COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION Support instruments for the development of ocean energy policy 2014 - 2020
Date: 2021-12-22
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: EU energy policy, climate change policy, conservation of resources, energy production, energy resources, management of resources, renewable energy, sustainable development, tidal energy, wave energy

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 22.12.2021  SWD(2021) 433 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  Support instruments for the development of ocean energy policy 2014 - 2020 {SWD(2021) 434 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 

Purpose and scope ...................................................................................................................... 3 

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION ..................................................................................... 5 

Description of the intervention and its objectives ...................................................................... 5 

Baseline and points of comparison ............................................................................................. 9 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY ........................................................................................ 12 

Current situation ....................................................................................................................... 12 

4.  METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 18 

5.  ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS .......................................... 20 

5.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................ 20 

5.2 Effectiveness ........................................................................................................................ 23 

5.3 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................. 36 

5.4 Coherence ........................................................................................................................... 38 

5.5 EU added value ................................................................................................................... 40 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................. 41 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 44 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ....................................................................................... 45 

ANNEX 3: EVALUATION MATRIX ......................................................................................................... 60 

ANNEX 4: OVERVIEW OF MEMBER STATES’ SUPPORT POLICIES ................................................ 69 

1 

 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CAPEX 

COSME 

DG MARE 

EII 

EMFF 

ERDF 

H2020 

JRC 

LCOE 

MSFD 

MSP  

NECPs 

OEF 

OPEX 

OTEC 

PC 

R&D  

R&I  

Roadmap 

SET Plan 

TRL 

Capital expenditure 

EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and SMEs 

DG for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries  

European Industrial Initiatives 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Regional Development Fund 

Horizon 2020 

European Commission Joint Research Centre 

Levelized Cost of Energy 

Marine Strategy Framework Directive 

Maritime Spatial Planning 

National Energy and Climate Plans  

Ocean Energy Forum 

Operational expenditure 

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion 

Public consultation  

Research and Development 

Research and Innovation 

Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap 

Strategic Energy Technology Plan 

Technology Readiness Level 

2 

 
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope 

The  EU  aims  to  become  the  first  climate-neutral  continent  by  2050  and  to  reduce  its 
carbon  emissions  by  55%  by  2030.  Increasing  the  share  of  renewable  energy  use  in 
Europe will be key to achieve these targets. 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.  

There  are  at  least  six  different  potential  energy  resources,  which  derive  from  seawater: 
tidal currents, ocean currents, tidal range (rise & fall), waves, ocean thermal energy and 
salinity gradient1. Offshore wind energy – bottom-fixed and floating - and floating solar 
power are not a form of ocean energy, since they rely on wind and solar energy, albeit in 
a marine setting.  

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.  Given  the  resources 
available in the EU, and the advancement of the technologies, it is expected that in the 
short-to-medium term (up to 2030), ocean energy development will be largely dependent 
on the deployment of tidal and wave energy converters. In the EU, the highest resource 
potential  for  ocean  energy  exists  along  the  Atlantic  coast,  with  further  localised 
exploitable potential in the Baltic and Mediterranean seas and in Outermost Regions. The 
theoretical potential of wave energy in Europe is about 2 800 TWh annually, whilst the 
potential  for  tidal  current  was  estimated  at  about  50  TWh  per  year2.  Ocean  Thermal 
Energy Conversion (OTEC)  deployment  requires  high temperature gradient  and  is  only 
possible in tropical seas. 

Building  on  the  well-developed  policy  framework  supporting  renewable  energy,  the 
European Commission adopted a Communication3 titled “Blue Energy Action needed to 
deliver  on  the  potential  of  ocean  energy  in  European  seas  and  oceans  by  2020  and 
beyond” (hereafter “Blue Energy Communication”) in 2014 to show its support and set 
an  agenda  of  action  to  help  the  sector  moving  forward.  The  general  objective  of  the 
Communication  was  to  increase  the  uptake  of  ocean  energy  by  addressing  the  main 
bottlenecks that hampered the development of the sector at the time (detailed in sections 
2  and  5).  In  2014,  these  challenges  were  mainly  related  to  financial,  infrastructure, 

1 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/energy-research-and-innovation/ocean-
energy_en 

2     The Blue Economy Report 2021 
3   COM/2014/08 final 

3 

 
 
 
                                                           
administrative and regulatory issues. To address  these, the Communication proposed  to 
bring together stakeholders to enhance technological innovation, facilitate the industry’s 
access to finance and improve administrative practices and environmental monitoring. 

Between  2014  and  2016  (Phase  1),  the  Commission  supported  the  establishment  of  a 
stakeholders’  Ocean  Energy  Forum  (OEF)4,  which  delivered  to  the  Commission  the 
ocean  strategic  roadmap  “Building  Ocean  Energy  for  Europe”5  in  2016.  The  Roadmap 
identified  four  key  action  plans  to  support  ocean  energy  development,  addressing 
financial  support,  guarantees,  administrative  barriers  and  environmental  consenting 
process. 

The second phase of action (2017-2020) included: 

- 

- 

the  development  of  a  European  Industrial  Initiative  (EII),  on  the  model  of  the 
several  EIIs  established  under  the  SET-Plan  and  based  on  the  outcomes  of  the 
Ocean Energy Forum; 
the development of sector-specific guidelines for the implementation of relevant 
legislation. 

The  Communication  specifies  that  the  Commission  would  undertake  a  comprehensive 
evaluation of the state of development of ocean energy at the latest by 2020. The review 
process  takes  into  account  the  evaluation  and  further  development  of  the  EU's  general 
policy towards renewable energy development and energy technology policy. Therefore, 
the  Commission  (DG  MARE)  launched  a  support  study  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
development of ocean energy policies in 2019, which was completed in December 20206.  

Since  2019,  the  environmental  ambition  of  the  EU  was  significantly  broaden  by  the 
expansion beyond the climate objectives  to  biodiversity, zero pollution and the circular 
economy,  within  the  European  Green  Deal.  These  aspects  were  not  assessed  in  the 
present review which predates the European Green Deal and focuses on the political and 
financial  support  to  the  ocean  energy  sector.  The  monitoring  of  environmental  impacts 
was  however  part  of  the  Blue  Energy  Communication  and  is  an  important  pillar  of the 
development of ocean energy.  

In  addition,  the  Offshore  Renewable  Energy  Strategy7,  issued  in  November  2020, 
includes  an  analysis  of  our  knowledge  and  policy  gaps  (e.g.  cumulative  environmental 
impacts, need for Maritime Spatial Planning and circularity) and a series of actions that 
enhance our multiple-objectives approach vis-à-vis offshore energy developments.It also 
outlines  the  expected  contribution  of  the  marine  renewable  energy  sector  to  the  EU 

4   https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/1036  
5   https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/node/3962  
6   https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5bb8a1f6-0ace-11ec-adb1-01aa75ed71a1 
7      COM(2020) 741 final 

4 

 
 
 
                                                           
ambitions to net zero emission by 2050 and includes specific targets for the ocean energy 
sector: 100 MW of pilot farms installed by 2025, at least 1 GW by 2030 and 40 GW by 
2050.  

Another recent policy paper, the Commission’s Communication on a new approach for a 
sustainable  blue  economy  in  the  EU  Transforming  the  EU's  Blue  Economy  for  a 
Sustainable Future8  published in  May 2021  underlined  that “a sustainable ocean energy 
mix  should  include  (in  addition  to  bottom-fixed  offshore  wind)  floating  wind,  thermal, 
wave  and  tidal  energy  -  emerging  technologies  that  are  expected  to  reach  commercial 
stage within ten  years”.  The present Commission  staff working document  will feed  the 
above-mentioned new initiatives which aims to steer political support for the blue energy 
sector at EU and Member State levels. 

In terms of data analysis and sources, the European Commission Joint Research Centre 
(JRC)  monitors  the  sector  continuously  since  2016.  The  “Blue  Economy  and  Ocean 
Energy”  reports  cover  the  most  recent  ocean  energy  technology  developments.  The 
Strategic Energy Technology  plan (SET-Plan Ocean) on technologies and jobs, and  the 
Commission  “competitiveness  report  for  renewables”,  published  in  October  2020,  also 
assess progress made by the ocean energy sector. In addition, the Commission publishes 
every year its “Blue Economy Report” with a chapter on ocean energy in the section on 
emerging  sectors.  The  results  of  this  evaluation  are  meant  to  complement  this 
information, notably with stakeholder views on policy developments. 

Finally, 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 offshore renewable energy development.  

2. 

BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTION 

Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  development  of  a  common  energy  policy  in  Europe  took  on  a  new  pace  in  2006, 
when the Commission’s green paper  A European  Strategy  for  Sustainable, Competitive 
and Secure Energy9 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 

8   COM(2021) 240 final 
9   Commission of the European Communities (2006) Green Paper. A European Strategy for Sustainable, 

Competitive and Secure Energy. 

5 

 
 
 
                                                           
the initial definition of Europe’s Energy Policy10 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)11. 

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).  

The European Union decided on climate and energy targets for 2030 in October 201412. 
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% goal13. This was part 
of  the  “Clean  Energy  Package”14  which  in  turn  facilitates  the  implementation  of  the 
“Energy Union Strategy15”. 

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  Commission  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.  

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), the European Commission launched a number of 
targeted  support  policies  and 
the  2014 
Communication  on  Blue  Energy  (or  the  “Blue  Energy  Communication”),  which  is 
subject to this formal evaluation. The main objective of the Blue Energy Communication 
was  to  increase  the  uptake  of  ocean  energy.  To  achieve  this  general  objective,  three 

instruments.  This 

includes  notably 

10   Commission  of  the  European  Communities  (2007)  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Council  and  the  Parliament.  An  Energy  Policy  for  Europe.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52007DC0001&from=EN 

11   Directive  2009/28/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  April  2009  on  the 
renewable  sources.  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

the  use  of  energy 

from 

promotion  of 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32009L0028  

12  A  policy  framework  for  climate  and  energy  in  the  period  from  2020  to  2030.https://eur-

lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52014DC0015   

13 Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the 
promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/2001/oj  
14 Clean Energy for all Europeans. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:fa6ea15b-b7b0-11e6-

9e3c-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF  

15 A Framework  Strategy  for a Resilient Energy Union  with a Forward-Looking  Climate  Change Policy. 

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2015:80:FIN  

6 

 
 
 
                                                           
specific  objectives  and  four  operational  objectives  were  developed  on  the  basis  of  an 
impact assessment (see figure 1). 

The Blue Energy Communication was published recognising that ocean energy was still 
at  an  early  development  stage  but  had  the  potential  to  develop  over  time.  The 
Communication calls on the Commission to undertake an initial evaluation of progress in 
2017 and a more comprehensive evaluation of the state of development of ocean energy 
at  the  latest  by  2020.  The  review  process  had  to  take  into  account  the  evaluation  and 
further development  of the EU's  general  policy towards renewable energy  development 
and energy technology policy, notably in the framework of the European Green Deal and 
the publication of an Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy. 

The Blue Energy Communication rolled out the actions in two phases in order 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” from the first to the second phase. 

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

The  second  phase  of  action  (2017-2020)  included  the  potential  development  of  a 
European  Industrial  Initiative  (third  action  of  the  Communication),  based  on  the 
outcomes  of  the  OEF.  Finally,  action  four  of  the  Communication  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 intervention logic is summarised in in the diagram below (figure2.1. 

7 

 
 
 
Figure 2.1:  Intervention logic

8 

 
 
 
Baseline and points of comparison  

To  evaluate  the  effects  of  the  Blue  Energy  Communication  and  the  Roadmap,  a 
counterfactual  scenario  assuming  that  these  policy  tools  had  never  existed  was 
developed. The baseline provides a point of comparison to determine the actual impact of 
the  intervention.  It  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 Communication16. 

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).  In 
the  Blue  Energy 
Communication,  it  is  assumed  that  the  existing  policy  instruments  would  continue  to 
impact  the  ocean  energy  sector.  Thus,  business-as-usual  assumes  a  baseline  involving 
Community action in the form of the wider policy framework. 

the  absence  of 

The Communication was the first EU policy tool specifically targeting the ocean energy 
sector. However, the Communication 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  Communication  and  the  Limassol  declaration.  The  2011  Blue  Growth 
Communication  identified  five  areas  of  the  blue  economy  where  targeted  EU  action 
could stimulate economic growth and jobs in Europe, one of them being the ocean energy 
sector.  Blue  Growth  itself  is  one  of  the  five  pillars  of  the  Commission’s  Integrated 
Maritime Policy and has recently evolved towards a new approach for a sustainable blue 
economy in the EU17. 

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 Communication 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. 

16   Commission  Staff  Working  Document,  Impact  Assessment  (Accompanying 

the  document 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions), Ocean Energy: Action needed to 
deliver on the potential of ocean energy by 2020 and beyond, SWD (2014) 13 final.  

17    COM (2021) 240 final 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Compared 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  in  line  with  the  Blue  Energy 
Communication  and  thus,  in  its  absence,  the  same  development  could  have  been 
expected. The Communication nevertheless played an important role in the programming 
of Horizon 2020 calls and in the preparation of the Horizon Europe work programme. 

An additional funding instrument  was  also created in  parallel  and launched in  2012, in 
order  to  support  innovative  renewable  energy  technologies  with  an  amount  of  EUR  2 
billion  for  7  years.  Several  ocean  energy  projects  were  selected  and  funded  under  this 
instrument  and  this  might  be  partially  due  to  the  Blue  Energy  Communication  and 
Roadmap. 

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  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 Commission  as  part of the SET implementation  plan . 
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. 

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

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 Communication “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. 

10 

 
 
 
To reach its 2020 and 2050 targets for cutting CO2 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 Commission published a Communication 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  of  new  technologies  to  the 
market. The Communication 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 
Communication  and  thus  the  Communication  and  consequently  the  Ocean  Energy 
Roadmap  could  not  have  much  influence  on  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. To reach its 2030 and 
2050  targets  for  cutting  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (see  section  Description  of  the 
intervention and its objectives), high-performance low-carbon technologies are required. 
The  EU  SET  Plan  adopted  in  2010,  came  in  to  accelerate  the  development  and 
deployment  of  cost-effective 
including  ocean  energy 
technology. The Blue Energy Communication and Roadmap 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 Communication and Roadmap also had 
an important influence in the programming of Horizon 2020 calls. 

technologies, 

low  carbon 

Besides  the  qualitative  description  of  the  baseline  presented  above,  the  evaluation  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 
(see table 2.1). 

The assessment of the counterfactual scenario is made across section 5 of this document 
and  the  key  monitoring  indicators  are  used  as  quantitative  elements  to  reply  to  the 
evaluation questions. 

11 

 
 
 
Table 2.1 Key monitoring indicators proposed in the impact assessment 

Indicator 

Relevance 

Installed capacity 
Number of projects planned 
Magnitude of investment into the sector 

Capital cost reduction 
Number of collaborative undertakings 
Amount of Member State financial 
support for ocean energy, including 
differentiated revenue support schemes 
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 
Time and resources spent satisfying the 
requirements of the EIAs 

Technology commercialisation 
Investor confidence and political saliency 
Perceived reliability, efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the 
technologies 
R&D efficiency 
Industry cooperation and collaboration, synergies 
Political saliency 

Efficiency of planning and licensing procedures 

Monitoring of environmental impacts 

Optimising 
legislation 

the  application  of  environmental  protection 

3. 

IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY 

Current situation  

The  Communication  was  published  in  a  context  of  increasing  climate  ambition, 
recognising that ocean energy was at the time still at an early development stage but had 
the  potential  to  develop  over  time  and  to  contribute  significantly  to  the  Green  Deal’s 
objectives18. 

Other  policies,  instruments  and  programmes  came  in  that  context  to  support  the  ocean 
energy sector. They are  not  subjected to  the current  evaluation  but  are tightly linked to 
the Ocean Energy Communication evaluated here. They include the following: 

  The  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  of  200719,  which  calls  for  an  increased 
coordination  between  different  policy  areas,  and  identifies  Maritime  Spatial 

18 It must be noted that while the intervention is fully in line with the climate objectives of the European 
Green Deal, other goals (tackling biodiversity loss, pollution or resources depletion under the “do no 
harm” principle) have not been analysed in the present evaluation 
Paper” 

(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A52007DC0575)  and  the  corresponding  action  plan  (https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A52007SC1278) 

Including 

so-called 

“Blue 

the 

19 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Planning (MSP)20 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  Commission’s  Communication  on  Accelerating  Clean  Energy  Innovation 
201621, 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)22,  which  sets  the  agenda 
for  an  EU  energy  technology  policy  and  establishes  European  Technology  and 
Innovation Platforms;  

  Horizon  2020  for  research  and  innovation,  which,  among  others,  provides 
funding  to  the  Ocean  Energy  ERA-Net  cofund  initiative23  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;  

  The  NER300  programme24  (and  its  successor,  the  Innovation  Fund25)  for 

renewable energy technologies and carbon capture and storage; 

  The  cohesion  policy  with  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)26 
and  the  Cohesion  Fund27,  aimed  at  helping  Member  States,  regions  and  local 
authorities to strengthen economic, social and territorial cohesion in the European 
Union.  In  2021-2027  it  will  enable  investments  in  a  smarter,  greener,  more 
connected and more social Europe that is closer to its citizens, including support 
for renewable energy.  The Interreg programmes28 (co-financed by the ERDF) 
supports  in  particular  cross-border,  transnational  and  interregional  cooperation 
and investments in these areas. 

  The  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  supported  SMEs,  notably  in  the 
field of environmental impact assessment, circularity and interactions with other 
sectors (maritime spatial planning). 

Ocean  energy  and  other  renewable  energies  operate  in  a  highly  dynamic  policy  field. 
There are a number of recent developments in the policy and funding framework which 
will  further  influence  the  uptake  of  ocean  energy  in  a  close  future.  The  Offshore 
the  Blue  Economy 
Renewable  Energy  Strategy  gives  a  clear  continuity 

to 

20   The  requirement  for  Member  States  to  prepare  maritime  spatial  plans  is  captured  in  the  Maritime 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

2014/89/EU 

Planning 

Spatial 
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0089) 

Directive 

21    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0763  
22    https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2016.133.01.0025.01.ENG  
23    https://www.oceancofund.eu/  
24    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund/ner300_en  
25    https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/innovation-fund_en 
26 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/erdf/ 

27 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/funding/cohesion-fund/ 

28 https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/cooperation/european-territorial/ 

13 

 
 
 
                                                           
Communication on ocean energy, while also making the EU objectives more tangible for 
the sector. 

To evaluate specifically at the implementation of the Ocean Energy Communication, one 
must look at the indicators identified in the impact assessment (see Chapter 2 – Baseline). 
The overall implementation will be assessed on that basis, as summarised below and in a 
more detailed manner in Chapter 5. 

Installed capacity and number of projects planned 

In  the  impact  assessment,  for  the  development  up  to  2035  the  ‘business-as-usual’ 
scenario  predominantly  followed  the  reference  scenario  in  the  Commission’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. 

The baseline resulted in the assumption that ocean energy installed capacity would grow 
to  2.2  GW  in  2020  (and  4.3  GW  in  2035),  on  top  of  the  10  MW  installed  in  2014.  In 
2018, even though the installed capacity more than doubled to 24.7 MW compared to the 
10 MW  installed  in  2014  it  was  much  lower  than  the  expected  1.6  GW.  The  installed 
capacity is still low and comes only from a few projects. In addition, a lot of the installed 
capacity  is  from  demonstration  and  prototype  projects  which  will  be  at  one  point 
decommissioned29. 

However, it is important to note that the majority of the current installed capacity and the 
most advanced technologies have benefited from EU financial support. 

Magnitude of investment into the sector 

No specific assumptions were made for member state, local or private sector investments. 
Compared to the baseline, it was expected that additional policy interventions would lead 
to an increase in “political, investor and public awareness of the opportunities available 
[…] as will confidence in the sector”. In addition, other effects such as enhanced project 
bankability and investment  commitments from  the industry were expected. However, it 
was also acknowledged that the impacts of the actions on the above cannot be precisely 
quantified.  At  EU  level,  funding  was  provided  through  a  number  of  different  funds  as 
described in the table below.  

29   JRC (2019) JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311. 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 3.1: EU funding mechanisms  

Funding mechanisms  

Responsible entity 

Amount (in million 
EUR) 

Period 

Horizon 2020 

Of which Ocean ERA-
NET 

European Commission, 
DG Research and 
Innovation 

140 

7.6 

2014-2019 

2013-2019 

Of which EIT 
InnoEnergy 

Of which Enhanced 
European Innovation 
Council (EIC) pilot 

NER 300  

European Regional 
Development Fund 

Of which Interreg 
Europe 

European Maritime 
Fisheries Fund 

COSME 

N/A 

N/A 

European Commission, 
DG Climate Action 

European Commission, 
DG Regional Policy 

14830 

209.531 

72,5 

1.8 

N/A 

European Commission, 
DG Maritime Policy 

European Commission, 
DG for Internal Market, 
Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and 
SMEs 

Capital cost reduction 

N/A 

N/A 

2010-2019 

2007-2019 

2016-2022 

2017-2020 

N/A 

Capital  cost  reduction  is  an  important  objective  of  the  Blue  Energy  Communication. 
Given, that in  the ocean energy  sector there is  a lack of commercial scale applications, 
this  results  in  a  lack  of  reliable  data  to  analyse  the  cost  trends32.  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  JRC33)  about  the  development  of  capital  cost  of  ocean 

30 European Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report. 
31 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Development Report, JRC118296. 
32  European  Commission  (2019).  Study  on  impacts  of  EU  actions  supporting  the  development  of 

Renewable Energy technologies. 

33 By JRC-SETIS, the Information System for the European Strategic Energy Technology (SET)-Plan 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
energy as well as about the competitiveness of marine energy technologies based on the 
levelised cost of electricity (LCOE). 

The market uptake has, compared to the expectations at the time, rather stagnated. Thus, 
economies of scale did not play as big a role as expected in the impact assessment in the 
reduction  of  LCOE.34  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).”35 A recent review 
paper, underlined that the ocean energy sector is a sector where the development of novel 
technologies is underway to improve its sustainability and flexibility, and novel materials 
can play a central role in improving efficiency, resistance, reliability, extending lifespan, 
and making the fabrication, installation, and transport process easier36. 

No definitive conclusion was made in the impact assessment as to if when and how fast 
ocean  energy  can  be  cost-competitive  with  other  forms  of  energy  generation,  but  the 
impact assessment had already highlighted that the inclusion of ocean energy in the SET-
Plan  would  play  a  key  role  in  reducing  technologies  costs  and  in  ensuring  their 
availability and reliability. 

Number of collaborative undertakings 

No baseline for the number of collaborative undertakings could be developed; however, 
several  collaborative projects  on ocean energy were developed between 2014 and 2020 
with  the  support  of  EU  funding  via  Horizon  2020,  NER  300,  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  (in  particular  Interreg)  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
Fund.  

Amount of Member States’ financial support for ocean energy 

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

34  In  the  impact  assessment,  it  was  assumed  that  additional  supportive  action  (i.e.  the  Blue  Energy 
Communication and the Ocean Energy Roadmap) would stimulate market uptake, which would lead to 
accelerated  cost  reduction  through  learning  effects  and  economies  of  scale,  i.e.  lowering  the  capital 
cost and LCOE over time. 

35  European  Commission  (2019).  Study  on  impacts  of  EU  actions  supporting  the  development  of 

Renewable Energy technologies. 

36  Emanuele  Quaranta,  Peter  Davies,  Emerging  and  Innovative  Materials  for  Hydropower  Engineering 
Applications:  Turbines,  Bearings,  Sealing,  Dams  and  Waterways,  and  Ocean  Power,  Engineering, 
2021, ISSN 2095-8099 

16 

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

In fact, while the amount of funding for R&D at EU level increased  between 2014 and 
2020, the trends in private and national public investments are opposite. From 2010 until 
2016,  private  investments  in  the  sector  decreased,  mainly  due  to  the  failure  of  several 
ocean  energy  demonstrations  that  led  to  some  technology  developers’  insolvency.  The 
progress witnessed recently in the sector, however, indicates that confidence in the sector 
is  growing  again.  A  preliminary  estimate  based  on  patenting  activity  in  the  six  most 
active Member States indicates that, between 2017 and 2019, private R&D investments 
increased again. 

An overview of current Member State support is provided in Annex 4 of this report. 

Efficiency of planning and licensing procedures (including environmental impact) 

While no quantitative estimations were made for either of those indicators in the impact 
assessment, a qualitative analysis can be based on the different options proposed in the 
document. 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. 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 technologies37. 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 

The  MSP  Directive,  while  sector-neutral,  does  call  for  a  consideration  of  renewable 
energy when developing national MSPs. The exchange of best practices in the framework 
of  the  roundtable  was  also  identified  as  a  potentially  effective  first  step  to  tackle 
administrative barriers. A guidance document was presented in the impact assessment as 
a way to address the sector-specific issues related to MSP to relieve the institutional risk 
aversion stemming from limited familiarity with the sector. In fact, in the framework of 

37 SETIS magazine (2019) “Ocean energy” 

17 

 
 
 
                                                           
the MSP assistance mechanism, several specific guidance documents and information on 
tidal and wave energy were provided and made available via the MSP online platform38. 

4. 

METHOD 

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

Methods for gathering evidence 

The  approach  to  this  evaluation  consisted  in  assessing  the  relevance,  effectiveness, 
efficiency,  coherence  and  EU  added  value  of  the  Communication  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. 

An evaluation matrix (Annex 3) was prepared based on the evaluation  criteria. Various 
data  sources  have  been  used  and  a  substantial  amount  of  online  research  has  been 
conducted  to  gather  stakeholder  views  in  a  time  where  meeting  face-to-face  was  either 
difficult or impossible due to the COVID-19 crisis.  

In the framework of the supporting study to this evaluation39, interviews were carried out 
with  public  sector  actors  (including  at  EU,  regional  and  national  levels),  private  sector 
actors and research institutions to gather their insights into several aspects of this study. 

A  total  of  25  interviews  were  conducted  and  tailored  interview  questionnaires  were 
developed for the different stakeholder groups.  

On 27th August 2020, the European Commission launched a public consultation to gather 
the views of the broader stakeholder community on the Ocean Energy Communication, 
and  to  take  stock  of  ocean  energy  developments  in  Europe.  The  public  consultation 
remained open for responses from all EU citizens for 15 weeks, until 10th of December 
2020. 

The  results  from  the  interviews  and  survey  were  analysed.  The  detailed  analysis  is 
presented in Annex 2 to this report. 

Limitations and robustness of the consultations 

38   https://www.msp-platform.eu/sector-information/tidal-and-wave 

39 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5bb8a1f6-0ace-11ec-adb1-01aa75ed71a1 

18 

 
 
 
                                                           
Difficulties  were  encountered  in  generating  a  high  response  rate  to  the  public 
consultation. For example, the majority of respondents provided only 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.  So,  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  who replied to the 
public consultation are for the most part “expert” stakeholders, i.e. directly involved with 
or  within  the  sector,  and  very  knowledgeable  on  ocean  energy  technologies  as  can  be 
seen from their answers to the questionnaire. As such they provided “expert” opinion and 
insights on the sector. The fact that 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.  

Limitations and robustness of the method 

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

  The Blue Energy Communication and the Ocean Energy Roadmap are embedded 
in  well-defined  policy  frameworks,  most  notably  of  research  and  innovation 
policy, as well as renewable energy policy. The effects of the policy interventions 
are thus difficult to separate from the effects of the wider policy framework. 

  The  Covid-19  crisis  arose  in  the  middle  of  this  evaluation,  making  face-to-face 
stakeholder  consultation  almost  impossible  and  creating  delays,  notably  in  the 
publication of the public consultation.  

  The  public  consultation  partly  ran  in  parallel  to  another  initiative  in  the  same 
policy field, the EU Strategy on Offshore Renewable Energy40. There was a risk 
that stakeholders would confuse the two parallel initiatives. 

Some  mitigation  measures  were  put  in  place  to  limit  the  detrimental  consequences  of 
these limitations: 

  Results are presented in a two-layer fashion: evidence is presented for effects that 
can be clearly linked to the Roadmap and the Communication and effects due to 
the wider framework of research, innovation and renewable energy policies. 

40 https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/renewable-energy/eu-strategy-offshore-renewable-energy_en 

19 

 
 
 
                                                           
  An increased amount of advertisement though social media accounts and reaching 

out to relevant umbrella organisations and other multipliers was performed. 

 

In  the  communication  on  the  public  consultation,  the  parallel  initiative  (EU 
Strategy  on  Offshore  Renewable  Energy)  was  clearly  mentioned  and  the 
differences between the two explained, to avoid confusion. 

5. 

ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

5.1 Relevance 

5.1.1 To what extent have the objectives of the intervention proven to be 
appropriate for responding to the needs/bottlenecks identified in the impact 
assessment? 

The Blue Energy Communication aims to address the remaining challenges faced by the 
ocean energy sector in 2014, as identified in the impact assessment: 

  Technology costs are currently high and access to finance is difficult. Most of the 
existing technologies still need to demonstrate their reliability and survivability in 
the marine environment. 

  Expanding  and  strengthening  the  EU's  transmission  grid  infrastructure, 
offshore but also on land and across borders, is necessary to accommodate future 
volumes of ocean energy and transport it to centres of demand. 

  Complex  licensing  and  consenting  procedures  can  delay  projects  and  raise 

costs. 

  More  research  and  a  better  exchange  of  information  on  the  environmental 
impacts  will  be  required  to  understand  and  mitigate  any  adverse  effects  ocean 
energy installations may have on marine ecosystems. 

  More grant and revenue support schemes from Member States are needed. 

The  collected  evidence  suggests  that  the  objectives  identified  in  the  Blue  Energy 
Communication and Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap were appropriate to respond to the 
needs of the sector as identified in the impact assessment.  

While  none  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  during  the  study  were  able  to  refer  to  the 
specific objectives of the Communication 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  Communication  itself,  which 
indicated  that  the  sector  already  counted  on  a  well-developed  policy  framework, 

20 

 
 
 
constituted by a number of provisions that facilitate the development of renewables and, 
in particular, the development of ocean energy technologies. 

The  Blue  Energy  Communication  and  Roadmap  contained  adequate  elements  to  guide 
the sector in identifying the work streams where its resources should focus on. This was 
particularly useful for national and regional/local authorities and private actors aiming to 
develop  their  own  strategies  or  business  case  for  ocean  energy,  according  to  several 
stakeholders. 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  most  stakeholders  consulted.  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 evidence41. 

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

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

  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. 

5.1.2  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 Communication and Roadmap remain relevant to date, notwithstanding 
the  evolution  of  the  broader  framework  on  EU  energy,  climate,  maritime  and  R&I 

41 European Commission (2017): “Study on lessons for Ocean energy”  

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
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 evidence42. In particular, the first annual review of Ocean SET, as well as 
other  sources43  highlight  that  progress  relating  to  finance  and  administrative  or 
environmental  actions  is  still  limited.  Stakeholders  also  specifically  confirmed  that  the 
objective of enhancing synergies with other industries remains relevant44. Notably, it was 
indicated  by  a  small  part  of  the  stakeholders  consulted  that  the  Communication  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: 

  The scaling-up of more mature renewable energy technologies e.g. offshore wind, 
“outcompeting”  ocean  energy  technologies  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; 

initial  expectations, 

  Limited  support  provided  by  Member  States  and  private  investors  compared  to 
the 
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 developers45; 

requiring  additional  strategies 

to  ensure 

  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; 

  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; 

42  European  Commission  (2017):  “Study  on  lessons  for  Ocean  energy”;  Temporary  Working  Group  on 
Ocean energy (2018): “SET-Plan Ocean energy – Implementation Plan”; JRC (2019): “Ocean energy 
Technology Market Report”; OceanSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual Report 

43  Thethys  website  (2020)  “Regulatory  Frameworks  for  Marine  Renewable  Energy”  ;  Mendoza  et.  Al. 

(2019) “Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews” 

44 This is also reflected in  report  of the project PELAGOS,  co-financed by the ERDF under the Interreg 
Mediterranean programme 2014-2020, (2019): “Strategic research Agenda towards innovation in Blue 
energy””. 

45 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                           
  COVID-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-COVID-19  recovery  strategy.  It  is  important  to  note  that  while  a  few 
sources46  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. In fact, the political 
statements and initiatives adopted in 2020 showed rather the contrary. 

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.  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  out47  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  local 
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  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 

5.2.1 What progress has been made in implementing the activities of the 
intervention between 2014 and 2020? 

46 https://seabased.com/news-insights/ocean-energy-an-exciting-option-for-covid-19-recovery  
47 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311. 

23 

 
 
 
                                                           
The Communication 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.  

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.  

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 work streams for technology, finance and environment and consenting, 
each  with  a  Steering  Committee  and  a  Chair  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.  

As  foreseen,  the  Forum  adopted  the  Ocean  Energy  Strategic  Roadmap48  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  Commission49.  The  Roadmap  established  four  key  action  areas  for  the 
development  of  ocean  energy,  to  be  implemented  jointly  by  the  EU  and  National 
Authorities.  According  to  the  evidence  collected,  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 Plans 1 and 4, although most of the work is ongoing. 

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.  

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. 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. Nevertheless, individual actions are taking place, 
both  from  the  EU  itself  and  its  Member  States.  The  following  initiatives  demonstrate 

48 Ocean Energy Forum (2016). Ocean Energy Strategic Roadmap 2016, building ocean energy for Europe; 
49  Temporary  Working  Group  Ocean  energy  (2018):  “SET-Plan  Ocean  energy  Implementation  Plan” 

https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/set_plan_ocean_implementation_plan.pdf 

24 

 
 
 
                                                           
progress  has  been  made  to  some  extent  in  the  establishment  of  long-term  financial 
programmes  that  can  be  used  to  invest  in  ocean  energy  projects  or  companies  after 
201450:  

  The European Commission has set up an investment platform called Blue Invest 
that will provide support of maritime-based industries, including ocean energy51; 
  The  European  Commission  established  the  InnovFin  EDP  facility52,  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; 

  Horizon  2020  and  the  recently  adopted  Horizon  Europe  programmes  have 
specific  calls  dedicated  to  wave  and  tidal  energy,  as  well  as  to  other  emerging 
technologies; 
InvestEU53  will  boost  investment,  innovation  and  job  creation  by  triggering  at 
least  EUR650  billion  in  additional  investments  thanks  to  the  EU  budgetary 
guarantee; 

 

  Member States’ have set up own initiatives such as France’s Bpifrance54. 

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.  Reportedly55,  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.  

Phase 2 (2017-2020) 

50 OceanSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual Report.  
51 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/en/frontpage/1451 
52  InnovFin  Energy  Demonstration  Projects  provides  loans,  loan  guarantees  or  equity-type  financing 
typically  between  EUR  7.5  million  and  EUR  75  million.  https://www.eib.org/en/products/mandates-
partnerships/innovfin/products/energy-demo-projects.htm  

53 https://europa.eu/investeu 
54 https://www.bpifrance.fr/Qui-sommes-nous/Notre-mission  
55 Including stakeholder opinion and OceanSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual Report.  

25 

 
 
 
                                                           
the 
that 
The  evidence  collected  demonstrates 
implementation  of  phase  2  of  the  action  framework  established  by  the  Blue  Energy 
Communication, for what concerns wave and tidal energy.  

limited  progress  was  made 

in 

The  Communication  suggested  that  a  European  Industrial  Initiative  (EII)  would  be 
created  as  a  public-private  partnership  to  bring  together  ocean  energy  industry, 
researchers, Member States and the Commission to set out and achieve clear and shared 
objectives for the sector.  

Even if no specific EII for ocean energy could be set up by the time of this evaluation, 
the Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy  adopted on 21 November 2020 states that the 
Commission will enhance the Clean Energy Industrial Forum on Renewables, established 
by  the  ‘Clean  energy  for  all  Europeans’  package,  to  bring  together  industry  leaders, 
industrial  clusters,  companies  and  service  providers,  TSOs,  investors,  the  civil  society, 
the research community and expand it to include national and regional/local authorities. 
Within  the  Forum,  a  dedicated  working  group  will  be  set  up  on  offshore  renewable 
energy  to  identify  and  propose  solutions  to  barriers  to  the  rapid  scale  up  of  a  pan-
European offshore  renewable energy supply  chain,  to  facilitate cooperation and to  pool 
expertise  between  offshore  energy  technologies  and  across  the  different  renewable 
energy  supply  chains,  in  compliance  with  competition  rules.  The  Offshore  Renewable 
Energy Working Group will help track progress and advance work on the action points in 
this strategy. The Blue Energy Communication represented a strong basis and argument 
to include the ocean energy sector in the above-mentioned intitiatives. 

Moreover, the Communication 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”.  

In  2019,  the  European  Commission  published  the  “Guidance  on  Energy  Transmission 
Infrastructure and EU nature legislation”56, 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 

56 European Commission (2019) Guidance on energy transmission infrastructure and EU nature legislation. 
:  https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/82e2011b-be3e-11e9-9d01-

Available  at 
01aa75ed71a1  

26 

 
 
 
                                                           
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 inclusion of this chapter was steered 
by  the  existence  of  the  Blue  Energy  Communication  and  Roadmap.  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.  

In 201757 and 201958, the European Commission published two calls on “Environmental 
monitoring of wave and tidal devices” under the EMFF. Following the publication of the 
2017  call  for  proposals,  the  Sea  Wave  project59  and  the  WESE  Project60  were 
cumulatively  funded  with  EUR  1.5  million  from  the  EMFF  and  launched  in  October-
November  2018.  Both  projects  are  under  way  and  will  run  until  the  end  of  2021.  The 
2019  call  gave  light  to  the  SafeWAVE  project61,  started  in  October  2020  and  running 
until  2023.  These  projects  will  contribute  to  lowering  cost  and  time  for  permitting  of 
ocean energy commercial projects. 

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

The combined installed capacity of ocean energy devices in 2014 in Europe was 10 MW 
(including  UK  capacity)62.  At  the  end  of  2018,  this  amounted  to  24.7  MW63.  Evidence 
collected  provides  data  mostly  regarding  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  of  tidal 
energy quadrupled (from 4.6 MW to  20 MW)64. 11.8 MW of the tidal  energy installed 
capacity are located in the United Kingdom65. Overall, 27.7 MW of tidal stream and 11.8 
MW of wave energy were installed in Europe since 201066, but a significant portion of 
this  installed  capacity  was  decommissioned  at  the  end  of  their  demonstration  phase.  In 

57 Call for proposals: Environmental monitoring of wave and tidal devices (2017)  
58 Call for proposals: Ocean monitoring (2019)  
59http://www.emec.org.uk/projects/ocean-energy-projects/environmental-monitoring/sea-wave-strategic-

environmental-assessment-of-wave-energy-technologies/  

60  http://wese-project.eu/  
61 http://www.safewave-project.eu 
62 European Commission (2014) Impact Assessment accompanying the Communication on Ocean energy 
63 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311. 
64 JRC (2019) Market Study Report; Ocean Energy Europe (2020) Key trends and statistics 2019 reports 
that in 2019, the installed capacity in EU waters amounted to 10.4 MW for tidal energy and 1.5 MW 
for wave energy. 

65 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311. 
66 Ocean Energy Europe (2020) Key trends and statistics 2019 

27 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
particular,  according  to  recently  collected  data67,  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.  

Ocean  Thermal  Energy  Conversion  (OTEC)  is  being  developed  in  La  Réunion  for 
heating  and  cooling  of  buildings  (approximately  15  kW  of  installed  capacity).  Salinity 
gradient  is  being  developed  in  the  Netherlands,  with  the  installed  capacity  at  the 
REDSTACK  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 EU publications and in the literature in general. 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 is limited or even non-existing.  

While  there  is  no  direct  evidence  that  the  (small)  increase  of  ocean  energy’s  installed 
capacity is due to the policy intervention object of this study, it is important to note that 
most of the installed capacity within EU waters received EU funding68, 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. 

The total R&I expenditure on wave and tidal in the EU was EUR 3.84 billion from 2007 
to  2019,  with  EUR  2.74  billion  coming  from  private  sources  and  EUR  436  million 
coming  from  national  R&I  programmes69  (see  figure  5.2).  In  this  context,  the  EU 
contribution  from  R&I  funds  was  around  650  million  EUR.  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.  

67 ETIPOcean (2020) Strategic Research And Innovation Agenda For Ocean Energy  
68 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311 
69 European Commission (2020) Report on progress of clean energy competitiveness. COM(2020)953 

28 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5.2: Private and EU R&D expenditure on Wave and tidal energy, EUR million 

Given the current status of the sector, a very limited number of projects operate thanks to 
commercial  revenues  and  to  Power  Purchase  Agreements  (PPAs)  with  utilities.  The 
challenge facing the ocean energy sector is identifying ways to support the deployment of 
wave  and  tidal  energy  farms  through  innovative  support  schemes.  Until  revenues  are 
available,  most  of  the  companies  are  going  forward  thanks  to  a  mix  of  grants,  public 
funds, private equity and Venture Capital. 

The  Communication  and  Roadmap  helped  steer  internal  policy  dynamics  within  the 
European Commission and channel  considerable funding from EU mechanisms such as 
Horizon 2020, ERDF (including Interreg) and NER300 in the direction of ocean energy. 
EU  support  can  be  key  to  incentivise  further  national-level  public  and  private-sector 
funding to de-risk ocean energy investment, to promote further testing and to reduce the 
costs  and  bridge  the  gap  between  demonstration  and  deployment.  On  average,  EUR  1 
billion of public funding (EU and national) leveraged EUR 2.9 billion of private-sector 
investment  over  this  period.  In  the  Offshore  Renewable  Energy  Strategy,  the 
Commission  committed  to  work  with  Member  States  and  regions,  including  islands,  to 
make  use  of  available  funds  in  a  coordinated  manner  for  ocean  energy  technologies  in 
order to achieve a total capacity of 100 MW across the EU by 2025 and around 1 GW by 
2030. 

Member States spent EUR 463 million in the period 2007-201970. 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 

70 European Commission (2020) Report on progress of clean energy competitiveness. COM(2020)953 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
cases. An overview of the main support policies by Member State, including local ones, 
is presented in Annex 4.  

Aside of 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  are available in  the Netherlands,  Ireland, Portugal,  Spain,  Denmark, 
Belgium, Sweden and France71.  

The  capital  expenditure  (CAPEX)  costs  of  ocean  energy  are  on  a  decreasing  trend,  but 
the  costs  of  ocean  energy  are  still  above  the  cost  of  many  other  renewable  energy 
sources72. Cost reduction has been achieved at a faster pace than expected for tidal stream 
technologies73. Recent estimates on the current levelised cost of energy (LCOE) of ocean 
energy  report  a  LCOE  of  400  EUR/MWh  for  tidal  energy,  and  of  560  EUR/MWh  for 
wave energy74. Although there has been a reduction in the LCOE of ocean energy since 
2014, by 40% for tidal stream in three years alone according to official sources75 and by 
30-50%  for  single  wave  energy  devices76,  the  development  of  ocean  energy  is  still 
associated  with both  high  CAPEX and high operational  expenditure (OPEX)77, and the 
sector struggles with creating a viable market for itself78.  

5.2.3  To  what  extent  has  the  development  of  ocean  energy  sector  contributed  to 

job creation, economic growth or EU’s sustainability objectives since 2014 

In terms of employment, 2,250 jobs were generated by the wave and tidal sector in 2019, 
with  over  430  companies  being  involved  in  different  stages  of  the  supply  chain  in  the 
EU79. Other sources80 inform that TRL7+ projects in wave energy have created 121 jobs 
in 2018, and those in tidal energy have created 78 jobs. The figure below provides and 
overview of the different types of jobs created by the ocean energy sector.  

71  OES  (2019)  Annual  Report.  Available  at  :  https://www.etipocean.eu/assets/Uploads/oes-annual-report-

2019.pdf 

72 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311. 
73 Davide Magagna -JRC (2020) Ocean Energy in Europe Analysis of the state of play of the Ocean Energy 

sector in Europe and implications moving forward 

74 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Development Report, JRC118296. 
75 European Commission (2020) EU strategy on offshore renewable energy 
76 ETIPocean (2020) Strategic Research And Innovation Agenda For Ocean Energy 
77 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Development Report, JRC118296. 
78 European Commission (2020) Report on progress of clean energy competitiveness  
79 European Commission (2020). The EU Blue Economy Report. 2020 
80 OceanSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual Report.  

30 

 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5.2.1 Source: JRC, updated Dec 2017 

According to a European Commission’s market study published in 2018, the cumulative 
gross value added generated from deployed ocean energy by 2030  could  be up to EUR 
5.8 billion and it is projected that up to 25,000 yearly FTEs could be generated in Europe 
(EU27 and UK)81.  Ocean Energy Europe has estimated that ocean energy could create up 
to  400,000 FTE by 2050  (including  UK)82. Nevertheless,  it  shall  be  noted  that  the  
current  development  trajectory  and current employment level are lower than what was 
modelled in the pessimistic scenario of the market study. 

Generally, the 2021 outlook for the sector is positive despite the Covid-19 crisis and the 
departure of the UK (technology leader) from the EU. In 2020, several new devices were 
installed  in  Europe,  no  project  got  cancelled  and  significant  policy  developments 
occurred  at  EU  and  Member  States’  level.  The  current  pipeline  comprises  projects 
currently under development, and of industrial ambitions which should reach the target of 
100MW by 2025 set in the Offshore Renewable Energy Strategy. This pipeline is in line 
with  market  projections  released  by  DG  MARE  in  2018  and  with  the  International 
Energy  Agency  modelling  scenario  of  201983  in  the  most  optimistic  development 
scenarios  for  ocean  energy.  The  positive  signal  given  by  the  EU  Offshore  Renewable 
Energy  Strategy,  as  well  as  the  ambitious  targets  of  this  communication,  are  seen  as  a 
very positive push by the sector itself and should encourage Member States and investors 
to participate actively in those developments. 

81 European Commission (2018) Market study on Ocean Energy 
82 Ocean Energy Europe (2021) Ocean Energy Key trends and statistics 2020. 
83 IEA (2019) World Energy Outlook 2019. 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
5.2.4  To what extent have the objectives of the intervention been met so far? 

One  third  of  the  stakeholders  interviewed  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.  

Overall,  the  sector  has  made  significant  steps  forward  in  terms  of  technological 
development  over  the  past  five  years84,  although  this  progress  has  been  described  as 
“limited”  or  “slow”  compared  to  original  expectations85.  In  fact,  the  Blue  Energy 
Communication  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  2  GW86,87  or  3.6  GW88  by  2020.  Different 
stakeholders  mentioned  that  the  Communication  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 the uptake 
of  tidal  energy  has  been  notable,  in  particular  since  201789.  Tidal  technologies  can  be 
considered  as being  at  pre-commercial stage, with a number of projects  and prototypes 
being  deployed  across  Europe90  (with  TRL  of  most  devices  being  around  6-8)91.  The 
progress made by tidal energy has been judged superior to the expectations, in particular 
in terms of the reliability of the devices, electricity generation (over 60 GW since 2016) 
and  designe  convergence,  as  well  as  their  ability  to  provide  stable  input  to  the  grid92. 
Wave  energy  technologies  appear  to  still  be  at  the  R&I  stage  (with  most  of  the 
approaches  being  at  TRL  6-7)93,  and  are  generally  behind  in  terms  of  performance,  in 
particular when electricity generation is taken into account94. In both cases, technological 
maturity  varies  amongst  developers.  For  tidal  energy,  there  is  significant  potential  in 
France,  Ireland  and  Spain,  and  localised  potential  in  other  Member  States.  For  wave 
energy,  high  potential  is  to  be  found  in  the  Atlantic,  localised  potential  in  North  Sea, 
Baltic, Mediterranean, and Black Sea. 

84 European Commission (2020) Report on progress of clean energy competitiveness. Retrieved from:  
85 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Market Report, JRC118311. 
86 European Renewable Energy Council (2010) Mapping Renewable Energy Pathways towards 2020.  
87  Davide  Magagna,  Andreas  Uihlein  (2015)  Ocean  energy  development  in  Europe:  Current  status  and 

future perspectives.  

88 Position Paper - Towards European industrial leadership in Ocean Energy in 2020 
89 JRC (2019): “Ocean energy supply chain” 
90 European Commission (2020) Report on progress of clean energy competitiveness.  
91 ETIPOcean (2020) Strategic Research And Innovation Agenda For Ocean Energy 
92 European Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2021 
93 European Commission (2020) Report on progress of clean energy competitiveness.  
94 European Commission (2020) Blue Economy Report 2020  

32 

 
 
 
                                                           
The EU support and the Communication also enabled the creation of platforms aiming to 
facilitate the development of a Europe-wide coordinated, unified and streamlined ocean 
energy sector95. Several initiatives favouring the encounter of stakeholders in the sector 
have  been  undertaken  since  before  2014.  The  majority  of  the  expert  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. In addition, several events bringing 
ocean  energy  stakeholders  together  are  also  regularly  organised  with  EU  support  and 
participation  since  2014,  such  as  European  Wave  and  Tidal  Energy  Conference96,97, 
WaveEC  Annual  Seminar98,  Marine  Energy  Week99,  Ocean  Energy  Europe  Annual 
Event100. 

Access  to  finance  is  still  an  issue  in  the  context  of  ocean  energy  and  this  affects  the 
development  of  the  sector101  102  103.  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 the private sector and 
Member  States.  Moreover,  access  to  funding  is  deemed  particularly  difficult  for  OTEC 
and salinity gradient technology developers by the stakeholders consulted. 

While different EU funding mechanisms are available for ocean energy development (see 
chapter  on  effectiveness),  difficulties  in  accessing  these  funds  persist,  according  to  the 
stakeholders  consulted.  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 devices104. 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,  but in the absence of dedicated revenue 
support  by  Member  States,  bankability  is  particularly  difficult  to  attain.  A  part  of  the 
stakeholders  consulted  identified  complicated  application  procedures  as  a  barrier  for 
developers. This can be explained by the fact that technology developers are in large part 
SMEs,  that  often  find  it  challenging  to  gather  the  resources  necessary  to  navigate  the 
funding landscape. 

95 Trinomics  (2019)  “Study  on  impacts  of  EU  actions  supporting  the  development  of  Renewable  Energy 

technologies” 
96 https://ewtec.org/  
97 https://www.offshore-energy.biz/  
98 http://www.wavec.org/en/events/seminar-2020  
99 https://wmw.bilbaoexhibitioncentre.com/en/meeting/marine-energy-week/   
100 https://www.oceanenergy-europe.eu/annual-event/oee2020/ 
101 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Development Report, JRC118296. 
102 European Commission (2017): “Study on lessons for ocean energy development 
103 OceanSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual Report.  
104 JRC (2019) Ocean Energy: Technology Development Report, JRC118296. 

33 

 
 
 
                                                           
To  date,  five  EU  Member  States  provide  revenue  support  for  ocean  energy  (wave  and 
tidal), namely the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Sweden and France. Notably, France is 
the only country that ring-fences funding for ocean energy. In all other countries, ocean 
energy  has  to  “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.”105    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. The scarcity of clear national strategies and targets for ocean 
energy deployment was also underlined by stakeholders as a barrier for the sector106. 

It is important to note that the inclusion of specific targets for ocean energy production in 
the  national  climate  and  energy  plans  (NECPs)  should  bring  an  additional  push  to  the 
sector and is the logical follow up to the offshore renewable energy strategy. While most 
member states only set a target for offshore renewables (some only set a target for wind 
offshore and onshore mixed), Portugal and Ireland already set targets for ocean energy: 7 
and 30 MW by 2030, respectively.  

The  evidence  collected  suggests  that,  since  the  adoption  of  the  Blue  Energy 
Communication, there has been an increase in the number of EU-funded studies that have 
collected  best  practices  and  lessons  learned  in  support  of  the  ocean  energy  sector, 
including  in  relation  to  consenting  processes107,108,109,110.  The  extent  to  which  these 
lessons learned reach authorities or entities involved in consenting processes is, however, 
still unclear, and there seems to be 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.  

The  Blue  Energy  Communication  has  influenced  developments  on  ocean  energy  under 
other policies, notably the Renewable Energy Directive II (currently under revision), the 
EU  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  and  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive 
(undergoing  review),  which  in  turn  supported  some  objectives  of  the  Communication 
concerning permitting, planning and monitoring. 

105   OceanSET (2020) OceanSET First Annual Report.  
106   This  is  also  supported  by  documentary  evidence  such  as  the:  OceanSET  (2020)  OceanSET  First 

Annual Report and the JRC (2019) Technology development report 

107   Ecorys  and  Fraunhofer  (2017)  Study  on  lessons  for  Ocean  Energy  Development.  Final  Report.  A 

Report for DG for Research and Innovation.  

108   Risk Based Consenting of Offshore Renewable Energy Projects (RiCORE) (2015 – 2016)  
109   Multi-Use in European Seas (MUSES) project (2016-2018) 
110   ETIP Ocean (2019) Powering Homes Today, Powering Nations Tomorrow.  

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
environmental status.  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. 

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 its effects (e.g. extreme weather 
events)  as  well  as  an  increased  interest  in  renewable  energies,  including  thanks  to 
developments  such  as  the  adoption  of  the  Paris  Agreement111  and  European  Green 
Deal112; 

 

  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  provision  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; 

111   Paris Agreement (2015). 
112   COM/2019/640 final 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Excessive  focus  on  the  levelised  cost  of  energy  (LCOE)  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. 

5.3 

Efficiency 

5.3.1 To what extent are the costs of implementing the intervention justified, given 
the benefits it has achieved? 

The  Blue  Energy  Communication  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 Communication). 

The European Commission 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, now CINEA). 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  Committee  meetings, 
workshops and conferences.  

After the publication of the Roadmap, EUR 20.7 million were reserved for a 2018 call for 
proposals issued under Horizon 2020 and titled ‘European Pre-Commercial Procurement 
Programme for Wave Energy Research & Development’  (contributing to Action Plan 1). 
In  addition,  3  million  EUR  were  invested  for  the  co-funding,  via  the  EMFF,  of  Sea 
Wave, WESE and SafeWAVE project (contributing to the Action Plan). 

The  second  action  of  the  Second  phase  consisted  in  the  development  of  sector-specific 
guidelines for the implementation of relevant EU legislation. The Communication did not 
specify  which  actor  should  undertake  the  development  of  these  guidelines,  but  some 
guidelines and recommendations have been produced by the European Commission with 

36 

 
 
 
regards to the application of the EU Nature legislation113 and of the MSP Directive114 of 
relevance  for  ocean  energy.  The  EU  contribution  to  the  MUSES  project115,  amounts to 
EUR 2 million. It produced recommendations on the MSP processes although only part 
of the deliverables of the projects bears 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  Communication  and  Roadmap,  especially  for  what  concerns  Member 
States  and  the  private  sector.  As  stated  in  previous  sections  of  the  report,  the  two 
documents assessed here 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 Commission 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 Communication 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,  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. 

5.2.5  What factors have influenced efficiency (positively or negatively), how and to 

what extent? 

In  the  absence  of  clear  indicators  and  targets,  it  is  not  possible  to  clearly  identify  the 
direct  impacts  of  those  actions  on  the  development  of  the  sector  and  the  general 
efficiency  of  the  policy.  It  is  clear  that  the  uptake  of  ocean  energy  and  other  tangible 
benefits  (employment,  LCOE  reduction,  etc.)  have  not  developed  as  assumed  in  the 
impact assessment and are limited so far. However, there are intangible benefits such as 
the  signal  of  the  European  Commission  supporting  specifically  this  sector  for  the  first 
time.  Recent  policy  developments  also  went  in  that  sense:  the  publication  by  the 
Commission of the Offshore Renewable Energy  Strategy gave a very positive signal to 
increased  support.  The 
the sector by setting clear targets  
December 2020 Council conclusions on offshore renewables also underlined the need to 
support  further  a  wide  array  of  technologies  ranging  from  bottom-fixed  and  floating 
offshore wind and solar energy to tidal energy, geothermal energy and biomass. 

and  planning  for  an 

113  Guidance 

on 

Energy 

Transmission 

Infrastructure 

and 

EU 

nature 

legislation. 

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/82e2011b-be3e-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1  

114   https://www.msp-

platform.eu/sites/default/files/sector/pdf/mspforbluegrowth_sectorfiche_tidalwave.pdf 

115   https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/727451/it  

37 

 
 
 
                                                           
5.4 

Coherence 

5.4.1 To what extent are the components of the intervention coherent internally; are 
there any overlaps, inconsistencies, or incoherencies? 

Overall,  the  Communication  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. 

There  is  little  knowledge  about  the  coherence  of  the  Blue  Energy  Communication  and 
Roadmap with the wider EU policy framework, amongst stakeholders. 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 Communication and Roadmap and regional policies, moderate 
to  little  coherence  seems  to  exist  between  the  objectives  of  the  Communication  and 
Roadmap and the national policies of EU Member States. 

With  the  adoption  of  the  Green  Deal  and  the  Offshore  Renewable  Energy  Strategy,  it 
appears that the Blue Energy Communication came as a precursor for the new ambitions 
set by the EU. 

5.4.2 To what extent is the intervention coherent with wider EU policy and 
initiatives? 

The Integrated Maritime Policy as overarching policy framework makes clear reference 
to  the  importance  of  marine-based  energy  infrastructures.  The  Communication  and 
Roadmap refine this by putting a specific focus on Ocean Energy. 

In  addition,  most  of  the  actions  inscribed  in  the  Roadmap  were  transposed  in  the  SET 
Plan  Implementation  Plan116,  there  is  substantial  alignment  between  these  two 
documents, which were the centre pieces of the EU action to support the uptake of ocean 
energy until the adoption of the EU offshore renewable energy strategy. 

There are a number of EU funds open to financing Ocean Energy development, including 
Horizon  2020/Horizon  Europe  funding,  the  NER300  programme  and  its  successor,  the 
Innovation Fund, as well as the ERDF (in particular Interreg) funding. 

In general, it is clear that the goal of increasing the uptake of ocean energy is in line with 
the wider energy and climate policy targets. Ocean energy is a renewable energy source 

116 SET-Plan: Ocean Energy Implementation Plan. 

https://setis.ec.europa.eu/system/files/set_plan_ocean_implementation_plan.pdf  

38 

 
 
 
                                                           
with high potential which 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 Climate Plans 
compared to 2010117. 

Additionally, 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 
Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) may be considered  inappropriate for the assessment 
of an emerging technology such as ocean energy. Generally, EU competition policy and 
technology neutrality principle establish that 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 To what extent is the intervention coherent with other relevant EU (and 
national/regional/local initiatives) support schemes (e.g. funding, sectorial policies), 
in particular linked to renewables and innovation? 

The  intervention  had  set  high  ambitions  ahead  of  the  recent  political  developments 
(notably the European Green Deal) to tackle the climate emergency. Nevertheless, some 
of  the  stakeholders  consulted  mentioned  that  the  wider  EU  policy  framework  in  which 
ocean  energy  is  situated  might  present  some  contradictions:  they  underlined  that  the 
communicated  ambition  on  renewables  and  climate  neutrality  targets  is  not  always 
matched by the way the funds are allocated. They mentioned, for example, the substantial 
funding  still  disbursed  to  the  fossil  fuel  industry  instead  of  being  channelled  to 
renewables.  

The evidence collected so far also 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, 
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 

117   European Commission (2020) Report on progress of clean energy competitiveness.  

39 

 
 
 
                                                           
Member States (as outlined in Annex 4) often appear to me more aligned with the overall 
EU intervention.  

5.5 

EU added value 

5.5.1  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/local levels?  

There is a widespread agreement among the stakeholders consulted that the Blue Energy 
Communication 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. Overall, 
it appears that these tools served the sector in different ways: 

- It provided a momentum and gave a common direction; 

- It increased the cross-country collaboration among actors and Member States; 

- It increased the confidence of private investors compared to the baseline scenario;  

-  It  steered  policy  discussions  and  dynamic  towards  the  provision  of  support  for  ocean 
energy.  

It is worth noting that when the overall EU intervention is taken into consideration (e.g. 
including  H2020  or  ERDF  (in  particular  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 support 
seems to confirm this opinion. 

5.2.6  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 

40 

 
 
 
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.  

6. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Blue  Energy  Communication  and  Roadmap  (2nd  action  from  the  Communication) 
were overall appropriate tools to address the needs and challenges faced by the sector in 
2014.  These  documents  also  created  a  momentum  and  provided  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 
speed of the 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. For 
instance, remaining challenges include: 

  additional efforts to ensure that dedicated support is provided to ocean energy 
until they become competitive and stand on equal footing with other more 
advanced technologies, such as fixed offshore wind; 

  adapting the financing to the new developments of the technologies (e.g. more 

focus on market pull mechanisms to stimulate commercialization); 

  exploiting emerging synergies with other industries; 
  avoiding that Brexit and the outbreak of COVID-19 have a negative impact on the 

development of the sector. 

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 actions 
set  out  in  the  Roadmap.  The  EU  successfully  implemented  the  actions  included  under 
Phase 1 of the Communication, by setting up the Ocean Energy  Forum  and supporting 
the  adoption  of  the  Ocean  Energy  Strategic  Roadmap.  For  what  concerns  the  actions 

41 

 
 
 
 
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 to the MSP Directive, but no European Industrial Initiative (EII) was set 
up by 2020. The Ocean SET-Plan adopted in 2018, however, addresses, at least partially, 
the needs identified in the impact assessment. In addition, while outside of the scope of 
this evaluation, it must be noted that the Clean Energy Industrial  Forum announced for 
2021  in  the  EU  offshore  renewable  energy  strategy  will  also  cover  the  ocean  energy 
sector and therefore can be consider as a sort of EII. 

The effectiveness of the EU intervention in support of the development of ocean energy 
has  been  affected  by  several  external  factors:  On  the  one  hand,  the  increased  societal 
awareness  on  climate  change  and  interest  in  renewable  energy,  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 
poor 
of 
understanding/awareness of ocean energy have had a negative impact on Member States’ 
and private investors’ willingness to support the sector.  

technologies, 

renewable 

somewhat 

as  well 

energy 

the 

as 

In terms of efficiency, the European Commission provided financial support for the setup 
of the Ocean Energy Forum and for the related development of the Roadmap. Moreover, 
funding through calls under Horizon 2020 and the EMFF helped to realise 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 some of those projects is 
still ongoing and the technology is still not fully mature, it was not possible to assess yet 
the benefits gained by investing in these initiatives. 

The Blue Energy Communication and Roadmap were internally coherent and in line with 
the wider EU policy framework, but a degree of inconsistency persists between the EU 
intervention on ocean energy and Member States’ strategies and activities in the sector. 
The  broad  EU  intervention  in  favour  of  ocean  energy  development  launched  together 
with the Blue Energy Communication established a common direction and ambition for 
the development of the sector. This ambition is not always reflected in national strategies, 
such  as  National  Energy  and  Climate  Plans,  which  could  be  interpreted  as  a  limited 
commitment  of  Member  States  to  further  develop  ocean  energy  technologies.  The 
offshore renewable energy strategy aims at addressing this inconsistency by setting clear 
targets at EU level and is therefore fully coherent with the Blue Energy Communication 
and the Roadmap. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Finally, the Blue Energy Communication and the Roadmap provided 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.  Nevertheless,  the  broader  EU  intervention,  in  particular  the  financial 
support provided, was crucial for the development  of the sector:  The EU holds  today a 
global leadership on ocean energy technologies thanks to the support provided by the EU 
and  its  Member  States.  The  withdrawal  of  EU  intervention  would  have  negative 
consequences  worldwide,  as  EU  technologies  and  know-how  are  exported  globally. 
Internal  coherence  was  ultimately  to  be  found  in  the  form  of  the  new  EU  offshore 
renewable energy strategy announced in the Green Deal. This strategy incorporates most 
of the concerns and remaining issues addressed by the 2014 Blue Energy Communication 
and can therefore be considered as the next generation policy on ocean energy. 

43 

 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

This evaluation is led by DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE). It was 
included as item PLAN/2019/6047 in the DECIDE/Agenda Planning database. 

  Organisation and timing 

The  evaluation  has  been  steered  by  DG  MARE  since  October  2019  under  the 
scrutiny of an inter-service  group  comprising of  representatives of DG  CLIMA, 
DG ENER, DG ENV, JRC, DG MARE, DG REGIO, DG RTD and SG. 
External  consultants  carried  out  an  evaluation  support  study  between  December 
2019 and January 2020. The Inter-service Group followed closely the drafting of 
the study and this SWD in four meetings during 2020 and 2021. 

  Exceptions to the better regulation guidelines 

None 

  Consultation of the RSB (if applicable) 

N/A 

  Evidence, sources and quality 

Support study 

The study "Support study for the evaluation of the development of ocean energy 
policies"  provided  substantial  support  for  the  Commission  Evaluation  of  the 
several  EU  policies  related  to  ocean  energy.  The  contract  was  signed  on  19 
December 2019. The contract was carried out by a consortium of experts led by 
Deloitte Consulting BV in consortium with Stichting Wageningen Research and 
Ramboll Management Consulting AS. The final report of the study was accepted 
on 30/04/2021. 

Stakeholder consultation 

Consulting  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  has  been  an  important  instrument  for 
gathering information, evidence, and validating data and preliminary findings, in 
the framework of this evaluation. (see Annex 2, Stakeholder consultation).  

Evidence from selected studies and documents 

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 and referenced 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.

44 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: SYNOPSIS REPORT OF THE STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

Overview of stakeholder consultation strategy 

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 Communication, 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.  

Targeted 
interviews 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Stakeholder 

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 

Public 
consultation 

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 Commission 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 Consultation on the EU Survey Portal were implemented:  

  Publication on DG MAREs website;  

45 

 
 
 
 
  Dissemination and reminders through social media accounts118; 
  Dissemination and reminders through targeted emails; 
  Snowballing with the support of key stakeholders119; 

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  Commission),  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 

118 DG MARE’s twitter account: https://twitter.com/eu_mare  

119 Ocean Energy Europe, ETIP Ocean. 

46 

 
 
                                                           
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  Corpower.  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  Communication  (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 Communication 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 Toolbox120 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). 

120 

Better 

Regulation 

Tool 

#54, 

page 

49. 

Available 

at: 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/better-regulation-toolbox-54_en_0.pdf  

47 

 
                                                           
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 
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. Canada) should 
be taken into consideration.  

technologies.  The 

importance 

to  further 

investigate 

these 

Relevance 

A part of the stakeholders (8 out of 11) agree that the objectives of the Communication 
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 
Communication, 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  Commission  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 Communication 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 

48 

 
by tidal energy, they suggest that ocean energy technologies are now “ready for larger-
scale  deployment”,  and  that  the  European  Commission  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 Communication. The views 
regarding the achievement  of the four operational  objectives of the Communication 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  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  Communication.  Close  to  half  of  the  stakeholders  believe  that 
improvements  have  taken  place  in  terms  of  stakeholder  collaboration,  technological 
convergence,  integration  of  offshore  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 

49 

 
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 Communication 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  Communication  and  Roadmap  and  regional 
policies,  moderate  to  little  coherence  seems  to  exist  between  the  objectives  of  the 
Communication 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 
Communication 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  improvement  of  the  monitoring  of 
environmental impacts and simplification of the application of environmental protection 

50 

 
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  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. 

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; 
  Closer 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 

51 

 
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. 

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  Corpower  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  have also 
been conducted where considered relevant  for other aspects  such as complex analytical 
problems,  definition  of  the  baseline  or  for  forming/testing  of  conclusions  and 
recommendations. 

52 

 
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  Commission 
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). 

Key results per evaluation question 

Relevance 

There  is  a  widespread  agreement  among  all  different  stakeholder  groups  that  the 
objectives and scope of the Communication 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 
Communication 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/local 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 Communication and 
the  Roadmap  were  not  sufficient  in  and  of  themselves,  but  that  they  were  only  ever 

53 

 
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 Communication 
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 Communication 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 
COVID-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 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  Communication,  and  this 
recalls the limited knowledge of stakeholders in general when it comes to the details of 
the  Communication  and Roadmap.  In  the  view  of  these  stakeholders,  the  first  phase  of 
activities included in the Communication took place, as the Forum was organised, and it 

54 

 
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  Communication,  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 Communication 
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.  

55 

 
  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  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; 
  COVID-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  Communication  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, ERDF (including 
Interreg),  EMFF  and  other  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  NER  300, 
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 Communication 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 Communication and Roadmap with the 
wider EU policy framework are mixed. 

56 

 
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: 

  Contradiction  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; 

  Contradiction 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; 

  Contradiction 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, 

57 

 
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  Communication 
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 Communication and the Roadmap had these not been published. 

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. Canada, USA, Japan, China – 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 OCEN  

58 

 
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 
to  provide  suggestions  and 
recommendations for the future of the EU support in the sector. Their suggestions can be 
summarised as follows:  

interviewed  were  also 

invited 

  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. 

59 

 
 
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION MATRIX 

Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: PC 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

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? 

e
c
n
a
v
e
l
e
R

1.1 To what extent were the 
specific and operational 
objectives of the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
appropriate to address 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 operational 
objectives of the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
appropriate to address 
infrastructure needs (e.g. 
grid planning, port facilities 
and vessels)? Has this 
changed over time and to 
what extent are they still 
appropriate? 

Qualitative indicators: 

There is evidence in the 

Paper, evaluations, reports etc. 
agree that the Blue Energy 
Communication and the 
Ocean Energy Roadmap 
were appropriate for 
supporting the uptake of 
ocean energy technologies 

Quantitative indicators: 

% of stakeholders agreeing that 

the Blue Energy 
Communication and the 
Ocean Energy Roadmap 
were appropriate for 
supporting the uptake of 
ocean energy technologies 

Qualitative indicators: 

Identified current needs within 
the EU per category of 
stakeholders (public; 
private; research 
community; citizens) 

literature that the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
were appropriate for 
supporting the uptake of 
ocean energy technologies 

Stakeholders agree that the 

objectives have been 
appropriate and relevant for 
supporting the uptake of 
ocean energy technologies 

There is evidence in the 

literature that the original 
objectives Blue Energy 
Communication and the 
Ocean Energy Roadmap 
correspond to the current 
needs of different 
stakeholders’ categories 

Stakeholders are able to identify 

their current needs 
Stakeholders agree that the 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

1.3 To what extent were the 
specific and operational 
objectives of the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
appropriate to address 
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 operational 
objectives of the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
appropriate to address 
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? 

2.1 To what extent do the 
objectives of the 
Communication and the 
Roadmap correspond to the 
current needs of the ocean 
energy sector in light of the 

EQ 2.  To what extent do the 
objectives of the 
intervention remain 
appropriate in the light of 
the evolution of the EU 
energy, climate, 

original objectives continue 
to correspond to their needs 

Identified changes in needs 

within the EU per category 
of stakeholders (public; 
private; research 
community; citizens) since 
2014 

Papers, evaluations, reports etc. 
agree that the original 
objectives of the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
still correspond to 
stakeholders’ needs 

Quantitative indicators: 

% of stakeholders agreeing that 

the Blue Energy 
Communication and the 
Ocean Energy Roadmap 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

maritime and R&I 
policies? 

evolution of EU energy, 
climate, maritime and R&I 
policies (e.g. new renewable 
energy targets etc.)? 

remain relevant policy 

  EU climate policy 
  EU maritime policy  
  EU R&I policies 

evolution 

EQ 3.  What progress has been 

3.1 What progress has been 

Qualitative indicators: 

made in implementing 
the activities of the 
intervention? 

Evidence on 

progress/achievement of 
actions 

Quantitative indicators: 

Actions and activities achieved in 

relation to the planned 
outputs  

made in implementing the 
Ocean Energy Forum? 

3.2 What progress has been 

made in implementing the 
Ocean Energy Strategic 
Roadmap? 

3.3 What progress has been 

made in implementing the 
European Industrial 
Initiative? 

3.4 What progress has been 

made in implementing the 
sector-specific guidelines? 

There 

in 

is  evidence 

the 
literature  that  actions  and 
recommendations 
have 
been achieved 

EQ 4.  What have been the 

4.1 How many new ocean 

Qualitative indicators: 

There is evidence in the 

quantitative and 
qualitative effects of the 
intervention? 

energy projects have been 
installed and deployed in 
Europe since 2014? 

s
s
e
n
e
v
i
t
c
e
f
f
E

Other papers, evaluations, 

reports etc. agree that the 
Blue Energy Communication 
and the Ocean Energy 
Roadmap contributed to the 
uptake of ocean energy 

Quantitative indicators: 

Number of projects deployed 

and planned compared to 
what could be expected in 
the baseline scenario 

literature that the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
have contributed to the 
uptake of ocean energy 
technologies 

Stakeholders agree that the 

objectives have been 
appropriate and relevant for 
supporting the uptake of 
ocean energy technologies 

62 

Literature review 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: PC 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

Installed capacity compared to 
what could be expected in 
the baseline scenario 

The intervention is found to have 

an effect (compared to the 
baseline) 

4.2 How much has been 

Investment into the sector 

invested in the ocean 
energy sector since 2014 
(both public and private 
investments)?   

4.3 How much have Member 

States supported the uptake 
of ocean energy since 2014 
(including revenue support 
schemes)? 

4.4 How much have the capital 
costs for the deployment of 
ocean energy been reduced 
since 2014? 

4.5 What is the extent of the 

investments in R&D for 
ocean energy since 2014 
(public and private)? 

compared to what could be 
expected in the baseline 
scenario 

Amount 

of  Member  State 
financial  support  for  ocean 
including 
energy, 
differentiated 
revenue 
support  schemes,  compared 
to  what  could  be  expected 
in the baseline scenario 

Capital cost reduction compared 

to what could be expected 
in the baseline scenario 

Capital 

cost 

reduction/R&D 
spending 
the 
over 
evaluation  period  compared 
to  what  could  be  expected 
in the baseline scenario 

4.6 To what extent has the 

development of the ocean 
energy sector contributed to 
job creation, economic 
growth or EU’s sustainability 

Extent to which the sector is 
contributing to the EU’s 
wider jobs, growth and 
sustainability objectives 
compared to what could be 
expected in the baseline 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

objectives since 2014? 

scenario 

Partly answered by EQ 4.1  

There is evidence in the 

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

5.1 To what extent has the 
uptake of ocean energy 
increased? 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: PC 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

literature that the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
reached their objectives 

Stakeholders agree that the Blue 
Energy Communication and 
the Ocean Energy Roadmap 
reached their objectives 

The intervention is found to have 

an effect (compared to the 
baseline) 

5.2 To what extent have the 

Qualitative indicators: 

stakeholders been brought 
together and coordinated 
their action to enhance 
technological innovation and 
competitiveness? (specific 
objective) 

Papers, evaluations, reports etc. 

agree that the Blue Energy 
Communication and the 
Ocean Energy Roadmap 
reached their objectives 

Quantitative indicators: 

% of stakeholders agreeing that 

the Blue Energy 
Communication and the 
Ocean Energy Roadmap 
reached their objectives 

5.3 To what extent has ocean 
energy’s access to finance 
been facilitated? (specific 
objective) 

and 

Papers,  evaluations,  reports  etc. 
agree  that  the  Blue  Energy 
Communication 
the 
Ocean  Energy  Roadmap 
improved  access  to  finance 
for technology developers 
%  of  stakeholders  agreeing  that 
Energy 
the 
Blue 
Communication 
the 
Ocean  Energy  Roadmap 
improved  access  to  finance 
for technology developers 

and 

5.4 To what extent have the 

administrative practices and 
environmental monitoring 

Proportion of the administrative 
cost compared to the total 
project costs compared to 

64 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

been improved? (specific 
objective) 

what could be expected in 
the baseline scenario 

5.5 To what extent has cost 

reduction being achieved via 
the consolidation of R&D 
activities? (operational 
objective) 

5.6 To what extent has the 

efficiency of the planning 
and licensing procedures 
been improved? (operational 
objective) 

Proportion  of  the  administrative 
cost  compared  to  the  total 
project  costs  compared  to 
what  could  be  expected  in 
the baseline scenario 

Lead  time  length  (i.e.  the  total 
time  taken  to  get  building 
consent  and grid  connection 
permits)  compared  to  what 
could  be  expected  in  the 
baseline scenario 

5.7 To what extent has the 
synergy with other 
industries (e.g. offshore 
wind) been enhanced, 
including on grid planning 
matters? (operational 
objective) 

5.8 To what extent has the 

monitoring of environmental 
impacts of OCEN technology 
and the application of the 
relevant environmental 
protection legislation been 
supported? (operational 
objective) 

Number 

of 

collaborative 
undertakings  compared  to 
what  could  be  expected  in 
the baseline scenario 

Availability  of  relevant  baseline 
environmental 
data 
compared  to  what  could  be 
expected 
in  the  baseline 
scenario 

Time and resources spent 

satisfying the requirements 
of the EIAs compared to 
what could be expected in 
the baseline scenario 

EQ 6.  What factors have 

6.1 What factors influenced the 

Qualitative indicators: 

The factors are found to have 

Literature review 

65 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

influenced effectiveness 
(positively or negatively), 
how and to what extent? 

effectiveness of the 
Communication/Roadmap 
positively? How did they 
influence effectiveness, and 
to what extent? 

6.2 What factors influenced the 

effectiveness of the 
Communication/Roadmap 
negatively? How did they 
influence effectiveness, and 
to what extent? 

EQ 7.  To what extent are the 
costs of implementing 
the intervention justified, 
given the benefits it has 
achieved? 

7.1 What have been the costs of 
implementation of the 
Communication/Roadmap 
for the different 
stakeholders?  

y
c
n
e
i
c
i
f
f
E

7.2 What progress has been 

made in terms of EU funding 
allocated to ocean energy? 

7.3 What progress has been 

made in terms of Member 
States’ funding allocated to 
ocean energy? 

Factors identified on the basis of 

Literature review and 
interviews 

had an impact on the 
effectiveness 

Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

The extent to which the benefits 
outweigh the costs of the 
intervention 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

Qualitative 

indicators/quantitative 
indicators: 

Costs of implementation 

(administrative costs as well 
as funding) 

Information of EU funding for 
ocean energy (e.g. 
including, ERDF (Interreg) 
etc.) 

Information of Member States 
funding for ocean energy 
(e.g. national, regional etc.) 

7.4 What benefits (direct, 

Benefits of implementation (see 

indirect) have been 
achieved to date for 
different stakeholders? 

effectiveness questions – 
specifically EQ4) 

7.5 Are the costs and benefits 

proportional for the different 

Information on the comparison 
between costs and benefits 

66 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

stakeholders? 

of implementation 

EQ 8.  What factors have 

influenced efficiency 
(positively or negatively), 
how and to what extent?   

8.1 What factors influenced 
efficiency positively? 

8.2 What factors influenced 

efficiency negatively? 

Qualitative indicators: 

Factors identified on the basis of 

Literature review and 
interviews 

EQ 9.  To what extent are the 

9.1 Are there internal 

Qualitative indicators: 

components of the 
intervention coherent 
internally; are there any 
overlaps, inconsistencies, 
or incoherencies? 

inconsistencies within the 
Communication? 

9.2 Are there duplications or 
overlaps within the 
Communication? 

The extent to which overlaps, 

gaps, contradictions or 
discrepancies exist within 
the intervention 

EQ 10. To what extent is the 
intervention coherent 
with wider EU policy and 
initiatives? 

10.1 Are there inconsistencies or 

Qualitative indicators: 

contradictions between the 
Communication/Roadmap 
and wider EU policy and 
initiatives? 

The extent to which overlaps, 

gaps, contradictions or 
discrepancies exist with 
wider EU policy 

The factors are found to have 
had an impact on the 
efficiency 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

Absence of evidence of overlaps, 
gaps, contradictions or 
discrepancies within the 
intervention 

Literature review 
consultations: targeted 
consultations 

Absence of evidence of overlaps, 
gaps, contradictions or 
discrepancies with wider EU 
policy 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: PC 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

e
c
n
e
r
e
h
o
C

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? 

10.2 Are there duplications or 
overlaps between the 
Communication/Roadmap 
and wider EU policy and 
initiatives? 

11.1 Are there inconsistencies or 

Qualitative indicators: 

contradictions between the 
Communication/Roadmap 
and other EU support 
schemes (in particular 
linked to renewables and 
innovation)?  

11.2 Are there duplications or 
overlaps between the 
Communication/Roadmap 

The extent to which overlaps, 

gaps, contradictions or 
discrepancies exist with 
support in other sectors e.g. 
EMFF, ERDF (Interreg) etc. 

67 

Absence of evidence of overlaps, 
gaps, contradictions or 
discrepancies with other 
Commission initiatives 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: PC 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

 
 
 
Evaluation questions 

Sub-question 

Indicators / descriptors 

Judgement criteria 

Sources 

and other EU support 
schemes (in particular 
linked to renewables and 
innovation)? 

11.3 Are there inconsistencies or 

contradictions between the 
Communication/Roadmap 
and national/regional 
initiatives? 

11.4 Are there duplications or 
overlaps between the 
Communication/Roadmap 
and national/regional 
initiatives? 

12.1 Is there evidence for added 
value resulting from EU 
intervention in support of 
the ocean energy sector?  

12.2 To what extent would the 

same results have been 
achieved at international, 
national or regional level 
without EU intervention? 

13.1 What would be the most 
likely consequences of 
stopping or withdrawing the 
existing EU intervention in 
ocean energy? 

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?  

EQ 13. What would be the most 

likely consequences of 
stopping or withdrawing 
the existing intervention?  

e
u
l
a
V
d
e
d
d
A
U
E

Qualitative and quantitative 

A majority of stakeholders 

indicator: 

Extent to which stakeholders 

recognise the EU added 
value of the intervention 

Stakeholder consultations: PC 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

agree that additional value 
has resulted from the 
intervention compared to 
what could reasonably have 
been achieved at other 
levels 

Qualitative indicators: 

Likely consequences are 

Likely consequences identified 

identified 

on the basis of literature 
review and interviews 

Literature review 
Stakeholder consultations: PC 
Stakeholder consultations: 
targeted consultations 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: OVERVIEW OF MEMBER STATES’ SUPPORT POLICIES 

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  Croissance  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. 121  

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. 122 

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)123. 

121https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichLoiPubliee.do?idDocument=JORFDOLE000029310724&type=gen

eral&legislature=14 

122 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
123 https://tethys.pnnl.gov/regulatory-frameworks-marine-renewable-energy#France 

69 

 
 
 
                                                           
Regional and local 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.124  A  notable  project  is  the  tidal  range 
energy  power  plant  in  the  Rance  estuary  (Brittany)125  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&Co126,  the  economic 
development agency for the Pays de la Loire region. 

Both regions are partners in the Ocean Energy ERA-NET Cofund. 

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 Climate 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 Climate 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.127 

Since  2014,  Ireland  also  has  an  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 2030.128  

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. 

124  https://bretagneoceanpower.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/plaquette-emr-gb-juin-2019-bd.pdf 
125  https://tethys.pnnl.gov/project-sites/la-rance-tidal-barrage  
126  https://www.solutions-developpement-paysdelaloire.fr/  
127 OES (2019): “Annual Report 
128https://www.dccae.gov.ie/documents/20140204%20DCENR%20-  

%20Offshore%20Renewable%20Energy%20Development%20Plan.pdf 

70 

 
                                                           
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  OCEANERA-NET  scheme,  an  innovative  component  of  the 
European  Union’s  Framework  Programme  which 
cooperation  of 
national/regional research funding programmes.129 

supports 

The  Science  Foundation  Ireland  (SFI)  Research  Centre  for  energy,  climate  and  marine 
(MaREI),  coordinated  by  the  Environmental  Research  Institute  (ERI)  at  University 
College Cork, coordinates 12 partner institutes with over 200 researchers. It delivers high 
quality research on maritime energy technologies, including cross-cutting topics such as 
societal and economic impact of ocean energy.130  

Regional and local support for ocean energy 

Information  on  activities  of  regional  authorities  in  supporting  ocean  energy  are  scarce, 
despite a number of ERDF (Interreg) funded projects in Ireland in partnership with other 
Atlantic countries (e.g. France, Spain) . 

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).131 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.132 

Portugal  funds  R&D  and  technology  demonstration  projects  under  the  Blue  Fund 
(“Fundo Azure”), which provides direct funds but also facilitates private investments.133 

129 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
130 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
131 https://dre.pt/web/guest/pesquisa/-/search/114248654/details/maximized 
132 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_15_4836 
133 https://www.dgpm.mm.gov.pt/fundo-azul 

71 

 
                                                           
Spain 

National support policies 

The  Energy  and  Climate  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 2030.134 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.135 

Regional and local 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 2030.136  

Due  to  its  geographic  conditions,  the  coast  of  the  Basque  Country  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 Country forms a strong industry cluster which connects and coordinates 
the numerous actors in the sector.  

Italy 

National support policies 

The  National  Research  Council  of  Italy  (Consiglio  Nazionale  delle  Ricerche  –  CNR) 
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.137  

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.  138  Up  to  2017,  also  ocean  energy  plants  with  power  outputs  of 
>60kW could benefit from fixed feed-in tariffs.  

134https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/cambio-climatico/participacion-publica/pniec_2021-

2030_borradoractualizado_tcm30-506491.pdf 

135 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
136 https://www.eve.eus/Actuaciones/Marina.aspx 
137 http://www.clusterbig.it/piano-dazione-2/ 
138https://cdn.qualenergia.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/decreto-fer1-4lug2019_GU1n186_9ago2019-

1.pdf 

72 

 
 
 
                                                           
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 CO2 reduction in 2030139.  

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 yet140. 

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/kWh141.  

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 innovation142. 

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 2019143.  

139 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
140 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
141 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
142 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 
143 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 

73 

 
                                                           
Germany 

National support policies 

Germany  develops  its  renewable  energy  portfolio  as  part  of  the  Energiewende144 
initiative, as well as specific targets and agenda set in additional legislative documents. 
Germany has a consolidated strategy to develop offshore wind145, 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 Europe146. 

144https://www.energiewende-global.com/en/renewable-energy  
145https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/E/windseeg-gesetz-

en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=9  

146 OES (2019): “Annual Report” 

74