, despite  a 
number of INTERREG funded projects in Ireland. 255 

Portugal  

National support policies 

In Portugal, the Ministry of the Sea is responsible for defining policies encouraging the development 
of new  activities in the  sea that  maximize the  use of its  resources. It is  tasked with  implementing 
the  Industrial  Strategy for Ocean Renewable Energies (EI-ERO). 256  While the  strategy  focuses on 
offshore  wind  power  development,  it  recognizes  possible  synergies  between  offshore  wind 
development and other ocean energy technologies (such as using the  same sea cables etc.). 

Portugal  installed  in  2014  a  fixed feed-in tariff  scheme for renewable ocean energy technologies, 
which includes (and focuses on) off-shore wind  energy. 257 

Portugal funds  R&D and technology demonstration projects under the  Blue Fund  (“Fundo  Azure”), 
which provides direct funds but  also facilitates private investments. 258 

Spain 

National support policies   

The  Energy  and  C limate National  Integrated  Plan  2021-2030  of  Spain  sets  ambitious  targets  for 
ocean energy of reaching  25  MW  of  installed  capacity for 2025  and 50  MW  for 2030. 259  The  plan 
has been developed by the Ministry for the Ecological Transition, who is also in charge of permitting 

new ocean energy projects. 

Spain does not  provide specific support policies for ocean energy projects. A number of projects in 
Spain have been funded by European programmes such as Horizon2020, the ERDF or other sources 
such as grants from EASME or DG GROW. 260 

Regional support for ocean energy 

The Basque Government approved in 2016 the Basque Marine Energy Plan for 2030, which included 
a specific initiative to speed up technology and commercial development for marine energy and set 
a target of 60 MW by 2030. 261  

254 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 

255 I N TERREG programmes are often managed by regional and local authorities 
256 See: https://dre.pt/web/guest/pesquisa/-/search/114248654/details/maximized 

257 See: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_4836 
258 See: https://www.dgpm.mm.gov.pt/fundo-azul 

259 See: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/participacion-publica/pniec_2021-2030_borradoractualizado_tcm30-
5 0 6491.pdf 

260 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 
261 See: https://www.eve.eus/Actuaciones/Marina.aspx 

162 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Due to its geographic conditions, the coast of the Basque C ountry is well suited for harnessing wave 
energy. Aiming  to find  synergies with  the  local shipbuilding  industry (which  continues  to be under 

economic pressure due to international competition),  Wave Energy Basque C ountry forms a strong 
industry cluster which connects and coordinates the numerous actors in the  sector.  

Italy 

National support policies   

The National  Research C ouncil of  Italy (C onsiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche – C NR) leads the  “Blue 
Italian  Growth”  (BIG)  cluster.  The  BIG  Action  Plan  includes  encouraging  the  uptake  and 
development of innovative ocean energy technology but  does not specify any concrete targets. 262  

Italy does provide a fixed feed-in tariff scheme for renewable energy technologies, the latest update 
of it  however excludes ocean energy and focuses on more mature renewable energy technologies. 
263  Up  to  2017,  also  ocean energy plants  with  power  outputs  of >60kW  could  benefit  from fixed 
feed-in tariffs.  

There are no specific funding  instruments  for R&D activities of  ocean energy projects. Developers 
rely on  generic  funds  that  aim  at  supporting  innovation,  regional development, blue  economy or 

renewable energies. 

The Netherlands  

National support policies 

The  Netherlands  does  not  have  a  national  strategy  for  ocean  energy  and  nor  are  there  specific 
targets. The ocean energy strategy is part of the national target of 16%  renewables in 2023 and a 
49% overall C O2 reduction in 2030 264.  

The marine spatial  planning process in  the country  is focused on offshore wind,  and special areas 
have been appointed for this.  No commercial offshore ocean energy projects are planned yet265. 

The  Netherlands  provides  a  generic  national  subsidy  scheme  (SDE)  to  stimulate  the  uptake  of 
renewable energy, that  ocean energy technologies can  also benefit  from. In  2020,  the  maximum 
subsidy for renewables has been reduced to  EUR0,13/kWh 266.  

In  addition  this  feed-in  tariff,  there  are  generic  funding  programmes  for  all  relevant  types  of 

renewable  energy  that  are  also  available  for  ocean  energy.  These  programmes  have  a  tender 
system in which projects compete with each other and have a general condition that a cost reduction 
must be achieved by innovation 267. 

262 See: http://www.c lusterbig.it/piano-dazione-2/ 

263 See: https://cdn.qualenergia.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/decreto-fer1-4lug2019_GU1n186_9ago2019-1.pdf 
264 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 

265 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 
266 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 

267 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 

163 

 
 
Support study for the  evaluation of the development of ocean energy policies | Final report 

Denmark 

National support policies 

No national  strategy for ocean energy is present in Denmark. For what  concerns wave energy, the 
activities in Denmark continue to  be driven by the Strategy for Wave Power published 6  years ago 

and by the  Danish Wave Power Roadmap from 2015.   

The  EUDP  (Energy  Technology  Development and  Demonstration  Program)  is  the  main  source of 
public  funding  for  wave  energy  in  Denmark,  and  this  has  funded  two  wave  energy  projects  in 
2019 268.  

Germany 

National support policies 

Germany develops its  renewable energy portfolio as part of the  Energiewende 269 initiative,  as well 
as specific targets and agenda set in additional  legislative documents. Germany has a consolidated 
strategy  to  develop offshore wind 270,  but  no  dedicated  policy or  strategy  for the  development of 
ocean  energy.  This  notwithstanding,  some  ocean  energy  technologies  are  being  tested  and 

demonstrated, and Germany delivers components and parts for a number of ocean energy devices 
in Europe 271.  

268 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 
269 See: https://www.energiewende-global.com/en/renewable-energy  

270 See: https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/E/windseeg-gesetz-en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=9  
271 O ES (2019): “Annual Report” 

164 

 
 
GETTING  IN TOUCH WITH  THE EU 

In person  
All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. 
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en  

On the phone or by email  
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You 
can contact this service:  
–by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 
–at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 
–by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en 

FINDING  INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available 
on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en  

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from: 
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be 
obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see 
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). 

EU law and related documents 
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the 
official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu 

Open data from the EU 
The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets 
from the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and 
non-commercial purposes. 

165 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
K
L
-
0
8
-
2
1
-
2
3
1
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN: 978- 92-76-40852-9 

doi:10.2771/56376