6. Catalouge of best practice and recommendations

Images: iStock

This chapter brings together the key identified barriers from chapter 3 and the identified international opportunities from chapter 4. into actionable, Nordic-level and country-tailored suggestions for best practice.

We present seven recommendations for accelerating offshore wind deployment, as outlined below. Recommendations 1–3 build a solid foundation for policies, where the level of ambition and extent of government commitment determine the need for regulatory framework and support levels. Recommendations 4–6 centralise government organisation in one-stop shops, integrating grid planning, as well as centralising and frontloading information gathering. This reduces developer risk and costs, and likely also total costs. It may improve stakeholder consultation and front-load conflict resolution. Recommendation 7 more specifically addresses stakeholder involvement and acceptability through early and well-designed consultation processes. This may also reduce the risk of delays or cancellations and time spent on stakeholder consultation later in the process, and may increase local and regional acceptance for deployment. We also suggest two other possibly relevant practices, depending on current practices in each country: use of non-price criteria (NPC) as pre-qualification, and contributions to infrastructure and supply chain development.

Offshore wind policies and industries are evolving quickly across countries, meaning that we are assessing a moving target: we are suggesting best practices in a context where policies are continuously being developed and technological and policy developments outside the Nordic region are changing the conditions under which Nordic authorities and industry operate. In addition, there is variation between the Nordic countries. Denmark is a frontrunner and has to a larger extent than the others already implemented recommendations 1–3.

Policies for accelerated offshore wind deployment require a solid foundation

An enabling condition for implementing other best-practice measures is a strong, publicly stated commitment that sets the direction, timeframe and level of ambition for the offshore wind build-out. At a minimum this should come from the national government; legislative commitment set by the parliament will give greater predictability. Commitments should be specified and followed up in strategies and action plans. Publicly available and credible pathways allow for long-term planning by developers and the supply chain. Setting binding long-term targets must be balanced against the need for flexibility to meet changes on the demand side. Future electricity demand is less uncertain in countries that to a greater extent than the Nordic countries are replacing fossil electricity production with renewable energy production (e.g. the UK and Germany). In Nordic countries, short- to medium-term targets could be more suited. If such targets are backed by political commitment this would increase predictability for the industry in most countries.

1. Clear and predictable targets: Broad political agreement on offshore wind targets and willingness to support development will increase predictability for developers and reduce investment risk in national supply chains. However, the time frame of the targets needs to be balanced against demand-side risk.	Relevance	Ownership
	DK	National government. Parliament if legislative enactment.
	NO SE FI IS FO AX





Non-Nordic examples: Germany and the UK

Denmark is a frontrunner and has to a larger extent than the others already implemented the recommendation and is thus indicated as slightly less relevant than the other countries.

Set political commitment should be followed up with a supporting framework for offshore wind deployment. Stable framework conditions increase predictability for developers. It may also stimulate industry development, ensuring vessels, turbines and specific experts, such as project managers and electrical engineers. Key elements include legislating targets and issuing binding secondary regulations/guidance, process maps with statutory time limits and service levels, and aligning tender calendars with data collection, grid plans and MSP zoning. For example, the UK couples a time-bound planning regime for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects with predictable CfD allocation rounds and standard contracts – giving clear milestones and revenue certainty. The Netherlands uses the Offshore Wind Energy Act with an RVO one-stop model: the government issues binding site decisions and awards “full-package” sites.

2. Clear and stable regulatory framework: Adopt a law-anchored, end-to-end regime with statutory timelines, efficient and robust tender design, as well as alignment of tenders with data collection, MSP and grid planning.	Relevance	Ownership
	DK	National government, Energy ministries
	NO SE FI IS FO AX





Non-Nordic examples: The UK and the Netherlands

Denmark is a frontrunner and has to a larger extent than the others already implemented the recommendation and is thus indicated as slightly less relevant than the other countries.

Most offshore wind projects are presently not profitable without financial support. Auctions and Contracts for Difference (CfDs) have become the gold standard. Other project-specific measures could further increase profitability for developers and thus facilitate deployment. In the Netherlands, the winning bid of a tender receives a full-package permit (the lease area, a preliminary study, an interconnection substation, and the right to construct and operate the facility for up to 40 years). Access to a larger market (hybrid connections and other infrastructure) may also increase profitability as well as an increased deployment of alternative fuel infrastructure.

3. Support level that matches the targets: Auctions and CfDs have become the gold standard, and use market mechanisms to reduce costs. Given lack of profitability, government support should align with stated targets and commitment. Full-package permits, hybrid connections and other infrastructure to support profitability and reduce risk should be considered.	Relevance	Ownership
	DK	National government, Energy ministries
	NO SE FI IS FO AX





Non-Nordic examples: The UK and the Netherlands

Denmark is a frontrunner and has to a larger extent than the others already implemented the recommendation and is thus indicated as slightly less relevant than the other countries.

Efficient and predictable processes

One-Stop Shops and central planning of site allocation are becoming standard practice for organising deployment. A single point of contact eases developers’ government contact, which reduces pre-bid investment risks and reduces costs for developers. This should also be seen in relation to TSO-led grid development, which, if effectively coordinated, reduces developer risk. For instance, the Netherlands Enterprise Agency takes on the site mapping and selection in agreement with other users of the sea, conducts environmental surveys and site investigations, undertakes the consenting process, grants the permits, guarantees timely grid connection through the TSO and arranges the tender. The UK also has a streamlined, time-bound approval system for major offshore projects classified as Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects. The practice is relevant for all Nordic countries, although Denmark – with a single point of contact – is somewhat more developed than the other Nordic countries in this regard.

4. One-stop shops, centralised tendering and licensing: Establish or strengthen a single point of contact across permitting and grid interfaces. Where relevant, pair this with centralised tendering to reduce post-award uncertainty.	Relevance	Ownership
	DK NO SE FI IS FO AX	Energy ministries and agencies; TSOs






Non-Nordic examples: The UK and the Netherlands

Centralised data collection and exchange facilitate efficient and speedy deployment

Government-led site surveys and EIA reduce developer risks and may reduce total costs through economies of scale (by reducing the number of surveys). They may also reduce delay risks due to seasonality in data collection. Data may either be sold or distributed to bidders and/or given to the winning bid (see full-package permit, NL). Stronger government data control may also increase credibility in the data and facilitate stakeholder involvement. Data should be open access when possible and relevant, e.g. through NordicSpatial.

5. Government data collection and sharing: Government-led site surveys and data shared with bidders to reduce total cost and risk, which also may speed up the process. Costs may be reimbursed to authorities by bidders.	Relevance	Ownership
	DK NO SE FI IS FO AX	Relevant agencies (One-Stop Shop)






Non-Nordic examples: Scotland, Belgium and the Netherlands

Investing in and active use of Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) front-loads conflict resolution and outlines guiding principles for developers. Belgium has invested in MSP that sets clear rules for developers and is revised on a six-year cycle, with updated SEA and a public inquiry.

6. MSP-anchored zoning and data framework: If possible, active use of MSP that designates offshore wind areas, sets common standards for baseline surveys and open data (methods, metadata and release timelines), links to the one-stop shop and tender data rooms, and is revised on a fixed cycle.	Relevance	Ownership
	DK NO SE FI IS FO AX	Relevant agencies (One-Stop Shop)






Non-Nordic example: Belgium (MSP 2020–2026; Princess Elisabeth Zone)

Offshore wind deployment relies on public and stakeholder acceptance

Support and acceptability for offshore wind deployment relies on stakeholder consultation and possibly involvement. Deployment may produce negative environmental effects, have visual impacts and be in conflict with other interests, such as marine traffic, fisheries and national security. Early and well-designed stakeholder consultation reduces risks of delays or cancellations (e.g. cases of municipal veto and defence interests in Sweden). Stronger early consultation is also likely to reduce total time spent on stakeholder consultation later in the process. In particular, the Belgian model of early engagement of stakeholders through their marine spatial plan may be relevant for all the Nordic countries. Also, Scotland has focused on mandatory pre-application consultation of stakeholders, where developers must consult with key stakeholders, prior to submitting the formal application.

7. Early stakeholder consultation: Stakeholder consultation in developing MSP and other strategic processes may identify conflicts and potential barriers for development early on. This reduces risk for developers and governments, e.g. of municipal veto or conflict with national security interests, and may reduce total consultation time.	Relevance	Ownership
	DK NO SE FI IS FO AX	Relevant agencies (One-Stop Shop)






Non-Nordic example: Belgium

Other possibly relevant practices for accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy

Depending on the specific project, other measures may be put in place. With increased focus on sustainability and local content, both from EU requirements and local or national expectations, efficient implementation of non-price criteria (NPC) as pre-qualification may be relevant to increase acceptability and decrease the risk of late rejections of projects, e.g. for biodiversity management plans and decommissioning. The review points to practices implemented in Germany and the Netherlands.

Also, the authorities may contribute to infrastructure and supply chain development through port planning and roadmaps for industry development. This may reduce challenges with vessel and turbine availability. For countries other than Denmark, lack of assembly and installation ports is also a barrier for project deployment that may be reduced through infrastructure planning.