Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Se está descargando tu SlideShare. ×

Report - Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting*

Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Report Cross border workshop
Southwest Baltic
2 of 30
Author: Thea Ohlander Arfwidsson, Annie Bengtsson,
Shahin Madjidian, Andrea Öström
Date: 2016-02-15
Report number:...
3 of 30
About this document
A report from the Cross border workshop Southwest Baltic for
maritime spatial planning
This re...
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Anuncio
Cargando en…3
×

Eche un vistazo a continuación

1 de 38 Anuncio

Report - Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting*

Descargar para leer sin conexión

Report on the Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting on 27 January 2016 in Malmo, SWEDEN
www.balticscope.eu

* The information presented is the working exercise of the cross-border maritime spatial planning discussions and can not be treated as the official opinion of the European Commission and the Member States involved in the consortium of the Baltic SCOPE project.

Report on the Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting on 27 January 2016 in Malmo, SWEDEN
www.balticscope.eu

* The information presented is the working exercise of the cross-border maritime spatial planning discussions and can not be treated as the official opinion of the European Commission and the Member States involved in the consortium of the Baltic SCOPE project.

Anuncio
Anuncio

Más Contenido Relacionado

Presentaciones para usted (20)

Anuncio

Similares a Report - Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting* (20)

Más de Pan Baltic Scope / Baltic SCOPE (20)

Anuncio

Más reciente (20)

Report - Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting*

  1. 1. Report Cross border workshop Southwest Baltic
  2. 2. 2 of 30 Author: Thea Ohlander Arfwidsson, Annie Bengtsson, Shahin Madjidian, Andrea Öström Date: 2016-02-15 Report number: -- Key words: MSP, Maritime Spatial Planning, Cross border, Workshop, Baltic Sea, Stakeholder participation, Baltic SCOPE Lead partner : Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management www.havochvatten.se/en
  3. 3. 3 of 30 About this document A report from the Cross border workshop Southwest Baltic for maritime spatial planning This report presents the findings and outcomes of the Cross border workshop with institutional stakeholders to the Southwest Baltic. The workshop constituted a possibility for representatives from the sectors Energy, Fishing, Nature and Environment and Shipping, to exchange input and knowledge on the process of marine spatial planning. The workshop was held in Malmö, Sweden, in January 2016. The target groups of this report are stakeholders to maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea such as: planners, representatives from the sectors Energy, Fishing, Nature and Shipping as well as other representatives from countries around the Baltic Sea About Baltic SCOPE Baltic SCOPE is a collaboration between the maritime spatial planning authorities in six countries and pan-Baltic organizations to find planning solutions to trans- boundary issues. We strive to achieve coherence and cross-border solutions in Baltic maritime spatial plans and improve the planning processes. Our two-year collaboration is co-funded by European Commission. www.balticscope.eu
  4. 4. 4 of 30 Summary The Cross border workshop with institutional stakeholders to the Southwest Baltic constituted a possibility for representatives from the sectors Energy, Fishing, Nature and Environment and Shipping, to exchange input and knowledge on the process of MSP. All sector groups reached similar conclusions regarding the need for more cooperation, sharing of information and data, and the need for group discussions. The form for these group discussions was not identified, since meetings with many stakeholders can be very resource consuming, but on the other hand it can be difficult to cover all aspects in a smaller focus group. All sectors was interested in the possibilities of co-existence as a way to handle conflicts of interest, a possible key to a way forward, implementing mitigation issues instead of prohibiting activities. Baltic Scope can be a good platform to address the issues of potential synergies between sectors in the Baltic sea. A healthy environment is required for a sustainable South West Baltic. Here the aggregation of data across borders is important since nature does not apply to national borders. However strategic planning always includes uncertainty and lack of data should not stop the planning process. Conclusions  Transboundary Marine Spatial Planning is more complex than anticipated  There is a lack of a common understanding of what is needed for coherent planning  There is a lack of harmonization between different EU directives  There is a difference in the national legal systems, and, what legal role the MSP plays in every country.  There are unsettled border issues
  5. 5. 5 of 30  A strategic approach is difficult to comprehend and sector actors are not used to think in a holistic perspective  Planners do not have the mandate to solve all issues Recommendations There is a need for:  Common capacity building and creation of awareness  Close cooperation between planning authorities  Political involvement on a pan-Baltic level for MSP  A permanent platform with resources and mandate to cover the issue, not depending on a project  Common criteria or recommendations in a number of issues, such as o safety distances to OQFs o what to include in the SEA o how to coordinate with MFWD etc For recommendations from each sector, please see the notes from the respective thematic meetings.
  6. 6. 6 of 30 Day one Plenary The Cross border workshop with institutional stakeholders from the Southwest Baltic was opened on the 27th of January 2016. Axel Wenblad (chairman of the board of WWF Sweden) was moderating the event, and opened up with the importance of the long term perspective, the transboundary issues and the challenges of four different legal systems meeting with different perspectives on Maritime Spacial Planning. Marie Columbier from DG Mare presented the Directive on Maritime Spacial Planning from July 2014, and its aim to reduce conflicts and cumulative impacts on the environment. The directive also seeks to reduce coordination costs for public authorities and improve certainty to private businesses and investments. During 2016 all member states should transpose the Directive it into their national plans, and by 2021 plans for all waters should be finalized. The plans should be reviewed every ten year. The underlying principle for the MSP as well as cross border cooperation is an ecosystem based approach. To set the scene the Baltic Scope Project Manager Ingela Isaksson presented the project, and each of the participating countries presented their current activities on MSP:  Poland has already implemented the directive for MSP in Polish law, and the responsibility is shared by three organizations, covering three different geographical areas. The MSPs in Poland will be legally binding, but so far no MSPs are officially adopted in Poland yet.  Germany has different MSPs for different areas and the responsibility is shared by four planning agencies – the Länder are responsible for their respective territorial seas and the BSH is in charge of the EEZ. Germany has MSPs in force, on both Länder and Federal level, and are hence limited in flexibility regarding the development of MSPs.
  7. 7. 7 of 30  Denmark is starting up their MSP planning process in autumn 2016 and it will involve cooperation between ministries, municipalities, regional authorities, neighboring countries and the public. Denmark will have one single plan for the North Sea and the Baltic sea area. The MSP will be finalized in 2021 and the Danish Maritime Authority is going to be responsible for the plan,that will be legally binding.  Sweden will have three MSPs; the Gulf of Bothnia, the Baltic sea and Skagerrak-Kattegat. The planning will take place 2016-2019 and the MSPs will be guiding documents only. At this stage Sweden has a status report and a guidance document on MSP. The guidance document presents the goals for planning as well as the regional differences between the areas, the Swedish MSP area boarders 9 countries (plus Åland), covers 65 municipalities and 14 regions. Tomas Andersson from SwAM presented some of the challenges of transboundary MSP, such as that processes and negotiations are slow and agreements are usually voluntary. One always has to remember that participants are sovereign nations and have domestic targets, goals, priorities and interests. The different countries are at different temporal levels in the MSP process, which can make coordination difficult. To approach these challenges there is a need for an exchange of planning information, and to reach agreements on certain topics. Workshop participants were encouraged to focus on the issues of what they need from each other to be able to be successful in making the MSPs. Inspirational speaker Mattias Rust from WWF raised the issue of the primary goal of the MSP:s – is it economic growth or environmental health? Increased activities in the Baltic means increased pressure on the environment and fish populations. However, investing in the marine environment is not a cost, but a necessity to ensure steady production in the future. He also emphasized the importance of asking the
  8. 8. 8 of 30 right questions in this MSP process, such as “Is it possible to talk about growth in the fisheries sector when fish populations are declining?”. Growth is a direction and sustainability is a boundary within which we can grow, here MSP can be a tool for sustainability. Before the thematic meetings there was a brief introduction to the topics. Thereafter Tomas Andersson presented the geographical areas of special interests (see Annex 3). Thematic meetings On the thematic meetings, participant was to discuss the following issues: 1. Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status? (Topic papers gives a background description of each theme, describes existing conflicts and prospects in the Baltic Sea area.) 2. What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas (surface, water pillar, bottom, on banks)? 3. What are the development plans for your sector in 2035 and 2050? 4. What are the main conflicts and synergies with other interests and how could those be handled? 5. What recommendation is the group giving the planners for their work with focus on transboundary aspects? The discussions from each of the four thematic meetings: Energy, Fishing, Nature and Environment and Shipping, is presented below. The participants of each thematic meeting is listed in Annex 2. Energy In the Energy-sector there are two aspects to consider – the coordination of planning of offshore wind farms (OWFs) used by several countries and a joint planning for energy transport corridors. For OWFs the requirements are Good natural conditions (seabed, sea depth, wind conditions), good infrastructure conditions (distance to coast, distance from shipping
  9. 9. 9 of 30 routes, large areas) and environmental conditions (minimum impact on protected areas). The requirements for power cables are related to acceptable routes regarding shipping/extraction sites. Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status? Overall, the group agreed that the topic paper gave a correct picture of the current status, even if the paper was considered somewhat fragmented. Some issues was raised on incorrect details on energy production, and the need for a map of built and planned OWFs and pipelines, so that the planners can see where there are interests to construct OWFs and place pipelines in the future. The group also pointed out the need for better correlations to the ESPOO process, and more substance on international consultation and transboundary cooperation and how that process can be designed. What are the development plans for your sector in 2035 and 2050? The facilitators decided to combine this question with the third question. What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas (surface, water pillar, bottom, on banks)? The needs are very difficult to predict due to politics at national levels, costs, and other factors. The group recognizes a need for more information, data and further cooperation for better understanding before this question can be adequately answered. A new workshop where different scenarios would be discussed could be needed. Different energy needs in the future will result in different scenarios, for example the need for physical space could be lower than today due to technological progress such as increased capacity of single turbines, floating OWFs or other. Nevertheless
  10. 10. 10 of 30 energy should be included early on when allotting physical space to different sectors, to find good areas for all sectors in a balanced way. The need for safety zones around OWFs in EEZs was highlighted and also the need to find a common framework on how and where to locate OWFs. Areas for mixed use also need to be found, where for example pipelines can be allowed through OWFs. Environmental issues can also form a common ground with OWFs as ships cannot come near. To ensure a successful planning process, data and information sharing is important, and processes should be set up to develop this type of cooperation. The following questions should be used in the process: need to take scenarios/assumptions into consideration, national zoning requirements, expected generating capacity per km2 in the future, energy priority versus other sectors, OWF effect of oil prices. What are the main conflicts and synergies with other interests and how could those be handled? The group agreed that the main conflicts with energy are the following:  Nature and conservation, Natura2000  Shipping  Fishing Also, military objects are difficult to plan for, as military areas can be secret and thus not shown on maps. The group agreed that synergies can be found in the following areas:  Environmental benefits o E.g., creation of artificial reefs and promoting marine biodiversity. OWFs could lead to innovative fishing techniques when no trawling is allowed, and possibly aquaculture sites.  Grid connectivity between two or more countries o possible by-products of having OWFs in the same area.
  11. 11. 11 of 30 What recommendation is the group giving the planners for their work with focus on transboundary aspects? There were both divergent perspectives and common interests in the group, but the recommendations from the group to the planners for their work with focus on transboundary aspects were the following:  Agree on how to collect and share data, especially with regards to MSPs.  Create international working groups of planners regarding conflict areas.  Consider the correlation to the ESPOO process and use the experience from it.  Co-location – finding sites for multiple uses and sectors.  Evaluate projects across borders to achieve consistency. Fishing A common understanding in the group is that it is hard to involve the fishermen in the MSP dialogue. The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) gives a framework of what should happen, with quotas and harbour landing numbers regulated and foreseen on a short and long term. Missing in the CFP however is the spatial aspect, where fishing activities will occur etc. The MSP is a framework for discussion with other sectors, and how fisheries is going to interact with them. Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status? Overall the group agrees that the topic paper gives a correct picture of the current status, however it would be good if it goes more into detail regarding the possible conflicts and synergies with other sectors. It was also suggested to include an overview of CFP and MSP in relation to each other, what they regulate and what is not included.
  12. 12. 12 of 30 The areas identified in the following question are some of the question marks for the future that will be important to address in the topic paper. What are the development plans for your sector in 2035 and 2050? The areas identified was the following:  Sustainability as a goal  Protected areas (Nature 2000)  Coexistence  Commercial/recreational  Important fish habitats  Selectivity  Knowledge and data as a basis for plans  Market  Large scale – Ports– Small scale There has been a reduction in fish stocks the last 40 years according to the previous WWF presentation and the question was raised that maybe instead of talking about growth in fisheries sector, we should be talking about a decline argued the representative from Nordregio. However, a representative from DK argued, that in the Baltic the fish stocks have grown, and we can talk about growth because the fishing industry can use better selective tools and thus earn more money and be more sustainable in their methods at the same time. The needs for harbours change depending on how the fisheries change. And is it possible to expect a future emergence of combined recreational and commercial fisheries. Some say yes on a small scale, some say that is not economically viable.
  13. 13. 13 of 30 What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas (surface, water pillar, bottom, on banks)? The group agreed on using habitats, ports and fishing grounds as a base, but there are complexities in transferring data and evidence into marine plan format. There are also difficulties in fencing in fishing interests, but if we don’t try to, fishing might not be represented at all. There is a lack of information on small scale fisheries and fish habitats, fishing grounds are traditionally part of expert knowledge, and also, fishing grounds change, so data changes. The topic paper for example, shows a historic picture, not current or future. There was a discussion on what to include in the MSP process, is it every country´s responsibility to accommodate not only their own fisheries interests but also interests from other countries fisheries? Aggregated data will show a larger economic interest, but then we are back in the difficulties of getting data. To get updated data, stakeholders have to be included. Data and sharing of data can be sensitive, and there is a lack of data from small vessels in all countries. There are limitations with spatial designations, and it is important to look at cumulative effects of spatial claims from other activities on fisheries. A difficulty to engage fishery sector in the MSP process is recognized, and to create a common picture of important fish habitats a forum should be identified where there can be an exchange of information on fish habitat. The Baltic Scope project should highlight what are the important questions and deliver recommendations, not answers to all questions. What are the main potential spatial conflicts and synergies with other interest and how could those be handled?
  14. 14. 14 of 30 The group agrees with the list in the topic paper. However, a further specification is needed on which types of fisheries have what kind of interactions with other sectors. In some cases there are existing guidance, such as the fisheries regulation in Natura 2000, in others it needs to be developed. Also a full picture of potential synergies and conflicts needs to be developed, some cases can be both! Focus should be on spatial issues. What recommendation is the group giving the planners for their work with focus on transboundary aspects?  Develop aggregated maps for shared fishing interests in the whole region, as an outcome of Baltic Scope o Further exchange and cooperation is required to agree on methodology for this o We could draw on experience from e.g. ICES o Should highlight limitations as well as economic and social /cultural values  National political decision whether to display shared transboundary fisheries interest, and how (different levels of cooperation) o Informal exchange of data and designations o Standardize methodology for representing fisheries interest o Use aggregated data in MSP, not just national interest  Arguments for using aggregate data o Logical conclusion of the CFP, although not specified o Aggregates value of sector interest, improving incentive for protecting fisheries interest in MSP  Further exchange of experience between countries is required on how to represent fisheries interest in the MSP process o Stakeholder processes o Modelling method o Evidence base  Develop a more detailed description of interactions with other sectors
  15. 15. 15 of 30  Add in topic paper: make clear CFP and MSP – different regulations and interactions  Use BSAC as regional stakeholder forum for fisheries in MSP. Nature and environment The session started up with a brief presentation of the objectives and geographical scope. The objectives are to:  Identify the distribution of investments having significant impact on the marine environment, and also identify new areas.  Verify what sort of prohibitions and orders there are in place related to nature conservation, per country.  Comparison of Environmental impact assessment (EIA) and Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) public participation procedures, in countries. The geographical areas are:  Odra bank  Adlergrund.  Öresund.  German- Danish border  Kriegers flak.  Southern Middle bank. The geographical areas are further presented in Annex 3. Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status? The group concluded that the paper gives a good overview of the status of the nature and environment, but there is room for improvement. The Topic paper should add the following:  Clearer structure, conclusions and recommendations  Broaden the scope to environmental management - Marine protected areas (MPA) development, MSFD-descriptors.
  16. 16. 16 of 30  Guidance on how the nature and environment should be considered in MSP and the issues which can be addressed in the MSP-process. Some more specific aspects that should be considered in the paper are:  Some directives are missing, such as MSFD  Some activities should be further elaborated on such as noise pollution and the problems with shipping (invasive species, pollution, ammunition, dumping, and sea bottom impact).  Include description of corridors for migrating birds and other fauna  The problems with alien species should be included  Tables should be reformulated and add an analysis of the influence of the activities in the areas.  The Natura 2000 area maps need to be updated, for example the pressure descriptions are missing in the table for SE. The group also expressed that the paper should focus not only on protected areas, but also on other areas that are important form a nature protection perspectiv. It was also pointed out that the aspects of synergies and co-existence are missing. Furthermore, the descriptions could present a more forward vision. What are the development plans for your sector in 2035 and 2050? The approach to this issue was to consider cross border, important environmental issues and new issues that will influence MSP. In Sweden there are plans to expand and improve nature protection, and there is an ongoing discussion on what to protect and what not to protect. A green infrastructure approach is being developed, looking for co-existence with others It is not only considering what can co-exist but also when. Sweden also focus on connectivity, enhancing the knowledge in this area, carrying out studies, with the aim to create networks that are functional and connected. Results of this may be that Swedish protected areas should be in other countries as well! There will also be a stronger regulation on migration corridors. In Denmark there is a proposal on marine protected areas and perhaps also Natura 2000 areas. In Germany there are regulations or stipulations for protected areas, Natura 2000, and currently management plans are being worked out for these areas. There is no room to expand marine nature protection in Germany, since 50 percent of the marine
  17. 17. 17 of 30 areas are located in economic zone. Other aspects are being dealt with instead. There is a discussion on measures related to MSFD, how they can be used as a tool for example to integrate migration corridors into MSP. In Poland, there are no plans to expand the marine nature protection, as for now. What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas (surface, water pillar, bottom, on banks)? This issue was not discussed in the Nature group due to lack of time. What are the main conflicts and synergies with other interest and how could those be handled? The area of Middle bank was discussed as an example. Would it be acceptable to construct OWF in this areas, if avoiding piling (since the noise from piling is a special threat to the population of harbour porpoise). The German representatives gave a picture of the nature protection needs of the areas, but also that there is too little information to draw any conclusions. The positive and negative aspects of mussels on OWF was discussed. OWF as a base for mussels is positive for fish and also for birds. , argued the representative of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. The German representative meant that there are also negative impacts since over production of mussels lead to overfertilization and dead sea bottoms. Another possible solution was introduced - could there be a trade-off between Middle bank and Krigers flak? Krigers flak is location for intensive bird migration between Sweden and Denmark, for which OWF would be a problem, according to the German representatives. Overall conclusions from this discussions was that there are big challenges with co- existence, for example OWF in relation to birds, harbour porpoise, mussels. There is still a need for more information on possible impacts. But still, some conclusions have to be taken, because MSP will happen. We have to accept that we will never have perfect information, but use the best available information and prioritize. Finally, one way forward could be to install cross border task forces, on important cross border areas, as part of the MSP process. The concrete experience of the German-Polish working group could be used as a model. What recommendation is the group giving the planners for their work with focus on transboundary aspects?
  18. 18. 18 of 30  There is a need for more and stronger co-operation on all levels related to MSP. MSP cooperation needs to have status of a continuous task, not a project, and resources should be allocated.  The group recommended that bilateral/multilateral work groups should be established, and that these should be based on formal agreements between countries. There is a German-Polish example, which could be used as a model. Preferably there should be scientific advisory boards linked to these work groups. Possibly a think tank could be useful, compiling and demonstrating good examples and good practices of MSP.  There is a need to improve the exchange of information on MSP-issues within Helcom, for example between the Helcom Vasab MSP-work group and other thematic Helcom work groups (Helcom Fish, Helcom Maritime)  A common policy framework should be developed. This could take form in initiating and developing common policy level agreements on environmental related aspects, such as renewable energy.  Increased knowledge and data sharing was also strongly recommended. There is need for more knowledge about the systems and how they link and interact on different levels and from different angels: the planning system and the MSP-system, the planning process and various projects, Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and Environmental impact assessment (EIA). Furthermore, there is need to collect more environmental data, new information on for example migration routes, and develop ways to exchange this data and information (possibly via Helcom/Vasab).  Other recommendations were to develop a joint project on monitoring and to develop sensitivity maps on for example oil spills. Shipping In the shipping group, not many representatives from the Shipping industry was represented but a number of MSP experts. However, there was a constructive discussion, and exchange of knowledge between the participating countries. Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status? Overall the content is good, but there is a link missing between the conclusion and recommendations and the content in the topic paper. In the next version it can be better explained.
  19. 19. 19 of 30 The topic paper reads that shipping should be the priority sector, but from a planners’ perspective all uses should have equal rights in the beginning of planning. Poland on the other hands argues that shipping should have priority, since the shortest way at sea generates less pollutions. In the Central Baltic case there is plenty of space compared to the South West case. It is a challenge to coordinate traffic in a better way. Well placed TSS or recommended routes would be helpful, but it is not easy. A suggestion is to keep corridors sensibly wide & define the largest possible routes. It is important to consider current state of port strategies in the different countries, but port activities are also highly dependent on the companies deciding to use or not to use it. The representative from the Swedish Maritime Administration argues not to make much restriction in advance. Also in Latvia they do not want to make reservations beforehand, if a suggestion comes they want to be open for discussion, and do not want to draw the red lines on the map. What are the development plans for your sector in 2035 and 2050? Shipping is expected to increase globally with 400% in 50 years. Not possible says Polish representative, rather 50% in 50 years. Swedish representative argues that it is probably better to plan for an increase, since for example Sweden has a goal to move transport from land to sea. Another probable development is that vessels are getting bigger, hence fewer are needed to ship larger amounts of cargo. Another possible development in shipping is that ships are steered by robots and remotely controlled from land. Automation could demand automatic traffic ways, potentially leaving space for other uses of the sea, or it is not needed since the steering will be overlooked in detail from land by a rested pilot. What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas (surface, water pillar, bottom, on banks)? How to represent the interests of the maritime sector? A suggestion that in the “defined area” for shipping they have the right to be, but other areas they have to share with others.
  20. 20. 20 of 30 The national approaches to buffer zones differ. The safety zones around structures in line with UNCLOS (500m), but other buffer zones differ & so does the designation. In Latvia main shipping roads are 6NM broad and in Estonia they have 4 NM ship zones, but roads for smaller vessels are 2 NM broad. Latvia informs that other sectors are not happy about it so it will be discussed later this year. In Germany routs including buffer was 7, and smaller routs was 2 NM each side of the road. The separation on the TSS is 2,7 NM. Ships can go everywhere, but they have defined main routes. In the Polish plans there will be TSS on the map, and they will try to show recommended/preferred routs, and round these routs plan for a buffer zone. Sweden has developed “safe routs”, one of which is a deep water rout. So, it looks like there will be routs reserved for shipping. It would in the Baltic Scope be interesting to see how they match when crossing borders, and if they are in the same width. Other issues to be taken into account are areas for slowing down, turning, anchoring, and the issues of designating areas to OWF. Emerging routes should be discussed among BSR partners, and if possible consider national interests of other countries in national plans. In Baltic Scope we have the possibility to exchange knowledge & set learning processes for partners in motion. What are the main conflicts and synergies with other interest and how could those be handled? The topic paper dealt mainly with energy, but other sectors is also relevant such as environment, and intense traffic & fisheries. Some in the group saw a potential conflict with fisheries, but other meant that they can coexist. The Polish representative meant that ships should stay away from rest places WHAT DOES IT MEAN? at sea (which often easy to solve since these are too shallow for ships. The moderator raised the issue on trawling; it is banned in Öresund, are there more places where it should be banned for safety reasons for shipping? The trawl takes up a lot of space. The representative from the Swedish Maritime Administration means that they can coexist in the same area and that there are very few accidents.
  21. 21. 21 of 30 Regarding energy and OWFs, collisions can be avoided with buffer zones. Can we mainstream the size of these zones? IALA is developing guidelines for buffer zones for overseas wind farms, the main reason is that the windfarms can produce shadows for radio signals from the GMDSS (global maritime distress and safety system). At this moment France wants a buffer zone of 10 NM from the coast, but it will probably end up with an agreement on a recommendation on 2-3 NM of safety distance. What recommendation is the group giving the planners for their work with focus on transboundary aspects? Modification of Recommendations: 1. In the Topic paper, the text on re-routing requires a reformulation so that it opens up a possibility to reroute the navigational routes, possibly ”avoid as far as possible”, Might need consultation among all countries before altering. Denmark wants to point out that they do not want to reroute anything. 2. Merge the recommendations on rerouting in the Topic paper to one New recommendations: 1) For planners in Baltic Scope: look into planning of other colleagues & exchange knowledge and strive for alignment in the representation of the routes 2) Concerning the state of shipping in 2035: impossible to know / predict the development of size of ships; thus the spatial requirements will not be lower or at least the same. 3) Possible recommendation on fishing and shipping; not recommended to fish in areas with intense shipping? Group did not agree fully on this. 4) Add actors of the shipping industry to this discussion, when ready. 5) Examples of how other countries handle the shipping sector? BalticScope is laying the seeds for the development of a trans-Baltic ”Spatial Vision”
  22. 22. 22 of 30 Day two The second day of the workshop was initiated with a recap of the outcomes and recommendations from the discussions of day one. The different sector perspectives was presented and discussed in the plenary. Issues raised and questions asked are presented below for each sector together with the discussion and outcomes of the round table cross sectoral discussions. Round table cross sectoral discussions After the presentations, each of the sector groups had the possibility to discuss internally what the others sectors had presented. Those cross sectorial discussions focused on how the recommendation from the other sectors matched the ones in the group, and how it is possible to cooperate over sector borders as well as over county borders. The issues to be discussed were:  What is the impact on your sector/theme, from what you heard from the other groups?  How should that impact be addressed? The discussions and outcomes of these round tables cross sectorial discussions are presented below. Energy During the presentation of the outcomes from the Energy group, a number of questions was raised and discussed: 1. What existing working groups in the energy sector can be used, instead of creating new ones? -An interest group for wind farm companies in Denmark, and TTOs and groups on the international level. 2. In what ways does nature represent both conflicts and synergies? -For example artificial reefs or aquaculture at OWFs. It might be possible to expand N 2000 sites while leaving some space for OWFs, or making it
  23. 23. 23 of 30 mandatory to make a contribution towards Natura 2000 if someone wants to build an OWF. OWFs also leads to reduced shipping activity in the area, hence the marine environment becomes less disturbed. One possible step is to start looking at how OWFs are designed and how other sectors can be interwoven into that design in order to create possibilities for co-existence and multiple use sites. 3. What can be done about the data discrepancy? - Create a common marine database. However, the interpretation of data is different, so a common understanding is also needed for the basis for MSPs. A further comment on that was that different sets of data are needed when planning strategically and actually building an OWF. What is the impact of your sector, based on what you’ve heard from the other groups?  There is an energy group working with transboundary issues in Sweden, Svensk Vind, the group wonders whether there are corresponding organizations in the other Baltic Scope countries?  Science and scientists should be involved in the MSP process, because a lot of plans and decisions are based on their findings.  Shipping sees themselves as the priority, but the issue of coexistence is very important. How should we address this, what is the way forward?  The existing working groups within the energy sector could be combined with the recommendations from the other sectors (such as think tank idea from “Nature group”)  Who should be included in this group? o Only planners? o This workshop with many stakeholders is interesting and important, but too many actors also makes the planning process inefficient.
  24. 24. 24 of 30 o Including stakeholders can however be valuable for both project promotors and planners.  The groups should include the entire Baltic, but with specific geographical focus areas below the overall area group.  These expert groups could be used by planners and practitioners throughout the processes, when needed.  Possible challenges are identified, such as the fact that meetings usually cover more than one area or sector, and that is is probably not possible to collect all these people many times throughout the year. The group is unanimous that MSP cooperation should not only be a project, but should be a continuous task. Fishing The presentation from the Fishing group, trigged a number of questions: 1. How do fisheries cooperate with the Nature/Environment group? -HELCOM has a group for coastal fisheries. Unclear however if commercial species are addressed there. 2. Is there a conflict between fishing and shipping? - No, it can be combined, but if shipping or fishing is very intense there is a conflict. 3. How do fisheries look in the future? -Statistics shows that in the Baltic stocks have increased. Important to work with fisheries management and smart fishing methods. ICES recommendations have been followed since 2008/09, leading to an improvement in fish stocks. It is also about food security. 4. How should planners handle important areas for fish where fisheries don’t take place outside N2000-areas, such as spawning grounds etc. This question remains unanswered for now, it is one important thing to deal with in the future, to look for ways to define it. Possible collaboration with
  25. 25. 25 of 30 Nature and environment group on this issue, perhaps modelling scenarios could be one measure to deal with it. 5. Small-scale fisheries are part of the cultural landscape and should be handled completely different, how should planners consider that? - ICES could be used much better and much more, they have the resources and the competence. A suggestion is that DG Mare could give ICES the funding and task of compiling data for the MSP process, since DG Mare is handling both MSP and fisheries. This is already considered on a national level. Possibly easier to reach the sector through ICEs than Helcom. What is the impact of your sector, based on what you’ve heard from the other groups?  Fish habitats are difficult to define and designate (eg moving sandbeds in Poland) but there are some which are more static  There is not a conflict between shipping and fisheries, more with fishing and OWFs which is a fixed, permanent introduction in the oceans so co-existence must be taken into account when planning for an OWF.  Finding ways for fisheries to coexist with other activities. o Search for compromises in N2000 zones and criteria for co-existence: small-scale fishery with certain gear, minimize impact on seabed and important habitats. o The EU Commission has made a statement that fisheries and N2000 does not exclude each other. E.g Denmark restricts fishing activities in certain vulnerable parts of the N2000-area. Fishery is starting to be a part of ecosystems in policy documents.  Interaction between environment and fisheries is needed. Regulation in N2000 and looking at bycatch issues- ned discussion for coexistence  How to solve data provision to MSP? Issues in all sectors and between sectors.
  26. 26. 26 of 30  How to think about strategic planning information that can be included in planning - it’s not all about the map How should we address this, what is the way forward?  Use Helcom state, ICEs and Vasab to develop information on important fish habitats to feed into MSP  A synthesis paper or report on coexistence between activities and synergies between sectors is needed.  Discussion between industry groups on how to design activities to enable coexistence  Guidelines on design to enable coexistence to developers and in planning  Need strategy for how MSP data requirements can be drawn from existing data exchange forums and frameworks  The vision and goals for fishing is found in the CFP, the MSP process should be more on how to collaborate  Clarify and educate on what the non- mapping based part of planning is and how we can use that to show fisheries interests A strategy or proposal is needed for how exchange of data is going to occur. All groups have touched upon it, so it is an important issue to look into. Nature and Environment During the presentation of the Nature and environment group, the following questions were raised: 1. Looking at climate predictions, change of salinity etc, have you thought about how this affects nature and environment (and fisheries)?
  27. 27. 27 of 30 -SMHI and WSP have made simulations of scenarios and analyzing the impact, then looking at each sector what activities need to be taken. This could possibly be addressed more in this project. 2. Why is the nature group so focused on wind parks? Birds and fish are dying due to shipping and intense fishing. -Due to lack of time, that OWF is a big issue in the Middle bank, and due to the group trying to focus on positive synergies. The Nature and environment group did not discuss the predefined questions but rather organized the discussion around the other sectors involved: SHIPPING: Suggestion that areas indicated by IMO to be avoided from shipping and other sectors (”No go” areas) should be promoted as mandatory. This could be done by developing a common proposal to influence IMO to close these areas, via Helcom, on a case by case basis. FISHERY: Related to Fishery, the proposal was that areas for fishery should be made priority (areas for spawning grounds, look at the whole sea area to point out the areas for fisheries and closed areas for fish). This should be addressed via an organization to investigate and collaborate on this task with for example Helcom Fish, Helcom state and conservation or Helcom Vasab. The issue of data sharing, data monitoring, data aggregation is common for all groups. Can the Nature and environment group support Fishery with data on habitats? In that case, who should pay? There is also a need for aggregated data between countries (e.g. on migration of birds) and between sectors. Is it possible to include data collection in the national surveys and compile in a data base? Or can it be done through using the scientific advisory groups linked to multi/bilateral work groups? Another common issue was the co-operation between working groups for planners in the different sectors, cross border. A possible solution is to follow the example of the
  28. 28. 28 of 30 German-Polish working group for MSP where ministries and institutions take part in the working group. A political leadership would be necessary. Shipping The following questions came up during the Shipping presentation: 1. The shipping group recommended that rerouting should be avoided, but what are the options, asked the Nature group? -Options are to avoid or soften the routes, but to re-route will be too difficult. 2. Does ”shipping” include fishery and other traffic, for example service traffic to OWF? -Shipping mainly deals with the large ships, but in the future it will be necessary have more organized shipping routes even for other traffic. The Shipping group did not discuss the predefined questions but rather organized the discussion around the other sectors involved: ENERGY: It is a good idea with expert groups regarding conflict areas, shipping should be involved. Before inviting the industry, the state representatives/ authorities should discuss among themselves. The authorities should be involved, and be informed by their respective sectors. Poland would like to know what distance to windfarm is safe for small fishing boats. Will windfarms be open as they are today even in the future? The issue of OWTs is complicated, Estonia have national plans for windfarms, but it affects regional plans in Latvia for the small fisheries. OWTs are not planned in routes because they know they will not stand a chance against shipping. The ferries/cruisers cross the big routes and do not go where the large cargo vessels go. FISHERIES: What is the safety like concerning recreational vessels, small fishing boats, and OWTs? Windfarms are open during good conditions and during the day. Maybe routes could be planned for small fisheries.
  29. 29. 29 of 30 NATURE: Nature presented possible conflicts/problems with regards to the aspect of noise. But is it better to gather the traffic in routes, or is it better to spread out the traffic, and hence the noise, so that it does not disturb the fish so much? If data exists it would be an important background for IMO/shipping to work from, it needs to be scientifically based in order for shipping industry to be able to address them. The Shipping group also wants to stress the importance of the previously mentioned multilateral working groups for exchange of knowledge and cooperation between sectors.
  30. 30. Summing up and conclusions All groups had similar conclusions regarding the need for more cooperation, sharing of information and data, and the need for group discussions. However the form for these group discussions was not identified, a meeting with a lot of stakeholders can be to resource consuming, but it can also be hard to cover all aspects in a smaller focus group. The possibilities of co-existence is a way to handle conflicts of interests that all sectors was interested in. It can be key to a way forward, implementing mitigation issues instead of prohibiting activities. BalticScope can be a good platform to address the issue of potential synergies between sectors in the Baltic Sea. A healthy environment is required, not only for a sustainable fishing sector but for a sustainable South West Baltic. Here the aggregation of data across borders is important since nature does not apply to national borders A reflection from Tomas Andersson (SwAM) was the importance to remember that planning has to be made on best available information. Strategic planning always includes uncertainty, but if the doors are keep relatively open, you can correct mistakes along the way. Revising plans is part of the process, and we should not be stopped by lack of data. The two very interesting days were summed up by moderator Axel Wenblad saying that it is rewarding to hear that all sectors are interested in more cooperation and sharing of information. We are at an early stage in cross border cooperation for MSPs in the South West Baltic, but this workshop has been an important part of the process, engaging stakeholders, discussing important issues and sharing knowledge.
  31. 31. Annex 1. Programme Programme Cross border workshop with institutional stakeholders Southwest Baltic 27-28 January 2016, Malmö 27 January 9:30-10:00 Registration and Coffee 10:00-12:30 Plenary session Who / High level? 10:00-10:20 Welcome and introduction to the day Moderator Axel Wenblad  EU directive, Marie Colombier DG Mare 10:20-11:20 Setting the scene  Presentation of Baltic Scope Project, Ingela Isaksson Project leader  MSP in Poland, Marta Konik  MSP in Germany, Annika Koch  MSP in Denmark, Ellen Hjort Petersen  MSP In Sweden, Susanne Gustafsson  Planning in a Transboundary perspective, Tomas Andersson 11:20-11:30 Leg Stretch 11:30:-12:00 Drivers for development – long time perspective  What can the future bring? Mattias Rust WWF 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-13:50 Introduction to thematic topics
  32. 32.  Energy (DE), Annika Koch  Fishing (SE), Ulrika Gunnartz  Shipping (SE), Linus Hammar  Nature and environment (PL), Magdalena Wesolowska  Geographical areas of interest (SE), Tomas Andersson 13:50-14:00 Introduction to the workshops What are the tasks in the group work? 14:00-17:00 Thematic / Parallel workshops 14:00-17:00 Including Coffee brake at 14:30 Thematic meeting, Parallel workshops Moderators: Energy, Nico Nolte, Nature /environment, Jacek Zaucha, Shipping, Linus Hammar Fishing, Anita Tullrot 17:00-18:00 Mingle Time for preparation for the report 19:00-21:00 Joint Dinner
  33. 33. 28 th January 09:00-12:15 Plenary session 09:00-09:15 Reflections from day one and introduction to day two 09:15-10:30 Report back from day one, sector perspective  Energy  Fishing  Nature / environment  Shipping Questions for clarification 10:30-11:00 Coffee 11:00-11:45 Round table cross sectorial discussions 11.45 – 12.15 Plenary Report back from Round table 12:15-12:30 Summing up and conclusions Next step End of conference 12:30-13:30 Lunch
  34. 34. Annex 2. Participants FIRST NAME LAST NAME ORGANIZATION COUNTRY Area of expertise at the workshop Alberto Giacometti Nordregio Sweden Research/Partners Annika Koch Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency Germany Energy Bettina Kaeppeler Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency Germany Environment Kai Truempler Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency Germany Shipping Johan Eriksson Swedish Maritime Administration Sweden Transport infrastructure Andrzej Zych Urząd Morski w Szczecinie / Maritime Office in Szczecin Poland Environment, Natura 2000 , SEA Marcin Rakowski National Marine Fisheries Research Institute POLAND fisheries, environment Magdalena Wesolowska Maritime Office in Szczecin Poland environment Michael Kull Nordregio Sweden Governance implications for C4 Lessons Learned Ellen Hjort Petersen Danish Nature Agency Denmark Sand and gravel regulation in Denmark / Environment) MARCIN WINIARCZYK Szczecin and Swinoujscie Seaports Authority POLAND ENERGY, SHIPPING,
  35. 35. Carla Kuhmann Federal Agency for Nature Conservation Germany Nature conservation Christina Rappe SEPA Sweden nature conservation Kim Rægaard Danish AgriFish Agency Denmark Fisheries Michael Gottlieb Danish AgriFish Agency Denmark Fisheries/geo data Mårten Thorsen Swedish Energy Agency Sweden Energy/Windpower Sofia Sundén Swedish Transport Administration Sweden Shipping Marta Konik Maritime Office in Szczecin Poland I haven't decided yet Susanne Gustafsson Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Sweden MSP, Energy Maciej Cehak Maritime Office in Szczecin Poland environmental Protection Ingela Isaksson SwAM, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Sweden Project leader Baltic SCOPE / MSP, ICZM Wilhelm Gårdmark SwAM, Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management Sweden observer Linus Hammar SwAM Sweden Shipping Laura Melne VASAB Latvia Dissemination and communication Krzysztof Maryl Ministry of Energy Poland Energy Johanna Egerup Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Sweden None
  36. 36. Management Axel Wenblad Moderator Sweden Moderator Katarzyna Kaminska Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Waterways Poland fisheries/environment Agnieszka Jędrzejewska Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation Poland MSP, energy Cezary Puchacz Ministry of Maritime Economy and Inland Navigation Poland shipping Gustav Kågesten Geological Survey of Sweden Sweden Marine data and MSP Marie COLOMBIER European Commission Belgium MSP directive Pawel Sek GAZ-SYSTEM S.A. Poland Energy - Baltic Pipe project Antje Gimpel Thünen-Institute of Sea Fisheries Germany Research (Fisheries&Marine Spatial Planning) Pawel Sek GAZ-SYSTEM S.A. Poland Energy - Baltic Pipe project Jakub Budzynski Polish Offshore Wind Energy Society Poland Energy INGUNA URTANE Ministry of Envirinmental Protection and Regional Development LATVIA FISHERIES Anita Tullrot County Administrative Board Västra Götaland Sweden Facilitation, fishery
  37. 37. Thomas Johansson SWAM Sweden generl Andrzej Cieslak Maritime Office in Gdynia Poland General MSP, ICZM, coastal and sea dynamics Adriana Dembowska National Water Management Authority Poland marine protection/management Tomas Andersson Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Managment Sweden Planner Thea Ohlander WSP Sweden Konsult Annie Bengtsson WSP Sweden Konsult Andrea Öström WSP Sweden Konsult Shahin Madjidian WSP Sweden Konsult Lidia Grabe Ministry of Energy, Infrastructure and State Development Mecklenburg- Vorpommern Germany shipping Cathy Hill County Administrative Board Stockholm Sweden Nature conservation Pär Persson CountyAdministrative Board Skåne Sweden ?
  38. 38. Annex 3. Description of geographical areas The geographical areas of special interests are:  Odra bank and approach to the ports of Swinoujscie, Szczecin. This is an important area for migrating birds, on the polish and german side. The mayor interests are related to OWF, high voltage cables, pipelines, sand and gravel extraction, fishing, military activities, shipping.  Adlergrund. This area is of natural protection interest beacuse of geomorpholigical reasons (rockreef and sandbanks), as well as birdlife and specis such as harbour porpoise, grey seal. The mayor interests are related to OWF, high voltage cables, pipelines, sand and gravel extraction, shipping.  Öresund. This is a breeding area for birds (eider, greylag goose) and habitat for mamals (harbour porpoise, grey and common seal). The main interests in the area are related to OWF, high voltage cables, physical infrastructure such as bridges, tunnels, shipping.  German- Danish border. In this areas there is harbour porpoise, as well as populations of for example long-tailed duck. The interests in the area are such as OWF, data cables, physical infrastructure such as tunnels, shipping.  Kriegers flak.  Southern Middle bank. This area is not protected, but is of nature protection value such as harbour porpoise and birds nesting. These values conflict with interests in the area are such as OWF, high voltage cables, shipping, sand and gravel extraction. Learn more at www.balticscope.eu

×