In brief
- Three institutions have jointly approved the action plan for the local supply chains of the future wind farms in the Black Sea: eight concrete measures, each with a responsible institution and a time horizon.
- The document openly admits what is missing: there is not even an inventory of the industrial capacities that could make parts for the offshore sector, nor a database of the companies interested in doing so.
- The Ministry of Energy will examine whether it can require, in the concession documentation, the use of Romanian suppliers and the transfer of know-how, within the limits of the European competition rules.
Published: Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial) no. 705 of 25 August 2026
In force from: 25 August 2026
Romania has finished writing the last of the three plans that the offshore wind energy law required before the first turbines reach the Black Sea: after the plan for the ports and the one for the workforce, the plan for the industry that is supposed to deliver the parts has now arrived. The joint order of the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure and the President of the Competent Authority for Regulating Offshore Operations in the Black Sea was published in Official Gazette of Romania no. 705 of 25 August 2026. The three documents are tied to one another: this plan refers explicitly to the plan for port infrastructure, adopted under Article 47 of the same law.
The legal basis is Article 48 of Law no. 121/2024 on offshore wind energy, which requires the authorities to support the development of the local supply chains. The objectives written into the law are four: increasing the added value produced in Romania, strengthening industrial capacities, integrating Romanian companies into the regional and European chains, and developing skills.
The plan was drawn up by an inter-ministerial working group coordinated by the Ministry of Energy, with representatives of the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, of the Ministry of Economy, Digitalisation, Entrepreneurship and Tourism and of the Competent Authority for Regulating Offshore Operations in the Black Sea, abbreviated ACROO in the text of the act.
Two days later, the Government also approved the list of the three wind perimeters that can be put out to concession in the Black Sea, with an estimated capacity of 3,100 MW.
The rules for auctioning the perimeters have meanwhile been published, together with the royalty and the fees owed to the State.
What it changes in practice
A second action plan, signed by the same institutions, deals with how long permitting takes: from 24 months to 12, with nothing attached to a missed deadline.
The first effect is an inventory that has yet to be made. The plan states plainly that there is at present no unified, distinct and up to date inventory of the industrial capacities dedicated to manufacturing equipment for offshore wind energy. The first measure, the national support programme for converting industrial capacities, begins with precisely that inventory, including in shipbuilding, steelmaking and electrical engineering.
The second effect is a list of eight operational measures, each with the bottleneck it addresses, the implementation tools, the responsible institution and the time horizon. The final table in the annex brings them together: support for converting industrial capacities, analysis of the financing mechanisms, analysis of the port logistics needs, a certification and standardisation programme, matching skills to workforce training, a mechanism for promoting Romanian suppliers, digitalisation of the logistics and administrative flows, and matching the offshore concessions to the development of local industry.
The third effect concerns the concessions. The Ministry of Energy, together with ACROO, will examine the possibility of introducing into the concession documentation and the competitive procedures requirements on the involvement of local suppliers, evaluation criteria that favour the local chains, and know-how transfer requirements. The condition is compliance with the principles of fair competition, non-discrimination, proportionality and compatibility with European legislation on public procurement, state aid and the internal market.
The fourth effect is certification. The national offshore certification and standardisation programme is meant to help companies obtain ISO, IEC, DNV and HSE certifications and to have their industrial capacities audited, so that they can enter the international supplier chains.
The fifth effect has to do with the ports. The Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure, together with the port authorities, will analyse the needs for manufacturing, pre-assembly, storage and logistics, the adaptation of port equipment to handling wind turbine components, the case for developing industrial activities close to the ports, and connectivity with the transport networks.
The sixth effect is digitalisation. A dedicated programme targets the authorisation procedures, the customs flows, the traceability of special transports and the exchange of data between institutions and companies, with the involvement of the Industrial Licence Office and of ANAF, alongside the port authorities.
The seventh effect is the promotion of Romanian companies. The mechanism provided for includes B2B platforms, economic missions and sector databases, with the declared aim of creating partnerships and joint ventures with the investors.
The eighth effect is monitoring. The plan provides for performance indicators on the three objectives, from the number of local companies integrated into the chains and the investment attracted, to the number of certified operators and the degree of integration into regional projects, plus periodic reporting and updating of the plan.
What has changed compared with the previous situation
The first change is that the trilogy is now complete. Law no. 121/2024 required three separate plans: one for port infrastructure, under Article 47, one for the supply chains, under Article 48, and one for workforce training, under Article 49. The plan for the ports and the one for qualifications in the offshore trades had already appeared. This one closes the third.
The second change is the move from a working group to a document with owners. The inter-institutional group had existed since 2025, set up by Order no. 781/1.801/1.823/1.770/2025. What it produced now becomes a published normative act, with responsibilities assigned by name to institutions.
The third change is the official acknowledgement of the bottlenecks. The plan lists them under six headings: financial, infrastructure, industrial, skills, administrative and market related. They are written without softening: insufficient port capacity, insufficient depth of the channels and basins, the lack of multimodal connections, a shortage of welders, electricians, engineers and offshore technicians, bureaucratic procedures and the fragmentation of powers between authorities.
The fourth change concerns the regulation of authorisation. The plan finds that the rules applied today are adapted from the offshore oil sector or from the general regime for maritime and port activities and do not reflect the specific features of offshore wind, from installing the foundations and the turbines to the submarine cables. The technical guidance that would say which approvals are needed and in what order is missing as well.
The fifth change is that the Industrial Licence Office enters the picture. The plan gives it a role in simplifying and digitalising the authorisation procedures and in monitoring deadlines, within the limits of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 140/2022 on the single industrial licence.
What does not change is the absence of a dedicated budget. The funding sources remain listed in general terms: the state budget through the budgets of the institutions involved, European grants, European financial instruments and private sources, including through public-private cooperation.
Advantages and disadvantages
What it improves
- Companies in metal fabrication, shipbuilding, engineering and logistics now have an official document that names them among the potential suppliers of the sector.
- Each of the eight measures has a responsible institution and a time horizon, so it can be tracked who has to do what.
- The examination of whether local suppliers can be required in the concession documentation is the most concrete instrument in the whole plan.
- The bottlenecks are described without evasion, including the insufficient depth of the port basins and the lack of authorisation procedures adapted to the sector.
- The plan is explicitly tied to the other two, on the ports and on the workforce, so it does not overlap with them.
- The certifications targeted are named specifically, ISO, IEC, DNV and HSE, which gives companies a clear objective.
What remains a problem
- Most of the measures are analyses, inventories and consultations, not decisions with immediate effect for a company.
- The time horizon is expressed as „short”, „medium” and „long”, with no calendar dates.
- There is no allocated budget, only a list of possible funding sources.
- The requirements on local suppliers remain conditional on compatibility with European law, so it is not certain that they can be introduced at all.
- The performance indicators are set out as headings, without target values and without reporting deadlines.
- The plan admits that even the future volume of the offshore projects is unknown, which makes any private investment hard to justify.
Practical advice
- If your company works in metal fabrication, shipbuilding, engineering, port logistics or industrial maintenance, follow the announcements of the Ministry of Economy on the inventory of capacities. The first measure in the plan starts with that mapping, and whoever does not appear in it will not be taken into account.
- Start the certification process early. The plan names ISO, IEC, DNV and HSE explicitly, and certification takes months, not weeks.
- If you are recruiting technical staff, match your hiring plan to the trades named as being in short supply: welders, electricians, engineers and offshore technicians, operation and maintenance staff.
- Follow the concession documentation that the Ministry of Energy and ACROO are going to publish. That is where it will become clear whether the requirements on local suppliers passed the European compatibility test or not.
- If you are a small company, look for partnerships with large operators. The plan expressly mentions cooperation between large enterprises and SMEs with the potential to be integrated into the chains.
- Universities and research institutes can use the chapter on research and innovation as an argument in funding applications: advanced structures and materials, installation technologies, predictive maintenance and solutions for operating in a marine environment are named as priorities.
- Check whether your activity falls under the single industrial licence. The Industrial Licence Office has an explicit role in simplifying the authorisations in this sector.
Frequently asked questions
Does this plan bring money to companies?
What does local supply chain mean in this context?
Can Romanian suppliers be made compulsory in the offshore projects?
Which institution coordinates?
When do the measures apply?
How does it relate to the other plans under Law no. 121/2024?
Is there already a list of the companies that can supply?
Errors and inconsistencies in the published text
- The plan takes over only three of the four objectives in Article 48. At point 1.1 the act quotes the statutory objectives in full, among them „stimularea ocupării forței de muncă și dezvoltarea competențelor necesare acestui sector”, stimulating employment and developing the skills the sector needs. Chapter 3 keeps only three objectives of its own, however, and the indicators in point 7.1 are structured on letters a), b) and c), that is, on exactly those three. The result is that measure M5, devoted entirely to skills, has no monitoring indicator at all, even though point 8.1 announces „crearea și menținerea de locuri de muncă”, the creation and maintenance of jobs, among the expected benefits.
- The institutions made responsible are not the ones in the working group. At point 1.2, the Ministry of Education and Research and the Office for Industrial Licensing appear only as possible guests at the group’s meetings, while the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Labour, Family, Youth and Social Solidarity, ANAF and the port authorities are not mentioned at all. All of them appear in Chapter 5 and in the final table as institutions responsible for measures. What is more, the Ministry of Economy, Digitalisation, Entrepreneurship and Tourism, which carries five of the eight measures, is not one of the issuers of the order, although it did sign Order no. 781/1.801/1.823/1.770/2025, by which the group was set up.
- HSE certification has no identifiable object. Point 5.2.4 calls for companies to be supported in „obținerea certificărilor ISO, IEC, DNV și HSE”, obtaining ISO, IEC, DNV and HSE certifications. The first three point to standardisation organisations or to a certification body, whereas HSE is a field, health, safety and environment, not an issuer of certificates. Chapter 9 confirms this: at point 6 it lists „standarde și ghiduri”, standards and guides, for safety in maritime operations and for the protection of the marine environment, without naming any organisation that issues them and without a single reference number.
- The final table changes the instrument of measure M7. At point 5.2.7, the digitalisation programme has as implementation tools „fonduri europene pentru digitalizare, buget de stat”, European funds for digitalisation and the state budget, the only concrete reference to a source of money in the whole plan. In the summary table, the same tools become „instrumente și programe disponibile pentru digitalizare, în condițiile cadrului legal aplicabil”, instruments and programmes available for digitalisation, within the applicable legal framework. In the same place, row 7 is the only one in the table that does not name the responsible institutions but points back to point 5.2.7.
- The same finding, with two different scopes. Point 2.1 says that what is missing is an inventory of the industrial capacities „dedicate exclusiv”, dedicated exclusively, to manufacturing equipment for offshore wind energy, which in a sector that has not started yet goes without saying. Point 4.3 repeats the finding, but about the capacities „relevante”, relevant, for the sector, which is something else entirely. Measure M1 starts from the second wording, not from the first.
Editorial analysis
The most valuable part of this plan is its inventory of what is missing. Points 2.1 and 2.2 acknowledge that there is neither a mapping of the industrial capacities that could work for the offshore sector nor a database of the companies interested in doing so, and Chapter 4 carries on in the same tone: insufficient depth in the channels and the port basins, land unavailable around the ports because they are hemmed in by the urban area, permitting rules adapted from the offshore oil sector that do not cover the installation of foundations, turbines and submarine cables, and the absence of guides saying which approvals are needed and in what order. A public document that begins its argument here is more useful than one that announces targets.
From the finding onwards, though, the plan stays a plan to make plans. Of the eight operational measures, six have as their implementation tool analyses, inventories, studies or consultations, and the two that mention money, M4 and M7, do so through the formula „programe și instrumente de sprijin disponibile”, support programmes and instruments available. The timetable in point 6.3 works with short, medium and long term without saying anywhere how many months each of them means, and in the final table seven measures out of eight are given the same horizon, short to medium. The ordering of priorities thus disappears exactly where it ought to have appeared.
The measure that could actually change the odds for a Romanian company is M8, local content requirements in the concession documentation. Here the text contradicts itself, in a way worth reading twice. The first part of point 5.2.8 states that including requirements on the use of local suppliers and on know-how transfer „este posibilă”, is possible, subject to the principles of fair competition, non-discrimination, proportionality and compatibility with European law. The description of the measure that follows immediately consists of „analizarea posibilității introducerii”, examining the possibility of introducing, those same requirements. In one and the same point the act carries both the conclusion and the announcement that the conclusion is to be studied, with no deadline by which the analysis has to end.
The last weakness is in the monitoring. Point 7.2 provides for „raportare periodică, realizată de instituțiile responsabile”, periodic reporting by the responsible institutions, but does not say to whom the reports go, at what interval, or whether the result becomes public. The indicators in point 7.1 are stated as headings, with no baseline and no target, so „numărul de întreprinderi locale integrate în lanțurile de aprovizionare”, the number of local companies integrated into the supply chains, may just as well be zero in three years’ time without anybody being at fault. The inter-ministerial working group continues to exist under point 1.2, but the plan gives it neither the task of receiving the reports nor that of proposing updates, even though point 7.2 announces that the plan „va putea fi actualizat periodic”, may be updated periodically.
What should be changed
- A deadline and a public form for the inventory in M1. The measure ought to set a deadline, six months from publication for instance, and an obligation to publish the resulting list on the website of the Ministry of Economy, with a procedure by which a company can ask to be included. In practice, a maker of steel structures would know whether it appears in the catalogue on which the support measures are built, and would have a way of getting into it.
- Short, medium and long term defined in months. Point 6.3 ought to say once and for all what each of them means, up to 12, up to 36 and over 36 months for instance. In practice, it would be possible in 2027 to say which measure is late, which today cannot be done.
- Baselines and targets for the indicators in point 7.1, plus an indicator for the missing objective. Every indicator ought to have a starting value and a value aimed at, and the set ought to be completed with an indicator on employment and qualifications, matching the fourth objective in Article 48 and measure M5. In practice, the monitoring would measure something rather than describe it.
- An addressee and a frequency for the reporting. Point 7.2 ought to provide for an annual report by the inter-ministerial working group, sent to the coordinator and published. In practice, the state of the eight measures could be checked from outside the institutions, not only among them.
- A decision deadline for local content. Point 5.2.8 ought to fix the date by which the legal analysis is completed and published, ahead of the launch of the first competitive concession procedure. In practice, an investor and a supplier would know before the tender whether the documentation will carry requirements on local suppliers, instead of finding out along with it.
- A list of standards with reference numbers, not of families. Chapter 9 ought to name the standards actually required on the offshore market, with reference number and year, and point 5.2.4 ought to replace the reference to „certificările HSE”, HSE certifications, with the certifications that can in fact be obtained. In practice, a company could work out what alignment costs and how long it takes, which today cannot be deduced from the text.
Original text of the legal act
The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.
The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania
Official Gazette of Romania no. 705 of 25 August 2026 16 pages PDF, 111 KB the act starts on page 5
Open the official PDFDownload the PDF
The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.