Baltic SCOPEcollaboration

Towards coherence and cross-border solutions in Baltic Maritime Spatial PlansMarch 2015 – March 2017

Project managerDr. Ingela IsakssonSwedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (lead partner)www.balticscope.eu

© WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu

� ‘Österjön’ (Swedish for Baltic Sea) literally translates to Eastern Lake

� Very narrow but intensively used Sea:

� One of most trafficked seas

� One of most polluted seas

� Important fishing grounds

� Sand/gravel extraction

� Power/telecom cables

� Pipelines

� Weapons dumping sites from World War II

� MPAs (Marine Protected Areas)

� Newcomers:

� Offshore-Wind Farms

� Potentially hydrocarbons (?)

The busy Baltic Sea

© WWF Germany @ www.baltseaplan.eu

Governance of the Baltic Sea

� 9 countries and 1 autonomous territory (Åland)

� 9+ official languages

� Many boundaries:� Territorial waters (from Base-Line – 12 NM)

� Exclusive Economic Zone (<200NM)

� Unresolved border conflicts

� Different administrative/ planning traditions & national interests

� Independent sectoral planning/management

“Planning is bringing the future into the present so that you can do something about it now” Alan Lakein, author

Future…

“Plans are nothing –planning is everything”

Dwight D. Eisenhower General & President of USA 1953-1961

Together…

The partnership

Associated Partners:Ministry of the Environment, FinlandMinistry for Energy, Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mecklenburg-VorpommernMinistry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania

Some challenges

• sovereign nations with domestic targets, goals, priorities and interests

• different countries are at different temporal levels in the MSP process, which can make coordination difficult

• plans have different legal status which also will, and are proving a challenge.

• unsolved border issues• …..

Sweden

Estonia

Latvia

Denmark

Germany

Poland

MSP cycle

Lithuania

Finland

HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG

FinlandSweden

Denmark

Germany

Poland Lithuania

Latvia

Estonia

Baltic SCOPE

Case studies

Southwest Baltic

Central Baltic

Monitoring & evaluation transboundary framework

Coordination & management

Communication & dissemination

Lessons learnt

www.balticscope.eu

• cross-border cooperation

• MSP authorities & relevant

regional sea organisations

• Support actual MSP

implementation

• added value

Lessons LearnedMethods & Data Collection

1. Participant Observation

– “Fly on the wall” = Observation of planners & thematic meetings &stakeholder events.

– Data collected & structured around a questionnaire/survey based on theconcept of territorial governance (e.g. Schmitt & van Well 2016).

2. Delphi Survey

– Give voice to Planners & Experts in the project, the learners & link theirperceptions (“the observed ones”) with interpretations from theparticipant observation processes.

– Give the planners ownership of the results & provide space for them tovoice concerns & highlight positive outcomes.

3. Focus Groups

– Three separate focus groups with 1) project partners CB, 2) projectpartners SWB & 3) case leaders/project managers (+ PL in extrasession).

– Focus groups allow YOU to provide more in depth & detailed feedbackon the results from the Delphi survey & YOUR perceptions on theproject as a whole.

…putting the dimensions together…

Cross-sectoral Integration & Synergies

= Project Partners dealing with energy, environment, fisheries & shipping

Stakeholder Participation &

Engagement = Project Partnersdealing with (institutional) stakeholders in international & national events Maritime Specificities & Jurisdictional Boundaries

= Project Partners dealing with differences in planning systems, multi-level governance, regulatory systems etc.

Source: Maritime Institute in Gdańsk (prepared by Joanna Pardus).

Coordination & Collaboration

of Institutional Actors = Project Partners working together, coordinating,collaborating etc.

Step-wise approach

Preparatory

Identification

Solution

Conclusion

March-Aug, 2015

Sept 2015 –Feb 2016

March-Aug 2016

Sept 2016 –March 2017

1. Assessment2. Focus

1. Thematic meet2. Planners meet

1. Concludingthematic

2. Plannersproposal 1. Conclusion

2. Future

1. Assessment and

identification of trans-

boundary MSP issues

March -August 2015

2.Identification Fisheries, Environment, shipping and energy, discussion on planning evidence, national and transboundary interests

3.Solutioncompilation of

outcomes

4. Conclusionrecommendations

Exchange of information betweenresponsible national authorities –providing platform for discussions

• South west Baltic– National sector authorities all 4 sectors– Compilation of information– One workshop – both sectoral and

transsectoral

• Central Baltic– National sector authorities all 4 sectors– Compilation of information– Three workshops, re-working the

information material between WS• 1. sectoral - exchange between nations • 2. identified synergies and conflicts• 3 transsectoral

Objectives and outcome sectoraltopic papers – basis for workshops

objective conclusion next steps

To discuss data/evidence used to map sea uses/sector`s interests /future needs

Every national country uses different methodology and analysis resulting in different outcomes, even though data source used sometimes were the same

Work in progress

To discuss if sectors could come up with proposal to agree on planning criteria or at least descriptions on how national MSP will map/define sector`sintests

Not yet.national countries could only demonstrate (tables) national approaches /methodology which will result in certain kind of maps/evidence to be used to makenational MSP

Work in progress

Bilateral /trilateral/ multilatoraldiscussion between sectors to define synergies /conflicts cross sectoral and cross boundary

Resulted in tablesCould be used as starting point to develop more detailed guidance

Work in progress

National authoritiesStakeholder participation & engagement

http://www.hpocenter.com/article/stakeholders-orientation/

“Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember.

Involve me and I learn.” Benjamin Franklin

The Ecosystem Approach in MSP is a holistic approach with focus on:

• preserving/restoring (structure and functioning of) marine ecosystems ;

• maintaining ecosystem services to support human needs;

• providing spatial solutions for management of human activities in a way that is compatible with achievement of good environmental status and the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes.

Ecosystem approach - task force

1. Ecosystem Approach

in MSP - general checklist

2. Planning support

checklists

3. SEA-Checklist

General checklist

General checklist for the Ecosystem Approach

in Maritime Spatial Planning a genuine Baltic SCOPE-product

Filled out by: Authority:

Key elements Questions Tick box Describe in words

YES PARTLY NO HOW?

Environmental objective GES

The overarching aim that spatial

solutions in MSP for management of

human activities shall be compatible

with achievement of good

environmental status and the capacity of

marine ecosystems to respond to

human-induced changes.

Does MSP support the

achievement and/or contribute to

maintain good environmental

status?

Be inspired by each other

Application of the general Ecosystem Approach in MS P-checklist –

for all Baltic Scope partners

Sweden Estonia Latvia Poland Germany Denmark

Yes/Partly/No How/describe Yes/Partly/No How/describe Yes/Partly/No How/describe Yes/Partly/No How/describe Yes/Partly/No How/describe Yes/Partly/No How/describe

Yes Achievement of GES is included in the Swedish Environmental

objective “A Balanced Marine Environment, Flourishing Coastal

Areas and Archipelagos” which lays the basis for MSP. It is also

specifically included in the 4th paragraph of the Swedish MSP-

ordinance that the plans should be outlined so that good

environmental status in the marine environment is reached and

attained. Criteria and indicators for assessing the impacts of the

plans in relation to GES will be developed.

Yes Estonian Planning Act states that one of the functions of MSP is

to determine the measures required for the protection of marine

environment. This means not only MPAs,but the protection of

the good status of marine environment. It is also stated that

MSP is to take into account, in a spatial plan, the protected

areas and the conditions for their use. Before the start of MSP,

the methodology for taking GES criteria and indicators into

account in MSP impact assessment, is being worked out.

Yes One of strategic objectives of the Latvian MSP is “Preserved

marine ecosystem and its resilience by ensuring protection

ofbiodiversity and averting excessive pressure from economic

activity”. Few MSP related GES indicators (e.g. Benthic Quality

Index (D1); Spawning stock biomass (D3); Zooplankton mean

size vs. total stock (D4); Summer chlorophyll a concentration

and (Depth distribution of Fucus vesiculosus and Furcellaria

lumbricalis D5); Population structure of Macoma balthica (D6)

along with conservation status of benthic habitats and data on

species distribution) were applied when assessing

environmental impacts of alternative sea use scenarios,

performing SEA as well as elaborating the optimum sea use

solutions. These indicators area also included in the proposal

for evaluation of the MSP performance in relation to its

environmental objective, quoted above.

Marine Green Infrastructure

Cumulative impact of human activity-On going process in Sweden and BalticProject SymphonyAnalytic tool for estimating the cumulative environmental impact duringthe planning process

Allows us to early identify areas ofconcern so mitigative planning options can be considered

Impact based on the following parameters:• Pressure intensity (spatial distributions)• Ecological values (spatial distributions)• Sensitivity of ecosystems components

(weighting score)

Colors indicate relative level ofenvironmental impact

The Bigger Picture INested

MSP(Unit=100%)

Green Infrastructure(<100% and >10%)

MPA network(Objective=10%)

MPA network(Objective=10%)

The Bigger Picture II

MSP Unit

MPA

MPA network

Conservation

ValueGreen Infrastructure

Stress /

Threat

Identifying Conflicting / SynergeticIssues

Offshore Energy

shipping

fisheries

cables/ pipelines

natureconservation

Defence/ militarypractice

tourism/ recreation

sand + gravel

extraction

Topics are connected to the geography – and how does it have an effect on planning

Workshop on integrated maritime policy and maritime spatial planning in the Mediterranean and Black Sea” 20 - 27 September 2016 Dalyan, Turkey.

• Energy • Fishery • Environment• Shipping

Geographical areas of special interest - in South West Baltic

Topic: Fishing”fish do not care about borders”

Fishing- Maps and data of fisheries in SWB countries

• Denmark : – VMS tracks of trawling and passive gear vessels 2011-2014. – Cover areas outside EEZ but not the eastern parts of SW case area

• Germany: – Areas of interest within EEZ. – No info on fishing acitivites. – Recent info shows low fishing acitivity without any clear transboundary

patterns due to a fleet with small vessels.

• Poland : – Catch data from 2012 including species and gear types. – Cover areas outside EEZ but not the western part of SW case area

• Sweden:– Map of landing weights for cod 2008-2012. – Includes activities as well as important areas outside Swedens EEZ

Topic: Fishing

Image ofspawning and nursery areas for species ofinterest tocommercialfisheries

Adler bank: Important fishingground for Poland in Danish waters

- Question:

What is the management ’s view on passive gear in future fisheries in the countries?

Planning recommendation: Secure acess to Adlers bank from landing places of

Kolobrzeg and Swinoujsce (e.g design of future OWF area at Odra Bank)

Fishery recommendations – so far

Planner recommendation:• MSP should show areas of national interest for

fisheries in other countries EEZ.

Current Status: Energy

OWF in use

Approved OWF/advanced stage of licensing process

Results/ Recommendations Kriegers flak (DK, DE, SE) – so far

Kriegers flak is already allocated to OWF• Plan for possibilities to interconnect the national

power grids• Illustrate possible gates for potential connections• On giving permits – investigate all three countries

requirements for constructions• The three countries should harmonize the safety

distances to shipping• Potential need for adjustment of shipping (ferry) line

between Trelleborg and Travemünde, if DK builds

Shipping is vital and intense

Workshop on integrated maritime policy and maritime spatial planning in the Mediterranean and Black Sea” 20 - 27 September 2016 Dalyan, Turkey.

Nu

mb

ero

fu

niq

ue

ship

s

Baltic proper

= 1 ship per 10 min

Potential conflicts with energy sector

• Single obstacles can be avoided• Multiple obstacles are more

difficult to avoid• Collision risk and radar

disturbance• Cables may hinder emergency

anchoring• Safety zones needed between

routes and energy installations

Middlebank: Important fishing

ground (SWE, PL and CB case)

Middlebank (SE, PL)

• OWF in Sweden waiting Governmental decision• OWF still open issue In Poland, sand extraction

ongoing• Potential need for moving shipping line between

Karlskrona and Gdansk, depending on OWF planning in Poland

Recommendation – so far: • On giving permits – investigate both countries

requirements for constructions and try to harmonize. • Mammals?! Birds?!

Planning recommendation –Middle bank – so far:

– Future OWF areas on the bank should be designated in order to

promote shipping to go north of the bank

A problem? Fishieries and Shipping are identified as co-existence

but is it stilll with future traffic volumes as well as from a habitat

perspecitive?

Potential conflicts with other sectors?

• Fishing?• Military?• Environment?

Workshop on integrated maritime policy and maritime spatial planning in the Mediterranean and Black Sea” 20 - 27 September 2016 Dalyan, Turkey.

“Grey Zone” – unsolved border issues

• Maritime Office in Szczecin has approach relevant Polish ministry

• Poland has approach Denmark, on civil servants level, to bring the issue to relevant authority and level.

• Danish Maritime Authority has notified the ministry about the Polish initiative.

”Kill your darlings” – sortingrecommendations

General recommendations

• Where appropriate, planning authorities should draw attention to pan-Baltic and bilateral issues on a national political level in order to deal with situations with non-conform national interests that cannot be solved by informal dialogue between planners.

– Target group:• Policy / planning + Planners/Ministries

Remember: work in progress!

General recommendations

• Planning authorities should strengthen the cooperation with sectorial agencies which are contact points to international decision organs at different levels, such as HELCOM and VASAB at the regional sea level, and the IMO and IALA at the global level.

– Target group: Planning/Planners

Remember: work in progress!

RecommendationsPlanning evidence – so far

• Develop common approaches for assessing collective pressure of all human activities on marine environment

– Target group: planners

• Develop guidelines/criteria for social, economic and environmental impact assessment procedures for MSP

– Target group: Baltic Scope 2

• Develop common approaches to assess cumulative/ interactive pressure of human activities on the marine environment.

– Target group: A joint project e.g. the Baltic Scope 2 involving researchers to develop ideas how to link interactive pressures and ecosystem value Remember: work in progress!

RecommendationsProcess – so far

Ensure that sector authorities understand and agree with relevant MSP-recommendations in order to promote successful implementation of MSP.

– Target group: National MSP authority, Planners, sector administrations

Remember: work in progress!

www.balticscope.eu

• cross-border cooperation

• MSP authorities & relevant regional sea

organisations

• support actual MSP implementation

• added value

• step-wise approach

• involve national sector authorities

• provide a platform for informal discussions

Welcome to our 2 nd MSP Forum in Riga, Latvia

www.balticscope.eu