This chapter provides recommendations to enhance Portugal’s Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services’ organisational structure and processes to effectively administer the country’s different uses of its marine resources. It suggests ways for fostering policy coherence and co-ordination to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, particularly as it relates to Sustainable Development Goal 14, Life Below Water, and the three priority areas of maritime spatial planning, aquaculture, and flag state.
Improving Policy Coherence for Portugal’s Ocean Economy
A Strategic Plan for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services
Abstract
The recommendations provided in this report address both cross-cutting issues (Recommendations 1-5) and the three pilot areas (Recommendation 6) of maritime spatial planning, aquaculture and flag state. The first four recommendations aim to reinforce the Directorate-General for Natural Resources, Safety and Maritime Services (Direção-Geral de Recursos Naturais, Segurança e Serviços Marítimos, DGRM)’s management and organisational issues, such as its human and financial resources, information systems, and capacities to act as a one-stop-shop in providing services. The fifth recommendation is oriented at improving the DGRM’s overall policy coherence impact, including beyond its current mandate, and considers institutional amendments and policy coherence tools that could enhance its role. The sixth and final recommendation groups operational amendments that are specific to each of the pilot areas.
Recommendation 1.1. Strengthen the DGRM’s institutional role in supporting the formulation of Portugal’s national policies for the ocean economy
The DGRM’s role could be further reinforced in advising the government departments on coherence and sustainability issues for Portugal’s ocean economy.
As an intermediate entity responsible for developing spatial planning instruments, producing assessments and issuing licences, the DGRM has visibility on policy interactions at the operational level. This understanding complements high-level political considerations and could contribute to horizontal and vertical integration of maritime policies while operationalising sustainability. To further embrace the DGRM’s crucial role in contributing to policy alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), concrete institutional opportunities have been identified:
When new ocean strategies and actions are formulated by the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Sea Affairs (CIAM), the DGRM could support with readily available data and identify potential cross-cutting initiatives and processes to ensure horizontal coherence. To facilitate these discussions, the DGRM could use a Policy Coherence Matrix (see below) or the SDG policy mapping tool developed by the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of Ministers, which analyses the contribution of policies and planning instruments to the SDGs. In parallel, CIAM’s role and function should be reinforced.
In its advisory role, the DGRM could ensure vertical alignment between policies, operational processes, and data collection across relevant ocean entities.
The DGRM could also act as a “connecting agent”, catalysing the opinions of the relevant authorities in planning and permitting processes. Organising CIAM meetings, also at the working level, as suggested by the Directorate-General for Maritime Policy (DGPM), could provide a cross-ministerial platform for jointly identifying potential bottlenecks and discussing solutions across administrative processes to implement ocean policies.
The DGRM could contribute when different ministries design, manage and fund policies and activities for the ocean, including through EU funding programmes. Examples include during discussion on budget allocations specific to the National Ocean Strategy (NOS), co-ordination mechanisms, and reinforcing the monitoring associated to the strategy.
In addition to the Consultative Committee (CC), a regular dialogue with decision makers from the three ministries responsible for the DGRM would systematically ensure that the Portuguese Maritime Spatial Planning (PSOEM) and Allocation Plans (POEMs) are aligned with national priorities and that they correctly articulate new relevant sectoral strategies.
When sectoral strategies, such as the Strategic Plan for Portuguese Aquaculture 2021-2030 (PEA), flag-state-related policies, and energy security, among others, are formulated, the DGRM could support the orientation of policymakers by identifying, preventing and mitigating potential adverse effects of the policies. In this sense, reinforced dialogue between the DGRM and the relevant ministries and the use of past results would be beneficial when setting policy objectives and evaluating the results.
Further alignment could be promoted in the processes and budget decisions across the three ministries in charge of the DGRM.
Ministries could update the regulatory framework for the marine environment and maritime administration (i.e. updating requirements to be met by ships to be registered in Portugal) based on EU and international regulations. These adaptations of regulatory frameworks to international regulations and changing needs need to be more swift, and the DGRM could foster the process by providing relevant data.
Recommendation 1.2. Ensure that the DGRM’s Strategic Plan provides a framework for measuring its contributions to achieving the SDGs
The framework of the upcoming Strategic Plan could be provided by the priority areas of Portugal’s sustainability agenda for the ocean as spelt out in the Portugal 2030 Strategy. Adopting this prioritisation could strengthen the DGRM’s focus on the SDGs. For SDGs to be further integrated into everyday action and budgeting, the DGRM Strategic Plan could directly link its objectives to SDG targets and indicators. In addition, a guideline or roadmap for implementing the Strategic Plan could associate SDG progress with institutional performance measurement, including the association of key performance indicators (KPIs) with SDG implementation.
Tool: Policy Coherence Matrix
A Policy Coherence Matrix aims to promote coherence by identifying complementarities and trade-offs among the priorities defined by different policies based on sustainability criteria. The Policy Coherence Matrix (Figure 4.1) identifies complementarities between the objectives under Strategic Goal 1 of the NOS (i.e. classify 30% of national marine areas by 2030) and the objectives included in other relevant strategies (i.e. Strategy for Marine Protected Area, Strategy for Aquaculture, Tourism Strategy, etc.).
The methodology is developed as follows:
Scan the relevant strategies for their contribution to the objectives and indicators of the NOS (i.e. because they use the same wording or measurement indicators, such as the SDG indicators indicated in the second column).
Map the interactions among the policy instruments: Do the objectives of the other strategies positively contribute to (light green) or counteract (light red) the NOS Objective?
Identify which policies are aligned to/contribute to the same SDGs indicated in Objective 1 of the NOS and develop strategies to potentially capitalise on synergies across these policies.
Mitigate the trade-offs identified between NOS objectives and other policy objectives.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
In this example, the matrix has been compiled according to the national priorities for the ocean set in the NOS. However, it could be used to organise the information from any other relevant strategy.
Examples of practical applications of the tool:
Improving the planning for offshore and transitional aquaculture development: Use the matrix to check the coherence between aquaculture strategy, maritime spatial planning and territorial or sectoral plans, such as integrated coastal zone management (para 2.c, Art. 6, 2014/89/EU) to illustrate trade-offs and synergies associated with aquaculture and other strategic objectives in maritime policies (maritime traffic, coastal tourism, fishery, cables, wind farms, marine protection, etc.).
Improving coherence in PSOEM formulation and monitoring: Reinforce the CC’s working groups in their role to verify the compatibility and coherence of the PSOEM with other territorial plans (e.g. Coastal Zone Management Plans). This would respond to the need, as expressed during stakeholder interviews, for further integration of planning tools during the formulation of the PSOEM.
Reinforcing current DGRM tools for monitoring and surveillance of the occupation of the national marine space (DGRM, 2023[1]).
A way to match the DGRM’s growing and increasingly complex responsibilities arising from international dynamics in terms of compliance with the SDGs, increasing regulations, human capital issues, information system and organisational structure transformations might be to modify the DGRM’s organisational setting from a directorate-general to an agency (institute).
In Portugal, the distinction between a “directorate-general” (direção-geral - such as in the DGRM) and an agency (or institute) primarily revolves around their governance structure, autonomy and powers.
Based on preliminary desk research of Portuguese institutional set-ups, a general overview of how the different administrative structures differ, including how they function (e.g. recruitment and budget), is provided in Table 4.1.
Source: Desk research and input from experts and fact-finding interviews.
While both types of administrative structures fall under the purview of one or several ministries, agencies (or institutes) generally enjoy more operational independence compared to directorates-general, especially in regulatory or supervisory functions. Directorates-general are not independent entities and do not have legally autonomous personalities. Agencies can make binding regulatory decisions within their sector and engage directly with stakeholders within their regulatory scope, potentially having quasi-judicial powers in resolving disputes or enforcing regulations. In the case of the DGRM, its mandates and specific missions as Portugal’s maritime administration cover most of these functions (i.e. engage directly with stakeholders, enforce regulations, etc.). The agency configuration would give the DGRM more flexibility in budget and human resource decisions to fulfil its mandate.
In line with the previous recommendation, transitioning to an agency model, the DGRM could more autonomously adapt its budget to increasing demands. This would make the management of internally generated revenues – half its budget – more agile compared to government allocations. More specifically:
Transitioning from a directorate-general to an agency (institute) could overcome current difficulties in attracting and retaining talent, thus relieving staff overwork within the DGRM. Due to their operational independence, agencies apply more agile recruitment processes than directorates-general and offer more competitive salaries that are not subject to civil servant caps. Agencies can attract skilled maritime staff more easily from the private sector (from ship traffic operators to licensing experts and ship inspectors).
Upskilling capacities for the maritime sector is necessary for the DGRM to better fulfil its mandate and help its partners in their functions. To ensure the right skills are available, the DGRM needs to consolidate its role in counselling other institutions that act as training providers (such as ForMar), providing orientations on the content of the courses they offer. Internally, capacity building for DGRM staff would require freeing up the time of the most experienced resources to allow them to conduct training of new staff. In addition, some of the policy coherence tools (i.e. Coherence Matrix, Sustainability Check) presented in this report could be institutionalised as part of the training offered by the DGRM to its staff and in consulting training curricula of partner institutions.
The type of technical skills that the DGRM needs to develop, given future trends, needs to be foreseen and integrated into its multi-annual workforce planning. The DGRM needs to proactively engage with educational establishments and participate in national and international job fairs to identify skilled maritime professionals early in their careers.
The DGRM seeks to streamline and integrate monitoring and evaluation processes and their alignment with day-to-day operations and sustainability objectives. The DGRM could consider:
Adopting the methodology established by SEAMind1 to increase data interoperability platforms used by relevant entities (i.e. include SEAMar in environmental monitoring; the Sea Electronic Counter (Balcão Eletrónico do Mar) BMar 2.0 platform will include geographical functionalities and procedures for scientific expeditions; Ocean Digital Twin, etc.). This would contribute to establishing a robust mechanism to monitor the implementation of the PSOEM.
Establishing full electronic data collection of the DGRM’s day-to-day activities, i.e. monitoring of aquaculture establishments, maritime spatial planning (MSP) monitoring and inspection processes.
Opening spaces for dialogue and collaboration between the private sector and the DGRM’s policy and statistical services. Private sector operators integrate the obligation to consider sustainability impacts in their activities. This, as well as the development of financial instruments (such as blue bonds), increases the private sector’s appetite for data that measure more sustainable practices and the potential for collaboration.
Generally, the availability and use of data on ocean health could improve policy coherence at different stages of the policy cycle. For instance:
At the research and analytical stage, data can feed analytical tools (e.g. impact assessment, strategic foresight, scenario development, integrated modelling tools, and systems-thinking approaches).
At the planning stage, when preparing the MSP and marine-protected areas (MPAs), data could be used to adopt adaptive management practices for establishing buffer zones and precautionary approaches, etc.
To enhance external stakeholders’ participation in marine planning and design of administrative decision-making processes. For instance, the expertise within Portugal’s scientific community to identify the most suitable sites and species for aquaculture production could be better utilised when establishing licensing processes.
At the operational level, data are crucial when entities such as the DGRM deliver permits and investors have to conduct due diligence assessments.
At the monitoring and evaluation stage is also crucial. It is important to establish robust monitoring mechanisms regarding the implementation of the PSOEM. Increasing knowledge about the impacts, particularly those of emerging activities, through collecting and processing information on marine biodiversity is vital for the effective management of maritime space – also through periodic reviews of the PSOEM and strategy updates – and for the proposal of MPAs. Furthermore, data could contribute to more comprehensive evaluation models that address environmental, economic and social aspects.
There are strong expectations from stakeholders for the DGRM to take on even more tasks as a client-centric focal point in several areas by improving its practices as a one-stop-shop. Building on experiences from other maritime administrations, this is a reasonable path forward, should the DGRM have the resources to meet these needs.
This report identifies the following opportunities for the DGRM to enhance its role as a maritime service hub in interaction with other entities and act more effectively as a regulator and a “connecting agent”, catalysing the opinions of the relevant authorities and stakeholders during planning and permitting processes:
Mapping administrative processes for delivering ocean-related permits and licences: Such mapping will highlight the division of tasks and ways of working across intermediate entities involved in view of streamlining their communication and approval protocols for obtaining ocean-related permits and licences.
Standardising indicators and methodologies for analysing licensing requests: Relevant public entities and other interested parties involved in issuing a licence (i.e. an Aquaculture Activity Title [TAA] or a title for the private use of maritime space [TUPEM]) need to align their parameters and indicators. In view of establishing common parameters, consider using a coherence tool such as the Sustainability Check (see Recommendation 6.2) that will help in the agreement on a set of indicators applicable for guaranteeing a more predictable and timely process.
Updating regulatory frameworks to simplify service delivery: Ensure agile mechanisms to regularly update strategies and regulations given the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems and to adapt to international regulatory demands and the demands of relevant stakeholders.
Better connecting and ensuring the interoperability of online platforms and portals (e.g. BMar; Sistema Nacional de Embarcações e Marítimos/National Ship and Seafarer System, SNEM; Sistema Integrado de Licenciamento do ambiente/Integrated Environmental Licensing System, SILiAmb; and Capitania online) that collect users’ data from administrative processes (TAA applications, inspection processes). These data could be leveraged to improve ocean strategy formulation, spatial planning, and marine zoning and decrease the administrative burden for entities involved in issuing permits and users alike.
Needs for updating protocols have been specifically identified in relation to the following processes: aquaculture licences, the preparation of the PSOEM and POEMs, issuance of TUPEMs, characterisation of offshore/maritime areas during the licensing process, regulation amendments to reform ship inspection and certifications, etc.
Previous simplification efforts related to aquaculture permits might offer interesting lessons learned. For instance, to simplify the authorisation process for offshore aquaculture exploitation, a pilot was conducted in Armona, Algarve, to determine an appropriate framework for developing production areas. As a result, a Regulatory Decree established sustainability indicators and criteria for evaluating offshore aquaculture areas. However, this regulatory framework has not been updated to reflect changes in the licensing process (e.g. the introduction of BMar) and is now outdated.
Again, in aquaculture, efforts have been made to simplify the licensing of aquaculture procedures for receiving a TAA. The “blue licensing” procedure has been established in predefined areas. The criteria for instalment and operations have already been established in these areas. This means that part of the administrative controls carried out for general licensing do not apply to the individual licensing process in the blue licensing areas. There is no consultation of public entities as foreseen for general licensing. While this regulatory simplification has the potential to shorten the application process, blue licensing is currently not being applied regularly, and according to the DGRM, many of the already predefined areas for which this simplified process would be available are not yet fully occupied.
In addition to general recommendations for the DGRM’s overall governance and sustainability objectives, a set of recommendations for the priority areas analysed during the project are provided below.
Recommendation 6.1. Maritime spatial planning
Concrete opportunities have been identified to further contribute to policy alignment with the SDGs during the formulation of the PSOEM.
As shown in Figure 4.2, the process involves extensive stakeholder engagement and employs integrative tools to explore synergies and trade-offs. It could be optimised to leverage the potential of the DGRM in enhancing maritime policy integration and operationalising sustainability. For example, the DGRM could:
Continuously improve and adapt the tools integrated into preparing the PSOEM. Developing scenarios (compounded by the impacts of climate change, such as sea-level rise, ocean acidification and shifting species distributions), incorporating risk assessments and employing precautionary principles are necessary approaches to be more systematically integrated into preparing the PSOEM to navigate uncertainties and ensure the resilience of marine plans. The DGRM could incorporate the Policy Coherence Matrix (see Recommendation 5) in other DGRM methodologies currently applied in PSOEM processes. This policy tool could help address conflicts between mature and emerging activities at sea to identify uses incompatible with sustainability standards that must be repealed or amended in the attribution of maritime space and to establish compensation for those adversely affected.
Continuously improve and adapt ex-post-evaluation models for the MSP. During PSOEM’s evaluation, a Sustainability Check (introduced in Recommendation 6.2) could help verify the contributions to the SDGs of sea use. A Strategic Environmental Assessment currently ensures the PSOEM’s compatibility with environmental standards, and the Sustainability Check could complement it by organising and using the best available data across all sustainability dimensions.
Improve training opportunities related to the MSP. Developing the necessary skills and knowledge among stakeholders and within the DGRM is crucial for effectively implementing the PSOEM. This includes training on sustainable practices, spatial analysis techniques and conflict resolution.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Pursue stakeholder engagement during the MSP and use transparent, fair and effective conflict resolution mechanisms. The DGRM can be pivotal in steering businesses across different ocean sectors towards practices and performance indicators that measure progress to sustainability. The DGRM should further facilitate dialogue and consensus-building processes to ensure that the plan reflects diverse interests and is more likely to be successfully implemented by all stakeholders, including local communities, industry representatives and conservation groups.
Further include the views of external stakeholders in the discussions of the CC, balancing their participation across interest groups, including the scientific community, during the formulation of the PSOEM, from the first steps of the definition of spatial uses.
Establish transparent, fair and effective conflict resolution mechanisms, a useful way forward, as used by Norway and Denmark. This includes negotiation frameworks, mediation processes and possibly arbitration systems to manage disputes constructively. Reinforce the DGRM’s Directorate for Planning and Sustainability (DSAS), recognising its importance in providing relevant evidence and co-ordinating the work of the CC during the development of the PSOEM.
Strengthen the interactions across the thematic working groups that compose the CC. While the current model allowed for a balanced representation of decision-maker interests, it might be ineffective in exploring the interactions between the supply chains, for instance, between the value chain for the Industrial Strategy and Action Plan for Ocean Renewable Energy (EI-ERO) and tourism or maritime transports, or between marine activities and proximate infrastructure in coastal areas (e.g. ports), etc. Policy Coherence Matrixes (see Recommendation 5) could be used as a tool for ensuring co-ordination within and across the thematic working groups during the spatial planning exercise. This tool could provide the DGRM and other participants in the CC with a simultaneous understanding of the impacts of the different policies and planning documents in terms of the SDGs.
Reinforce the DSAS’s collaboration with DGPM, given their shared responsibility to evaluate the PSOEM. The rationalisation of the work of these two entities in evaluating the PSOEM, based on their respective added value, would also be beneficial in improving the feedback loop from evaluation to policy formulation.
Improve the availability of comprehensive marine data to inform the MSP and monitor its effectiveness over time. This needs to be done by improving data interoperability and common protocols for collecting, managing, sharing and interpreting data with other administrations, as the data include both biophysical data (e.g. oceanography, habitats, species distributions) and socio-economic data (e.g. usage patterns, economic values) as well as data emerging from other administrative procedures, e.g. the strategic environmental impact assessments conducted by the Portuguese Environmental Agency (Agência Portuguesa do Ambiente, APA), etc.; see Recommendation 3.
Ensure that DGRM’s strategies are flexible and adaptive, given the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems and sectoral demands. This includes introducing periodic reviews and updates of the MSP based on new scientific knowledge and changes in sectoral dynamics.
Recommendation 6.2. Aquaculture
This report has identified a number of opportunities to further embrace the DGRM’s role in aquaculture and to ensure that relevant policies are aligned with the SDGs. They include:
Improve monitoring of the implementation of the Aquaculture Strategic Plan (PEA).
Associate concrete and quantified parameters and targets to the actions listed under each objective of the PEA.
Strengthen the public administration’s capacity to verify compliance, carry out controls, and monitor aquaculture activity.
Foster collaboration between the private sector and the public administration to avoid duplication of monitoring mechanisms while ensuring quality control.
Leverage opportunities for the DGRM to act as a single service hub for aquaculture. In order for BMar to function as a true aquaculture one-stop-shop, there is a need to connect licensing related to both primary operations and ancillary activities such as (inland) facilities to grow production; facilities for fish hatcheries and pre-fattening; logistics; suitable ports; packaging; and distribution, etc. Expand BMar compatibility and integration with the various platforms currently related to aquaculture and ancillary activities. In addition, the criteria established through the Sustainability Check (below) could be used to better oversee and connect all the licensing procedures needed to start the aquaculture activity, including ancillary activities.
Adapt regulations and processes to ensure the effectiveness and compliance of the DGRM’s operations related to aquaculture. This would include:
Strengthening separated licensing processes between aquaculture in marine and transition waters based on the existing Plan for Aquaculture in Transitional Waters (for mainland waters, PAqAT).
Use lessons from previous simplification efforts that set simplified licensing processes for predefined aquaculture areas, i.e. “blue licensing”,2 to ensure that new simplification processes are successful, i.e. by incorporating the Sustainability Check criteria:
Adapt regulations to the needs of aquaculture operations (24/7 operations, licensing for specific aquaculture vessels, specific diving, etc.).
Adapt Local Maritime Authorities “Capitanias” procedures to the specificities of offshore aquaculture.
Improve training opportunities related to aquaculture. The DGRM should ensure that its officials and other relevant entities in charge of licensing are trained in the technical aspects of aquaculture production. This could include co-designing learning curricula with training institutions such as ForMar and other entities that provide professional certifications specific to aquaculture.
Seek the participation of stakeholders from local communities, scientific research, other administrations and the private sector to avoid conflicts of interest during aquaculture zoning and when issuing aquaculture licences.
External stakeholders indicated their interest in being involved when the licensing process is designed, including by strengthening the procedural guidelines for stakeholder participation during licensing. Currently, the involvement of local stakeholders is foreseen at the moment of preparing the MSP (PAqAT and PSOEM), during the licensing process,3 and during the environmental impact assessments (EIAs), as per Law 83/2023. However, these are needed only for large projects, particularly for intensive aquaculture regimes (see Annex 4.C for details on when this process applies).
One opportunity would be to organise public consultations as early as possible in the process of developing a Sustainability Check to discuss the criteria to be considered when assigning specific areas to aquaculture developments. Additionally, increased stakeholder engagement through public events would make it possible to benefit more effectively from state and EU resources (knowledge sharing, etc.). Moreover, to achieve its objective of providing better information to consumers on current and proposed aquaculture production and products, the DGRM has started a collaboration with the Portuguese Association of Aquaculture Exploiters. Efforts to co‑design activities between the DGRM, the aquaculture industry, including small enterprises based in local communities, can be enhanced by setting up joint working groups, jointly preparing relevant information material on the quality and sustainability of aquaculture products, and designing a joint communication strategy.
Tool: Sustainability Check for aquaculture
What is the purpose of a Sustainability Check?
A Sustainability Check is a tool to support governments in enhancing policy coherence. It presents a catalogue of questions that facilitates a participatory diagnostic of the risks and benefits of aquaculture activities based on the SDGs to verify the relevant interactions between SDG 14 targets and other SDG targets.
What does a Sustainability Check look like?
Table 4.2 provides examples of potential questions to be included in a Sustainability Check for aquaculture.
Note: Italic Blue: Analysis to be conducted to determine areas where future aquaculture installations will be established (APAs). Underlined Green: Analysis to be conducted when APAs are established, and an aquaculture permit is allocated (TAAs).
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
When should the application of the Sustainability Check be considered?
As illustrated in Figure 4.3, the Sustainability Check should be context-specific and could be applied when the positioning of future aquaculture installations is being decided (APAs) and when the DGRM allocates aquaculture permits (TAAs). It could also be used when DGRM’s DSAS decides about the use of maritime space – e.g. the elaboration of PSOEM or POEMs – and aquaculture zoning (APAs) or when the Aquaculture Division (DA) issues aquaculture activity titles (TAAs), as well as in their interactions with other entities and external stakeholders.
The Sustainability Check could help streamline the DSAS and DA work around common criteria to act as a single desk for aquaculture. To allow for more effective implementation and application of the Sustainability Check, the potential questions have been split by phases of the aquaculture permit procedure. Some standards would be verified when designating APAs, while others are relevant for both phases: when designating APAs and issuing TAAs. In fact, a level of knowledge is verified when marine areas are designated (aquaculture zoning) – i.e. the assessment of the impact on local diversity and habitat loss – which may not need to be verified again when issuing TAAs.
Finally, its use could strengthen the monitoring of aquaculture facilities by establishing a set of objective indicators that all relevant entities can use when measuring the environmental impact of aquaculture activities in view of reviewing or amending the TAAs or POEMs.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Who could develop the Sustainability Check for aquaculture?
A Sustainability Check could be developed by the DGRM in collaboration with the relevant entities (the Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere [IPMA], the Portuguese Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests [ICNF], APA, National Maritime Authority [AMN], Directorate-General for Food and Veterinary [DGAV], port authorities, etc.) and other stakeholders, in particular the scientific community, which is well-equipped to identify the best-placed sites and species for aquaculture production. To extend stakeholder participation further, local communities and aquaculture producer representatives could be included in the early stage of the development of the Sustainability Check.
What should be included in the Sustainability Check?
The relevant actors would agree on a set of objective indicators that are the best fit for characterising the areas with potential for offshore aquaculture activity to be included in the Sustainability Check. The choice of the parameters could build on current criteria considered when designating potential aquaculture production areas (APAs)4 and the TAAs5 (Annex 4.A). The parties could agree on composite indicators based on the SDGs and/or other international (e.g. the Good Environmental Status [GES]) and national obligations (i.e. data synced with the online NOS matrix) to assess how sustainability thresholds/targets would be affected by aquaculture activities and competition with other activities (i.e. fishing, tourism, etc.). Finally, the Sustainability Check would indicate which documents/inputs would be used for verification by all relevant entities.
Once piloted for aquaculture, the Sustainability Check could be extended for the zoning and licensing of other uses of marine space, such as renewable energy production. Annex 4.B provides an in-depth description of the current process for licensing renewable energy activities.
What advantages could be gained from using the Sustainability Check in the TAA aquaculture procedures?
The Sustainability Check could be instrumental in streamlining co-ordination within the DGRM, as well as with other entities, e.g. IPMA, ICNF, APA, AMN, DGAV and port authorities, and other interested parties involved in zoning APAs and issuing TAAs (Figure 4.4), by ensuring that all actors apply the same standards and parameters throughout the application process. The Sustainability Check would help guarantee a more predictable and timely process, avoiding diverging interpretations of the required standards between entities.
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
The Sustainability Check could simplify the TAA licensing process by assessing certain criteria only when pre-determining potential areas for aquaculture and shortening the assessment when issuing TAAs for individual facilities.
This set of criteria would streamline the monitoring of existing aquaculture establishments carried out by the DGRM.
Recommendation 6.3. Flag state
This report has identified a number of opportunities to address the third priority area of flag state. These include:
Strengthen the potential of the DGRM to drive the flag-state system towards sustainability. Given its role in implementing international conventions, the DGRM is well placed to bring in SDG references in these conventions into day-to-day operations. For instance, data from ship inspections could be collected by referencing their contributions to SDGs. In addition, when approving administrative rules regulating the activity of entities operating in the maritime port sector, the DGRM could check their compatibility with the SDGs by adopting a Sustainability Check. These operational adjustments would improve its contribution to integrating decarbonisation and coherence into flag-state-related policy-making processes at national and international levels, where the DGRM ensures Portugal’s representation.
In addition, when the quality of services is improved, a strategy could be developed (e.g. in Norway) to actively promote the advantages of registering under the Portuguese flag at international forums, trade shows and through direct engagement with shipping companies and industry stakeholders.
Explore opportunities for the DGRM to act as a single service hub for flag state. The DGRM’s ability to act as a single service hub for flag state depends on addressing constraints related to weak interoperability between databases, limited technological infrastructure and information management, and the lack of skilled staff. As a first step, the DGRM could consider using policy tools such as the Policy Coherence Matrix (Recommendation 5) to map the contributions of the different entities to key flag-state processes (as recommended in Recommendation 4, such as ship registration, inspection scheduling, certification and mortgage recording, etc.). Based on such mapping, the DGRM could assess the necessity to further integrate existing processes and which solutions would be most appropriate should a platform, a single desk or a network of focal points across relevant entities for flag state matter.
A second step would be to integrate digital platforms related to flag state into a single BMar platform for all maritime affairs. This single digital hub would provide comprehensive services for ship registration, inspection scheduling, certification, and, potentially, mortgage recording.
Adapt regulations and processes to ensure effectiveness and compliance of the DGRM’s operations in relation to flag state. To reform regulations for ship inspection and certifications to ensure the Portuguese flag state is attractive for (international) private sector investments while ensuring sustainability is taken into account, several steps could be considered:
Clarify and update the legislative requirements to be met by ships for registration.
Improve the efficiency of ship inspection processes by differentiating between inspection frequency for small and large commercial vessels, as well as newer/well-functioning ships and older/at-risk ships.
Review economic and fiscal incentives in view of attracting the best-performing ships in terms of decarbonisation, as opposed to non-clean ships.
Strengthen digital tools to make flag-state-related processes more user-friendly. Digitisation is a key step for streamlining SDGs and ensuring policy coherence in the DGRM’s day-to-day work related to flag state. In addition to integrating digital platforms related to flag state, a number of steps can support the DGRM moving in this direction:
Introduce electronic records of ship mortgages.
Include an information technology (IT) alert system about deadlines for flag state.
Adopt big data analytics to predict potential compliance issues. This could focus inspection resources based on compliance histories, streamline the inspection process and tailor safety regulations more effectively.
Improve training opportunities related to flag state. Several opportunities to improve training related to flag state exist, including:
Invest in and streamline training procedures for seafarers and technical experts in the shipping industry. In addition, improve co-ordination between all entities involved in the shipping value chain. This would include adapting training processes for seafarers for the operation of recreational boats.
Update the nautical schools’ training programmes and prepare training for emerging specialised offshore activities.
Support the creation of academies on board, making it possible to directly immerse local staff.
Improve access to training for those living in the autonomous regions.
Explore opportunities to strengthen the DGRM’s engagement with external stakeholders related to flag state. The DGRM is encouraged to continue engaging with shipowners, operators, and other maritime stakeholders to understand their needs and preferences and receive feedback on the registration process, associated flag-state services, and incentives.
The Decree-Law (DL) No. 40/2017 sets the legislative regime for the installation and operation of aquaculture establishments in marine, transition and inland waters, designating the DGRM as the entity responsible for establishments in marine and transitional waters and the ICNF for inland waters (co‑ordinating entities). The aquaculture production in Portugal predominantly takes place in marine and transitional waters, making up 94.7% of total production in 2020, with most of those facilities located in transition waters.
More than five years have passed since the entry into force of DL No. 40/2017. Considering the experience gained in implementing the standards enshrined therein and the provisions of Article 45, which provides that the regime should be subject to impact assessment, the changes to administrative procedures promoting their simplification were carried out through DL 83/2023.
The Aquaculture Activity Title (TAA) is a single title, granting at once the use of water, installation, and operation of the unit. The installation and operation of aquaculture establishments on private property or the private domain of the State is regulated in Article 7 of DL No. 10/2017. The analysis here, however, focuses on establishments in marine waters, inland waters and related establishments located in the State’s public domain, Autonomous Regions and local authorities, including the public water domain and national maritime space. These establishments follow the “blue licensing” or “general licensing” regimes described in Article 10 of the same law.
There is a procedural distinction between general licensing and blue licensing; however, the latter is currently not practised. Blue licensing is a procedure for establishing and operating aquaculture farms in predefined marine and inland public areas. The blue licensing areas are established by government ordinance, and the co-ordinating entity is responsible for opening applications for establishments in these areas, including the participation of local communities and interested associations, according to Article 11 of DL 40/2017.
Article 13 of DL 40/2017 addresses general licensing for aquaculture. The process is initiated by submitting an application for a TAA, including the necessary documents listed on the DGRM’s website (DGRM, n.d.[2]) via BMar (BMar, n.d.[3]). As soon as the application is received, the preliminary appreciation starts, during which the request and its instructive elements are analysed and validated by the DGRM within five days. Within this period, if necessary, the DGRM shall request the interested party to provide additional information, attach supporting documents or correct the information provided. The interested party then has five days to correct the application accordingly, which will otherwise be rejected. DL 83/2023 introduces the obligation for a new notification before rejecting the procedure.
Once the application has been corrected/completed and fully examined, within two days, the DGRM must make the file available to the public bodies listed in Article 6 of DL 40/2017, which, depending on the specificities of the proposed establishment, must give an opinion on the application, taking into account their respective powers and duties. The roles of and co-ordination mechanisms with these entities are presented in Figure 4.4.
These public authorities are requested to give their opinion within 15 days. If a public entity does not issue its opinion within that timeframe, the DGRM can take a final decision regardless of the entity’s opinion if the DGRM had called on it within three days of the deadline’s expiration and not received an opinion within five days after the call.
If any competent authorities in the field decide unfavourably, the DGRM shall notify the interested party within two days and request them to comment and reformulate the application within ten days. At the end of these ten days, DGRM shall send the file to the body that issued the unfavourable opinion for a final decision to be issued within five days.
Simultaneously to requesting the involved public authorities’ opinions, the DGRM must post notices of the TAA application in the parish councils, municipal councils, and territorially competent capitanias and publish the request on its website and BMar, opening the possibility for other interested parties to request the issuance of the title with the same object and purpose or to present objections to the attribution of the title within 15 days from the date of the last form of publicity.
Within ten days of the expiry of the time limits applicable to the involved public entities and other interested parties, the DGRM shall decide and, if favourable, issue the TAA. Within two days of its issue, the DGRM shall notify the interested party and the time limit for setting up the establishment shall begin to run. If the installation of the establishments requires an EIA or prior urban control, the DGRM shall, before taking a decision and issuing the TAA, submit the respective documents to the competent authorities (this process is described in Annex 4.C).
The licence is valid for a maximum period of 25 years, or if there is a rejection of wastewater into the water domain, the licence is valid for a maximum period of 10 years. Each TAA has a unique QR code, which simplifies the licensing and monitoring process of aquaculture facilities by the DGRM.
The DGRM co-ordinates the entire licensing process, including the validation required from other entities, through the online geoportal BMar (within Portugal’s Single Services Portal), which functions as a one-stop-shop. The services offered via BMar include the application for a new TAA, renewal of the TAA, changes to the operating conditions of the TAA, transfer, and cancellation of the TAA. BMar also provides simulators for information on activity frameworks, installation procedures and aquaculture tax calculations. The DGRM allows the ICNF access for inland water applications and legal regime implementation. With the passing of DL 83/2023, the interoperability of BMar and SILiAmb was improved to ensure that the information inputted in each of the systems is immediately accessible through the other so as to improve the public service provided and reduce context costs.
Feedback has to be provided within 50 days on BMar, and the entire licensing process is guaranteed by the DGRM to be completed within a maximum of three months. However, while most requests are handled within 3 months, those subject to an EIA might exceed 90 days. As indicated above, the EIA falls outside the procedures and timeframes described in DL 40/2017. Equally, stakeholders have indicated that confirming the establishment’s location is a lengthy procedure. This is also not part of the procedural regime described above since the document proving ownership of the location or the right to use the land must already be submitted to initiate the TAA application.
The introduction of the Sustainability Check would, in practice, work as the blue licensing regime, which is already provided for in DL 40/2017 under Articles 11 and 12. It is a tool that facilitates the collective specification of the criteria of instalment and operation for aquaculture establishments located in areas predefined by government ordinance. The licensing procedure for the individual establishments in those areas is shortened and simplified, e.g. given that there is no consultation of public entities, as foreseen for general licensing. Therefore, part of the administrative controls carried out for general licensing are lifted from the individual licensing process and rather take place at a higher level and are applied to a broader area. This simplifies the procedure for the user and allows the public administration to make efficient use of its resources while still applying the necessary scrutiny and taking sustainability into account.
The aquaculture licensing regime was modified with the recent introduction of DL 83/2023. The process for establishments on private property or in the private domain of the State was simplified. It introduced a rejection phase in cases of public health or insurmountable legal non-conformities and established rules for competitive situations to promote greater efficiency and transparency in the licensing of these establishments. There are some changes to Section II – Activity in the Public Domain of the State. Article 46-A was also added regarding the procedure for verifying authorisations and licences.
Applications for renewable energy production can be submitted at the electronic one-stop shop (BMar, under DGRM’s competence). Within five days, the DGRM shall conduct a preliminary assessment of the application and either request the correction of the application, outright reject it or (explicitly or implicitly) give preliminary approval.
The principles for co-ordinating the instruction of procedures linked to operations in the national maritime space that require not only the title of private use but also other concessions, licences, authorisations, or acts are established in Article 62 of DL 38/2015. Process simplification and streamlining are the objectives. According to DL No. 15/2022, which establishes the organisation and operation of the National Electricity System, transposing Directive (EU) 2019/944 and Directive (EU) 2018/2001, a production and operating licence is required for the production of electricity from renewable energy sources (Article 11, paragraph 2b).
The key points are as follows:
The interested party can concurrently submit requests for a private use title and other necessary authorisations through the electronic one-stop-shop system.
According to specific regulations, the electronic one-stop-shop system provides information on the required paperwork and components.
It is not essential to deliver the instructional components again if the application for a private use title includes a title for other relevant authorisations that is legally required and legitimate, provided that the assumptions remain the same.
The electronic one-stop-shop system transmits the application and instructive materials to the appropriate authorities for the necessary authorisations and the competent authority for the private use title.
Each entity communicates in line with its mandate and areas of expertise, as well as information about the components and papers required to be used in conformity with the relevant laws.
In order to expedite processes and give interested parties’ information and explanations, the responsible entity that grants the title of private use assures co-ordination with the co-ordinating entity or responsible for the procedures for issuing other authorisations.
To streamline procedures and provide information for uses and activities related to geological energy resources, renewable energy sources, and their infrastructure, the Directorate-General of Energy and Geology co-ordinates with the entity competent of the private use title and other entities.
There is a process of cross-border co-operation and co-ordination in cases where the geographic implementation occurs primarily outside the national maritime space but in a public water domain. Co-ordination is ensured by the entity with jurisdiction in the area, respecting the competencies of the co-ordinating entity.
By permitting several applications to be treated simultaneously, this article seeks to streamline processes, ensure an integrated approach to the development and use of marine space, and facilitate collaboration and efficiency in procedures.
The regulative framework for EIA (DL 151-B/2013) provides for two scenarios under which an intended aquaculture project applying the intensive regime may be subject to an EIA (establishments applying the semi-intensive or extensive regime are exempt).
First, establishments located in a sensitive area or otherwise meet the codified thresholds of Annex II of DL 151-B/2013 are subject to a mandatory EIA.
Second, according to Article 1, para. 3, b) iii) the establishments typified in Annex II may also be subject to EIAs regardless of the thresholds, based on a case-by-case assessment of the licensing authority (DGRM) after consultation with the EIA authority (APA or Regional Coordination and Development Commission [CCDR]). In that case, these entities assess whether the project is likely to have a significant impact on the environment by virtue of its location, size or nature. The selection criteria characterising the project, its location and potential impact, by which this consideration of likely significant impact may take place, are codified in Annex III of the legislation.
The criteria for either of these scenarios, under which aquaculture establishments that apply an intensive regime and are not located in sensitive areas, are shown in Annex Table 4.C.1.
The selection criteria for case-by-case EIA assessment are formulated in general terms (e.g. “likelihood of impact”) and, unlike the thresholds for mandatory EIAs, contain neither quantifications (e.g. “waste generation”) nor precise definitions of key terms. This ambiguity leaves room for interpretation by both licensing and EIA authorities, creating uncertainty among users. Since decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, this framework may lack consistency in its practical application.
For the establishments in marine and transitional waters, which are subject to EIA, the DGRM is the licensing authority referred to in Article 6a of the legislation, and as such, must co-ordinate with the applicant and the EIA authority. For projects located in maritime space or an area under the jurisdiction of two or more CCDRs, APA is the EIA authority, whereas, for all other establishments in transitional waters, the CCDR is the EIA authority. This split of competencies between APA and the CCDRs for establishments under the DGRM’s authority may represent a bottleneck since it hinders the pooling of expertise on salt-water aquaculture establishments in one central entity and may thus lead to disparate opinions being issued. Moreover, since APA issues mandatory and binding opinions on sustainable water management for all aquaculture facilities (according to Article 6a of DL 40/2017), having the EIA carried out by a different entity may lead to fragmentation and add bureaucratic hurdles, carried mostly by the DGRM and the applicant.
The EIA procedure in itself requires the collaboration of numerous entities. The EIA authority is responsible for leading the EIA procedure and liaising with the intervening entities listed in Article 6 of the legislation. The EIA procedure may be initiated by DGRM as the licensing authority simultaneously with the TAA procedure. According to Article 11 (3), the co-ordination of procedures is to take place electronically via the one-stop-shop (BMar). The EIA process consists of defining the scope of the EIA, the evaluation procedure, public participation and the final opinion.
In accordance with Annex IV of the legislation, applicants subjected to an EIA must provide a project characterisation, a description of the project site and an identification and assessment of its impacts. The decision on the EIA must be carried out before the licence can be issued.
References
[3] BMar (n.d.), Crew List and Embarkation and Discharge Records, https://www.bmar.pt/BMAR_Geral/faces/userauth/LoginX.xhtml?ssoOrigApp=BMAR_Pedido.
[1] DGRM (2023), Institutional and Stakeholder mapping.
[2] DGRM (n.d.), National Ocean Strategy 2021-2030, https://www.dgpm.mm.gov.pt/_files/ugd/eb00d2_17071b38e7ac47a8ada820ed140e024b.pdf.
[4] Government of Portugal (2013), Decree-Law 151-B/2013, https://www.pgdlisboa.pt/leis/lei_mostra_articulado.php?nid=2837&tabela=leis&so_miolo=\.
← 2. The simplified licensing aquaculture procedures for receiving a TAA in predefined areas that already specify the criteria of instalment and operations. Therefore, part of the administrative controls carried out for general licensing are lifted from the individual licensing, and the blue licensing procedure is shorter due to the fact that there is no consultation of public entities, as foreseen for general licensing.
← 3. The participation of local communities, including individuals and associations whose objective is to defend their interests, namely fishing, is foreseen in the regulation for licensing procedure and is stated in the Aquaculture Strategy (Objective 3.2). During the licensing process, for 15 days, the DGRM publishes at the local level and on their website an announcement with details about the application for occupying an offshore or transit space for an aquaculture establishment (https://www.dgrm.pt/web/guest/editais-publicitados-para).
← 4. Current criteria applied by the DGRM for determining APAs include: space needs in the next ten years, most favourable oceanographic conditions (e.g. wave height, swells, currents, water quality) and distance from the coast, the maintenance of GES of the water, expected contributions to the NOS, expected social and economic benefits, and maximum coexistence of use.
← 5. The parameters currently verified to obtain a TAA are: the use of appropriate equipment, origin of specimens, waste treatment, quality control, and measures to mitigate environmental impacts.