Baltic SCOPE collaboration. Towards coherence and cross-border solutions in Baltic Maritime Spatial Plans March 2015 March 2017

Transcription

1 Baltic SCOPE collaboration Towards coherence and cross-border solutions in Baltic Maritime Spatial Plans March 2015 March 2017 Project manager Dr. Ingela Isaksson Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (lead partner)

2 The busy Baltic Sea 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 (?) WWF

3 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 WWF

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

5 Together Plans are nothing planning is everything Dwight D. Eisenhower General & President of USA

6 The partnership Associated Partners: Ministry of the Environment, Finland Ministry for Energy, Infrastructure and Regional Development, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania

7

8 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..

9 MSP cycle Finland Denmark Germany HELCOM-VASAB MSP WG Poland Estonia Sweden Lithuania Latvia

10 Sweden Baltic SCOPE Finland Denmark Estonia Germany Latvia Poland Lithuania

11 Coordination & management Communication & dissemination Lessons learnt Case studies Southwest Baltic Central Baltic Monitoring & evaluation transboundary framework

12 cross-border cooperation MSP authorities & relevant regional sea organisations Support actual MSP implementation added value

13 Lessons Learned Methods & 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 the concept of territorial governance (e.g. Schmitt & van Well 2016). 2. Delphi Survey Give voice to Planners & Experts in the project, the learners & link their perceptions ( the observed ones ) with interpretations from the participant observation processes. Give the planners ownership of the results & provide space for them to voice concerns & highlight positive outcomes. 3. Focus Groups Three separate focus groups with 1) project partners CB, 2) project partners SWB & 3) case leaders/project managers (+ PL in extra session). Focus groups allow YOU to provide more in depth & detailed feedback on the results from the Delphi survey & YOUR perceptions on the project as a whole.

14 putting the dimensions together Coordination & Collaboration of Institutional Actors = Project Partners working together, coordinating, collaborating etc. Stakeholder Participation & Engagement = Project Partners dealing with (institutional) stakeholders in international & national events Cross-sectoral Integration & Synergies = Project Partners dealing with energy, environment, fisheries & shipping 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).

15 Step-wise approach Preparatory March-Aug, Assessment 2. Focus Identification Sept 2015 Feb Thematic meet 2. Planners meet Solution March-Aug Concluding thematic 2. Planners proposal Conclusion Sept 2016 March Conclusion 2. Future

16 1. Assessment and identification of transboundary MSP issues March -August Identification Fisheries, Environment, shipping and energy, discussion on planning evidence, national and transboundary interests 3.Solution compilation of outcomes 4. Conclusion recommendations

17 Exchange of information between responsible 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

18 Objectives and outcome sectoral topic papers basis for workshops objective conclusion next steps To discuss data/evidence used to map sea uses/sector`s interests/future needs Every nationalcountry uses different methodology and analysis resulting in different outcomes, even though data source used sometimes were the same Work in progress To discuss if sectorscould come up with proposal to agree on planning criteria or atleast descriptions on how national MSP will map/define sector`s intests Bilateral /trilateral/ multilatoral discussionbetween sectors to define synergies /conflicts cross sectoral and cross boundary Not yet. national countries could only demonstrate (tables) national approaches /methodology whichwillresultin certain kind of maps/evidence to be used to make national MSP Resulted in tables Could be used as starting point to develop more detailed guidance Work in progress Workin progress

19 National authorities Stakeholder participation & engagement Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn. Benjamin Franklin

20 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.

21 Ecosystem approach - task force 1. Ecosystem Approach in MSP - general checklist 2. Planning support checklists 3. SEA-Checklist

22 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 Does MSP support the achievement and/or contribute to The overarching aim that spatial maintain good environmental solutions in MSP for management of status? human activities shall be compatible with achievement of good environmental status and the capacity of marine ecosystems to respond to human-induced changes.

23 Be inspired by each other Application of the general Ecosystem Approach in MSP-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 Yes Estonian Planning Act states that one of the functions of MSP is Yes One of strategic objectives of the Latvian MSP is Preserved objective A Balanced Marine Environment, Flourishing Coastal to determine the measures required for the protection of marine marine ecosystem and its resilience by ensuring protection Areas and Archipelagos which lays the basis for MSP. It is also environment. This means not only MPAs,but the protection of ofbiodiversity and averting excessive pressure from economic specifically included in the 4 th paragraph of the Swedish MSP- the good status of marine environment. It is also stated that activity. Few MSP related GES indicators (e.g. Benthic Quality ordinance that the plans should be outlined so that good MSP is to take into account, in a spatial plan, the protected Index (D1); Spawning stock biomass (D3); Zooplankton mean environmental status in the marine environment is reached and areas and the conditions for their use. Before the start of MSP, size vs. total stock (D4); Summer chlorophyll a concentration attained. Criteria and indicators for assessing the impacts of the the methodology for taking GES criteria and indicators into and (Depth distribution of Fucus vesiculosus and Furcellaria plans in relation to GES will be developed. account in MSP impact assessment, is being worked out. 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.

24 Marine Green Infrastructure

25 Cumulative impact of human activity- On going process in Sweden and Baltic Project Symphony Analytictoolfor estimatingthe cumulative environmental impact during the planning process Allowsustoearlyidentifyareas of concernso mitigativeplanning options can be considered Colors indicate relative level of environmental impact Impact based on the following parameters: Pressure intensity(spatial distributions) Ecological values(spatial distributions) Sensitivity of ecosystems components (weighting score)

26 The Bigger Picture I Nested MSP (Unit=100%) Green Infrastructure (<100% and >10%) MPA network (Objective=10%)

27 The Bigger Picture II MSP Unit MPA network Green Infrastructure Conservation Value MPA Stress / Threat

28 Identifying Conflicting/ Synergetic Issues shipping sand + gravel extraction fisheries tourism/ recreation Offshore Energy cables/ pipelines Defence/ military practice nature conservation

29 Topics are connected to the geography and how does it have an effect on planning Energy Fishery Environment Shipping Workshop on integrated maritime policy and maritime spatial planning in the Mediterranean and Black Sea September 2016 Dalyan, Turkey.

30 Geographical areas of special interest - in South West Baltic

31 Topic: Fishing fish do not care about borders

32 Fishing - Maps and data of fisheries in SWB countries Denmark: VMS tracks of trawling and passive gear vessels 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 Includes activities as well as important areas outside Swedens EEZ

33 Topic: Fishing Image of spawning and nursery areas for species of interest to commercial fisheries

34 Adler bank: Important fishing ground 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)

35 Fishery recommendations so far Planner recommendation: MSP should show areas of national interest for fisheries in other countries EEZ.

36 Current Status: Energy OWF in use Approved OWF/ advanced stage of licensing process

37

38 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

39 Shipping is vital and intense = 1 shipper 10 min Number of unique ships Baltic proper Workshop on integrated maritime policy and maritime spatial planning in the Mediterranean and Black Sea September 2016 Dalyan, Turkey.

40 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

41 Middlebank: Important fishing ground (SWE, PL and CB case)

42 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?!

43 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?

44 Potential conflicts with other sectors? Fishing? Military? Environment? Workshop on integrated maritime policy and maritime spatial planning in the Mediterranean and Black Sea September 2016 Dalyan, Turkey.

45 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.

46 Kill your darlings sorting recommendations

47 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!

48 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!

49 Recommendations Planning 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!

50 Recommendations Process 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!

51 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

52 Welcome to our 2 nd MSP Forum in Riga, Latvia