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

Pan-Baltic stakeholder workshop on

Offshore Energy / Grid Offshore Energy / Grid Planning Planning and and MSP MSP

in the Baltic Sea Regionin the Baltic Sea Region

Vilnius, 12.-13.11.2013

Bettina Käppeler, BSHPalanga, 2 December, 2013

Workshop Participants: 24

Partners: 13 (thereof 1 not involved in PartiSEApate)Other Institutions: 11

Offshore Energy Industry 5Research 9Administration 7Other 3

24Maritime Spatial Planner 6

The main topics of the workshop

Introduction into objectives and tasks of PartiSEApate – in particular MSP stakeholder workshops

Session 1: Offshore Energy from a Pan-Baltic PerspectiveDiscussion on:

Obstacles for a Pan-Baltic approach for cooperation and identifying / developing best suited areas for production of offshore energy, e.g. national interests, regulatory systems etc., potential mismatch between negative impacts and benefits from offshore energy etc.

Session 2: Planning for Offshore Energy and Energy Grids – Experience from national and trans-boundary Approaches

Discussion on: MSP as important instrument to prepare ground, identify problems and gaps, set

priorities, support co-existence of activities, and facilitate communication between different groups of stakeholders

Role of regional stakeholders from Offshore Energy and Transmission Grid Operators

The main topics at the workshop

Session 3: Spatial Criteria and Requirements for Offshore Energy and the Role of Maritime Spatial Planning

Discussion on: Main sectoral spatial priorities and interests Main impacts on, conflicts and synergies with other activities Suitability criteria for sites for offshore energy

Key findings:

A real Pan-Baltic cooperation – between political as well as economic sectors - with regard to coordinated offshore energy and grid development is not in placeThe North Sea Countries Grid Initiative (NSCOGI) is seen as role model for high level cooperation on the issueMissing national targets and strategies, different national interests, regulatory systems etc. are hindering a more integrated transboundary/transnational approachIn many cases national MSP developments are being driven by offshore energy, supported by national targets and regulative systemsMSP can serve as a tool to prepare ground and accelerate Offshore Energy development, though in DK e.g.. strong development without MSP in placeMSP has to provide for integrated procedures with terrestrial/territorial planning with regard to plan for grid connection etc.A Pan-Baltic offshore grid could serve as backbone to more refined MSP regulationsPlanning should be based on very good factual data and inventories, environmental information as long as take into account technical development and potential solutions

…

Key findings:

Main conflicts identified as military sea use, navigation routes, extraction of mineral resources (incl. e.g. shale gas), necessary buffers towards cables, pipelines etc.Minor conflicts: protected areas, fisheries (if compensation schemes are in place), negative visual impactsMain synergies identifed: offshore: biomass production, coastal development (local tourism, coastal protection), industrial development (nearby energy-intensive industry , ship-building industry resp. supply chain in general)

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

Pan-Baltic stakeholder workshop on

Spatial Data Infrastructure and Spatial Data Infrastructure and Network Building Network Building for MSP for MSP in the Baltic Sea Regionin the Baltic Sea Region

Hamburg, 15.-16. June 2013

Bettina Käppeler, BSHPalanga, 2 December, 2013

Workshop Participants: 21

Partners: 14 (thereof ca. 7 not involved in PartiSEApate)Other Institutions: 7

SDI Administrator 3Data Manager (Content) 13Data User (GIS Applications) 17Data Product User 14Maritime Spatial Planner 8

The main topics at the workshop

Introduction into objectives and tasks of PartiSEApate – in particular MSP stakeholder workshops

Session 1: Existing national Spatial Data Infrastructure / Experience with Data Bases for MSP

• Examples of national approaches to establish data and evidence base for MSP

Session 2: Examples of European and Regional/national Initiatives to deliver and boost Maritime and Marine Knowledge and Data

• Examples on European and Baltic level of Marine Data Initiatives and Portals incl. Recommendations of BaltSeaPlan for Pan-Baltic Data

Discussion on: different approaches for spatial data infrastructure - centralised vs. decentralised Suitability of existent European and Baltic marine data projects and initiatives for

MSP

The main topics at the workshop

Session 3: Administrative and technical Requirements of Spatial Data Infrastructures for MSP – Examples of Marine Data Networks, Databases and Data Policy

Discussion on: Data availability (in general, scope), quality criteria, scale, standards and formats Data quality criteria, accuracy, comparability Problem of various interpretation of same data Importance of metadata Hierarchy and priority setting with regard to data compilation – and generating

information and evidence for decision making

Key findings:

Need to set up a Pan-Baltic Spatial Data Infrastructure for MSP (with all relevant BSR states agencies and institutions + HELCOM, VASAB, ICES, EMODnet etc.) to allow for easy exchange of relevant data for MSP - for which MDI-DE may be a good model

Need for national MSP data contact points Need to have common data standards for data exchange, at least for issues of

transboundary relevance Need to fill gap with regard to relevant socio-economic and –cultural data Need to set priorities for data compilation – with the concrete purpose and evidence

to be generated in mind Need to align Workflow and Dataflow Importance of having strong Metadata, to create transparency on data significance,

reliability etc. Data from publicly funded work should be freely accessible Projects on MSP Data should be better streamlined and connected

Setting up a Pan-Baltic Spatial Data Infrastructure for MSP How to get there ?

•Proposal: Establishing a HELCOM/VASAB WG on MSP – Subgroup, LV and DE volunteer to make proposal for TOR, objectives, milestones etc., in line with EUSBSR shall be presented to HELCOM/VASAB WG on MSP-meeting 28/29th January 2014

•Data products needed for MSP with regard to questions of planners to be answered should be discussed in a dedicated PSP Workshop (focus on transboundary MSP issues)

Further Tasks:•Setting up of expert group on harmonisation of data and metadata for data exchange (focussing on transboundary MSP issues) ,•Initialising national inventories of main MSP issues and resp. available data / metadata and additional information etc.

Some lessons learned:

You do not have to have many participants for the sake of the number – but you need the right people to give input, contribute to discussion and ask the right questionsPotential speakers as well as participants should be approached in very early stage of WS preparationThe number and extent of input given by speakers should be reduced to some key issues – to allow for ample time for discussionOther means of input such as posters / poster session, videos etc. should be consideredDiscussion should be very well moderated and focussed, different methods should be applied to foster participation Workshop environment should be suitable to create an atmosphere of creativity and opennessDate and venue should be chosen carefully to avoid obstacles for participation e.g. because of “competing” events or complicated journey