This study examines how offshore wind energy deployment can be accelerated across the Nordic countries. It maps current practices and identifies key barriers in each country, draws lessons from international experience, and presents a set of recommendations for faster and more efficient deployment. While all Nordic countries share strong ambitions for offshore wind, their levels of deployment, regulatory maturity and policy frameworks vary significantly – with Denmark in a clear leading position. The main conclusion is that credible political commitment, predictable and transparent legal frameworks, support schemes that align with stated ambitions, well-sequenced licensing processes, and early government provision of site data together form the foundation for accelerated deployment. These factors reduce project time, uncertainty and cost, thus enabling faster expansion of offshore wind energy across the region.
What holds back timely deployment in the Nordics?
Lack of political ambition and predictability is identified as a crucial barrier for all Nordic countries. Denmark is in the forefront of offshore wind development and has set an upcoming target of 3 GW offshore wind to be in operation by 2032 and 2033. The overall goal for the North Sea is 35 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2050, as part of the joint target of at least 150 GW set out in the Esbjerg Declaration. Norway has stated ambitions of allocating areas for 30 GW offshore wind by 2040, but the ambition is not binding and the political support for facilitating offshore wind development in Norway is uncertain. Sweden and Finland are also ambitious with regards to offshore wind development, but without establishing any quantitative targets. Åland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands and Greenland currently have no stated targets for offshore wind development. Åland is working actively with specific project initiatives and Iceland is in the process of developing an Energy Production Strategy and roadmap, which are expected to include all energy sources, including onshore and offshore wind.
Most offshore wind projects are still reliant on financial support to ensure profitability. As such, efficient and targeted subsidy schemes are vital, both in terms of the subsidy level and the design. Denmark was an early adopter of targeted support measures for offshore wind, ensuring a steady build until the 2020s. Rising costs and changes in both design and support level in later years have introduced some long-term uncertainty. Even so, the political agreement following the no-bid auction in 2024 has confirmed the country’s dedication to offshore wind, where, among other things, CfDs were reintroduced. The Norwegian design is more immature, with limited predictability for upcoming competitions. As of now, different designs have been chosen for floating and bottom-fixed technology, with changes being made to the former in the late stage of the tender process. Furthermore, financial support for new projects remains uncertain. Sweden, Finland, Åland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland presently have no support schemes in place. Allowing for hybrid connections and facilitating the development of alternative fuel production could, all things being equal, reduce the need for financial support.
Lack of clear and supportive regulations may also be a barrier to the acceleration of offshore wind development. For the EU countries, implementation of EU regulations is not necessarily a barrier (see chapter 2), but implementation may be carried out more or less efficiently, and there are requirements for grid integration and interconnectivity that may slow processes somewhat. Denmark’s licensing regime is comparatively mature after decades of refinement. Finland’s framework is at an early stage, with one small operational offshore wind farm. Norway and Sweden sit between these. However, Sweden’s developer-led process severely affects the project risk in the planning phase. This weakness is reflected in the number of projects that have been stopped by the government in recent years. Sweden and Finland also run distinct procedures for the Exclusive Economic Zone and territorial waters, increasing complexity and the number of authorities involved; Denmark and Norway do not, which reduces fragmentation. Centralisation also differs: having DEA as the single point of contact in Denmark clarifies accountability, whereas Norway splits key decisions between the regulator (NVE) and the Ministry of Energy. In Sweden, the Land and Environmental Court licenses projects in territorial waters and the government decides in the EEZ, while municipalities retain strong influence – resulting in a more decentralised system. Finland’s pathway is segmented, requiring a water permit from Regional State Administrative Agencies, EIA approval by government, Defence Forces clearance, and seabed leasing from Metsähallitus in territorial waters (with auctions there and, in the EEZ, auctions run by the Energy Authority). All Nordic countries except Sweden designate development areas and use tenders; Sweden presently relies on developer-initiated sites, though an auction system has been proposed. Stakeholder involvement is a regulated necessity for balancing different interests, e.g. biodiversity, fisheries, marine traffic and defence interests. Still, in interviews, industry actors suggest that the number of consultations and the time required to facilitate them constitute somewhat of a barrier in Denmark and Norway. In Finland, and particularly in Sweden, less time is devoted to stakeholder involvement early in the process. However, projects in both countries face a greater risk that specific interests may intervene and delay progress at a later stage. This illustrates a key dilemma: while limiting consultations might speed up early project development, insufficient stakeholder engagement can ultimately undermine progress and weaken acceptance for offshore wind projects. In Sweden, projects located within territorial waters also face the risk of a municipal veto in the later stages of planning, while in both Sweden and Finland, defence interests may still halt or significantly delay offshore wind projects.
Lack of knowledge gathering and sharing may be a barrier to offshore wind deployment, compared to a situation with full available information. Timing of knowledge gathering, and the sharing of that information between and within government and industry actors, may accelerate deployment in all Nordic countries. Our interviews reveal that these are likely more limited barriers than others we identified in the study.
System and delivery capacity matter. Access to specialist installation vessels, turbine availability (especially for floating) and availability of skilled personnel may slow processes. Nevertheless, the main lever under government control is port capacity. Outside Denmark, the lack of assembly and installation ports is a strong constraint on feasible build schedules. Similarly, grid connection is a necessity, and unclear allocation of scope, cost sharing and timing are sources of developer uncertainty.
The identified barriers and their assessed relevance for Denmark (DK), Norway (NO), Sweden (SE) and Finland (FI) are summarised in Table A, from high (highly relevant, a strong barrier to accelerated deployment, in expectation or as a driver for uncertainty) to low (somewhat a barrier, in expectation or as a driver for uncertainty), as well as N/R (not relevant for the specific country). Most barriers are also relevant for Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland, but these countries have less developed policies and fewer plans for deployment of offshore wind. The chief barrier for these countries, therefore, is establishing the political conditions and the regulative framework for facilitating offshore wind developments.