Baltic SCOPE workshop discussion on SHIPPING at Baltic SCOPE Central Baltic case (involving Latvia, Estonia and Sweden) stakeholder conference on 31 May - 1 June 2016 in Jurmala, LATVIA Read more on: www.balticscope.eu * The information presented is the working exercise on the cross-border maritime spatial planning discussions and can not be treated as the official opinion of the European Commission and the Member States involved in the consortium of the Baltic SCOPE project.

1. Thematic workshop 1 on
shipping
31 May 2016
Jurmala

2. What we talked about?
• Took a look at the main conclusions in the topic paper
(agree / disagree & amend, if necessary):
– Current & future description
– Maps & planning evidence
– Necessary research
– MSP-related questions
– Recommendations

3. Current needs for shipping –
from the topic paper
Requirements of the sector Current shipping activities in the Central
Baltic
• Safe and economically efficient
shipping routes
• The most intensive shipping is in the
Swedish waters passing the island
Gotland and heading to the Gulf of
Finland.
• Shipping to the port of Riga plays also
an important role by having heavy
traffic in a context of CBC area
• Narrow Irbe strait and intensive
shipping

4. Future use of shipping in CBC –
from the topic paper
Estonia Latvia Sweden
• Isn’t foreseen
major changes in
the vessel size.
• Increase of shipping density
is not expected
• Growth in cargos turnover is
expected due to the increase
of vessel capacity.
• Maximum length of ship in
2030 is expected to be 400
meters.
• Will require at least as much marine
space in the future as now.
• Width of planned
water traffic area
is 1 nm
• Small craft routes
(up to 24 m
length) planned
width is 0.5 nm.
• Main shipping zones are
estimated to be 6 nautical
miles wide (including safety
zones of 2 nautical miles to
both sides).
• Other shipping zones
(including their safety zones)
vary from 4 nautical miles
for strategic directions to 0.8
nautical miles for shipping
directions of local
significance.
• Areas of national interest for shipping
(riksintresse för sjöfart) are appointed
by the Swedish Transport Administration
based on vessel movements and
strategic considerations.
• Swedish Transport Administration are
currently developing complementing
maps indicating additional spatial
interests of the shipping sector.
• expand the existing small Area to be
avoided at Hobourgs bank or to alter the
TSS and move ships further from the
banks

5. Future needs for shipping –
WS notes
• We can suppose that shipping is the same in the Latvian coastline > we should take a
wider look not only concentrate on the narrow areas
– Density doesn’t always show the importance (e.g. the route from Liepaja to
Stockholm); depends on the applied filters > different perspectives
• However, density should be taken into consideration when speaking about the
width of the lines
– To rethink how we plan shipping routes? Add information about strategically important
development of shipping in terms of connections
– Weather conditions also play an important role (bad wind conditions > closer to the
shore)
– Historical routes as well as leisure vessels should also be taken into consideration
• We should not plan shipping lines, but appoint reserved zones for shipping (minimum
requirements) > task for the MSP
• Connecting the central lines between countries; at the moment, they are not fitting together
– We should describe an area (e.g. in the Gulf of Riga) in and outside the TSS? At the
moment, some are speaking about the areas, the others about the lines
• Maritime administrations in the countries should agree on aligning the lines between
themselves > then an agreement is possible
– Communication should take place between the same level organisations
– Who is going to do what > this is needed (the right task proposition is necessary)

6. Needed research –
from the topic paper
• Socio-economic research that would mirror the shipping
importance in the marine space
• Feasibility studies about the risk assessment and risk
management plans based on the shipping safety and security
and other new sea uses (for example windmill parks,
underwater energy etc versus safe and secure shipping).
• Research about small crafts actual routes of the use to find
out the most frequent small crafts sailing areas.
• Within the Swedish MSP actions are now taken to further
investigate the ecological impact of the ship routes and the
potential consequences of action in line with offshore banks
Södra midsjöbanken, Norra midsjöbanken and Hobourgs
bank located south of Gotland and Öland. In the first drafts of
Swedish MSP the area around the banks will likely be treated
as a case for further investigation (utredningsområde).

7. Needed research/maps for
argumented decisions (planning
evidence) –
WS notes
• Depth of the sea would give more information about what is possible
• Latvia would add navigational charts (this is the real situation, the
planning is already done) > however, it bears a different purpose
(planning is done for the politicians > has to be simplified)
• INSPIRE directive > a good starting point for layers (names)
• Maps: EE – some layers missing, LT – needs discussion as
common understanding is missing, from the future perspective, it’s
OK

8. What are the best ways of
involving sector stakeholders in
MSP processes?
WS notes
• After the first mapping version, LT finally got the stakeholders
interested > things have to be concrete and first draft of planning
solutions stimulates the stakeholders involvement.
• International: start early, but it’s difficult as you don’t have anything
concrete > things have to be clear to negotiate and avoid confusion
• Before presenting the planning solutions, current situation (incl.
other countries’) has to be clear > start early stage, share
information (SWE)
– Look into the mandate > who is representing what (who has a mandate) > who is
going to represent the sector abroad

9. Recommendations-
from the topic paper
• Safety at sea and navigation requirements are adequately
addressed during preparation and planning.
• In case of potential changes shipping consequence analyses
should be carried out
• Recognised risk assessment methods should be used (incl.
the risk of ice conditions)
• Potential changes of international main routes (Deep water
route T, transit traffic flow in connection with TSSs through the
area) are necessary to carry out through IMO.
• Centre lines of planned shipping routes should be connected
between different countries.

10. Workshop recommendations /
Conclusions
• Lines / areas of shipping have to be coherent across the borders
• Planners and specialists (e.g. maritime administrations) should understand
each other’s perspectives
– All the stakeholders should be taken on board
– Harmonization is of importance from the planning perspective
• We should not plan shipping lines, but appoint minimum spatial
requirements for the shipping sector (depends on the planning task)
• Communication should take place between the same level
organisations
– Who is going to do what > the right task proposition is necessary
• Planning is done for the decision-makers > it has to be simplified
• Involving stakeholders: start early, however, without concrete solutions
parties might not be interested
• Mandate is of importance > include these authorities who can make
decisions

11. Thank you!