Report - Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting*

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: --

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

http://www.havochvatten.se/en

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

http://www.balticscope.eu/

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.


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 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.


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 of 30


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 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.



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 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.


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 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.


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 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.


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.



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.


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 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.


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.


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 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 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.



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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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.

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

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

28th

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

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,

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

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

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 ?

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

http://www.balticscope.eu/

Government & Nonprofit

Report - Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting*