baltic scope collaboration towards coherence and …...baltic scope collaboration towards coherence...
TRANSCRIPT
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