Part-financed by the European Union(European Regional Development Fund)

Pan-Baltic stakeholder workshop on

Maritime Spatial Planning as Maritime Spatial Planning as Tool for Underwater Cultural Tool for Underwater Cultural Heritage management in the Heritage management in the

Baltic StatesBaltic States

Riga, 3-4 June

A. Ruskule, BEFPalanga, 2 December, 2013

Participants at the workshop - 37:

Partners: 15Other institutions: 22

The main topics at the workshop

Towards coherent MSP in the Baltic Sea Region, transnational and project perspective - introduction to MSP principles and ongoing activities by VASAB

Session 1: Underwater cultural heritage and preservation measures• Objectives and priorities in international policies for preservation of UCH• UCH in the Baltic Sea - common past &common responsibility• Discussion on impacts, conflicts and synergies with other sectors and

requirements/solutions for protection using spatial measures.

Session 2: Integrating underwater cultural heritage in MSP • Examples of regional/local approaches (PL, LT, UK, SE, NL) for protection and

management of UCH and integration of this topic within MSP• Discussion on role of MSP as tool for protection/ management of UCH

Key findings:

UCH – a new actor in MSP (except some countries, e.g. UK), so far not considered and involved at equal extent compared to other sea use sectors. UCH sector in BSR has already cooperation platform at pan- Baltic level – a working group established under CBSS – to be used for co-ordination with MSP process.UCH protection goals potentially conflict almost with all sectors, but co-operation and synergies are possible. A need for more active information exchange with other sectors - MSP can serve as platform for such cooperation.UCH includes: wracks, submerged sites, relict cultural landscapesUCH artefacts can be found everywhere, therefore areas which are not yet investigated, should not be left without regulation – a need for general rules/guidelines how to act when UCH artefacts are found.Problems with identification of spatial solutions (zoning / sites designation) to present UCH interests in MSP - to be more discussed with planners at pan-Baltic level

Some lessons learned:

Involvement of participants form other countries problematic due to financial limitations.Very careful selection of speakers needed to ensure appropriate contribution to the workshop agenda (particularly, if costs for speakers have to be covered)Simple, but adequate explanation of MSP principles & procedure is needed when involving of new actors of corss-sectoral dialogue