Acting with a view to enhancing the prospective value of the Crown Estate׳s offshore CO2 storage rights, the Commissioners are undertaking a significant

research and development programme regarding CCS [95]. The programme includes collaborations with the commercial sector in the form of a CCS Cost Reduction Task Force, and development of a CO2-storage geospatial database in partnership with the British Geological Survey [95]. The review undertaken in Section 3 illustrates that offshore CO2 storage (and other human uses of the marine environment) in the UK are planned for and regulated under a complex patchwork of sectorally fragmented see more laws, and by different public bodies. Fig. 1 presents a diagrammatic representation of (1) key components of the UK׳s framework for marine

permitting and planning, and (2) key interactions between these components. Key components and interactions are explained where relevant below. There are two key public bodies within which decisions are made to authorise offshore CO2 storage and associated activities: • DECC – Issues licences under Petroleum Act 1998 covering CO2 storage undertaken as part of EOR projects not claiming credits under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Issues licences under Energy Act 2008 covering all other CO2 storage activities. There are four key bodies within which planning, and/or authorisation decisions, are undertaken in relation

to marine activities that may spatially Urocanase compete or conflict with offshore CO2 storage development: • Crown Estate Commissioners – Undertakes spatial planning to inform grant Alpelisib in vitro of leases and licences for offshore components of the Crown Estate (e.g. for offshore CO2 storage, natural gas storage, submarine cables, wave and tidal energy generation, offshore wind farms, etc). To what extent is the UK׳s complex and sectorally fragmented framework for marine permitting and planning capable of delivering the overarching policy objective to achieve commercial deployment of CCS in the 2020s? Regulatory complexity and fragmentation are often characterised as having adverse consequences for marine policy delivery (and environmental governance more generally) at national, regional and international scales. Commonly cited adverse consequences include: inefficient decision-making; high transaction costs; inconsistent or contradictory regulatory standards; and conflicting uses of the marine environment [96], [97], [98], [99] and [100]. Investor confidence in new, capital-intensive activities such as offshore CO2 storage and CCS is particularly sensitive to these types of regulatory risk. The risks associated with regulatory complexity and sectoral fragmentation can be mitigated through implementation of measures that enable different components of a regulatory framework to operate in a coherent, coordinated manner.