Workshop on Shipping Summary of Discussion

Rapporteur: Michael Kull, Nordregio Baltic Scope cross border stakeholder workshop Southwest Baltic case, Malmö January 27-28

1) Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status? Sub-Question: Is there something missing? Is there smth. to be further developed / improved / presented in a better way?

Further improve the connection between main body of text with recommendations & conclusions; better link text to recommendations

Sub-Q: Is shipping a / the priority sector? From planners’ perspective > All uses have equal rights;

hence equal priority while shipping extremely important for economy in BSR

Other stongly developing economic sectors: Wind farming / clean energy will be very relevant in future, recreational fishing & rise of aquaculture

Moveable & non-movable issues in connection to shipping

1) Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status?

Sub-Question: Is shipping a / the priority sector?

In CB case: plenty of space compared to SW case and strong shipping sector interest

Knowleageable shipping authorities but there is a need to exchange / talk to other sectors

Emerging & developing plans & how consider permanent issues; how to place those in spatial structures of the seas > permanent structures define future uses

1) Are the topic papers giving a correct picture of the current status? Sub-Question: Traffic & traffic coordination: Improved traffic coordination > map with yellow

space on ad-hoc traffic vs. improved & well planned TSS; note national interests, sometimes temporal in character, e.g. PL and military use of TSS

Suggestion: keep corridors sensibly wide & define the largest possible routes

Suggestion: Consideration of port development & also in connection with terrestial issues, e.g. development of industry in the hinterland and analyse these in all countries of BSR

Important: Consider current state of port strategies but also include routing here

2) What are the development plans for your sector in 2035 and 2050?

Sub-Q.: 400% or more increase realistic? Move from land / road transport to sea

transport Development of vessels: bigger but fewer Development in the hinterland: logistic

companies decide about the ports they use / own interests based on land-based infrastructure; good plans but choice of usage made by others

2) What are the development plans for your sector in 2035 and 2050?

Sub-Q.: Plans based on regression analysis?

> Could be used but possibly related only to 5-10 years

3) What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas ?

Sub-Q: What is the potential of robotics & STM?

Possibly 20%-30% merchant fleet controlled from shore / no sailors; technology is there but regulations not (yet)

Probably requires permanent traffic lanes & thus potentially leaving space for other uses of the sea

Sub-Q: Planners and precautios issues in

relation to shipping: width of lanes, areas for slowing down, turning, anchoring, designation of OWF should run in paralell

3) What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas ?

Sub-Q.: National approaches to buffer zones Diverse regulations / some in revised plans (DE)

some in planning (PL) Safety zones around structures in line with

UNCLOS (500m) Other buffer zones differ & so does the

designation (e.g. in SE combination of AIS, local hydrographic surveys and national interests / ”riksinteresse”

3) What are the needs in terms of space and location of areas ? Sub-Q.: How wide should the routes be / spatial

requirements? Discussed different national approaches > see topic

paper Shipping routes as best possible outcome of

planning was questioned Not only AIS data but qualitative data (to be) used as

well Suggestions: Discuss emerging routes among BSR

partners, consider national interests of other countries in national plans, BalticScope: how do the national plans match with those of other countries in this area, Baltic Scope to exchange knowledge & set learning processes for partners in motion

4) What are the main conflicts and synergies with other interest and how could those be handled? Sub-Q.: Topic paper dealt mainly with energy,

what about other sectors? Intense traffic & fisheries: potential conflict but areas can co-exist Intense shipping & fisheries don’t go well together A more liberal view but basically agreeing Empirical knowledge > PL study on the conditions;

Trawling in Öresund banned for 70 years

4) What are the main conflicts and synergies with other interest and how could those be handled? Other relevant points to take from here: Shipping & Energy: Buffer zones look different in different countries >

concerted action needed EU level working group to inform IALA guidelines in

relation to OWF; large differences among states but 2-3 NM as agreement to emerge Discussion about collision but importance of

”shadowing” radio signals and impact on traffic safety

5) What recommendation is the group giving the planers for their work with focus on transboundary aspects? Modification of Recommendations: Re-routing: reformulation is needed, e.g. ”avoid as far as

possible” > discussion / consultation among all countries needed

BalticScope laying the seeds for the devlopment of a trans-

Baltic ”Spatial Vision”

5) What recommendation is the group giving the planers for their work with focus on transboundary aspects? New recommendations: 1) For planners in Baltic Scope: look into planning of other

colleagues & echange 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 / at least the same,

Thank you! Contact: Michael.kull@nordregio.se