baltic scope collaboration...susanne gustafsson panbalticscope fiaxse case, umeå baltic scope...
TRANSCRIPT
Susanne GustafssonPanBalticScope FIAXSE case, Umeå
Baltic SCOPE collaborationTowards coherence and cross-border solutions in Baltic Maritime Spatial PlansMarch 2015 – March 2017
• Cross-border cooperation
• MSP authorities & relevant
regional sea organizations
• Support actual MSP
implementation
• Added value
Overall aim
The Partnership
2015-2016
Partners in more detail
MSP authorities
1. SE: Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM)
2. DE: Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency (BSH)
3. DK: Danish Nature Agency (DAN)
4. PL: Maritime Office in Szczecin (MOS)
5. LV: Ministry of Environmental Protection and Regional Development (MoEPRD)
6. EE: Ministry of the Finance (Min. EE)
Regional organisations
7. VASAB
8. HELCOM
9. Nordregio
10. SYKE, Finnish Environment Institute
Associated partners
FI: Ministry of the Environment
LT: Ministry of Environment
DE: Ministry for Energy, Infrastructure and
Regional Development of
Mecklenburg-West Pomerania
Case studies
Southwest
Baltic
Central
Baltic
Monitoring & evaluation
transboundary framework
Coordination & management
Communication &
dissemination
Lessons learnt
“Plans are nothing –
planning is everything”Dwight D. Eisenhower
General & President of USA 1953-1961
Together…
Topics are connected to the
geography – and how does it
have an effect on planning
• Shipping• Environment• Fishery • Energy
Enormus amount of
shipping data (2006-2015) processed &
for the first time available online
Marine Green Infrastructure
Topic: Fishing
Image of
spawning and
nursery areas
for species of
interest to
commercial
fisheries
Middlebank: Important fishing
ground (SWE, PL and CB case)
Current Status: Energy
OWF in use
Approved OWF/
advanced stage of
licensing process
Shipping is vital and intense
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
Top 3 BalticScope results
• How complex transboundary MSP can be, more
difficult than expected. No one size fits all
solution.
• Improved and shared understanding of pre-
conditions for planning in respectively country
• Recommendations
We learnt a lot!!!