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 on
shipping
Conflicts and synergies
1 June 2016

2. Keep in mind
• We will focus on transboundary and spatially
relevant synergies and conflicts
• Focus on potential future developments
• Don’t forget to take a look onto maps

3. Conflicts and synergies based
on the February 2016 meeting
Synergies Conflicts
Cross-
border /
cross-sector
Environment – Shipping Environment – Shipping
• Maritime safety
• Intensively used shipping routes have negative
impacts (disturbance, oil spills) on marine
ecosystems, especially on areas of high
ecological value
• Rerouting of shipping (e.g. Central Baltic banks)
• Spills of hazardous substances
Shipping - Fisheries Shipping –Fisheries
• Co-existence in marine space
• Shipping noise
• Pollution / Damage of fish habitats
• Limitation of fishing with passive fishing gears
on shipping routes
Energy – Shipping Energy – Shipping
• Common use of ports and
services
• Use of service ships for energy
installations
• OWF as navigational signs
• Co-existence of ships and cables
• OWF restrict space for shipping activities
• OS Wave can restrict additional space for
shipping activities

4. Conflicts and synergies –
spatial and transboundary
to be added, if necessary
• Conflicts:
– Shipping <> environment
– Shipping <> fisheries
– Shipping <> energy
• Synergies:
– Shipping <> environment
– Shipping <> fisheries
– Shipping <> energy

5. Discussed synergies and
conflicts
POTENTIAL CONFLICTS SYNERGIES
• Re-routing of shipping in Central
Baltic banks
• No foreseen spatial conflict between
fisheries and shipping
• OWF vs shipping (rather of national
impact and interest in the CB case,
except the SWE case > has
transboundary impact, but it is going
to be solved by SWE)
• Co-existence of shipping, environment
and fishing in the marine space
(maritime safety) > rather a managerial
question
• Visionary map about renewable energy
> good information for shipping

6. Central Baltic banks
• Possible re-routing:
– Rerouting of shipping is long term process
• Time has to be taken into consideration – long process (5 years)
– Moving the pollution to another place? Not actually fair (perhaps re-
routing is not a solution after all). Do we create new problems by re-
routing the traffic?
– Common solutions should be offered by relevant stakeholders
(shipping, environment, HELCOM? IMO? from each country) >
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNERS
– Temporary vs permanent?
• Depiction on the navigation maps
– MSP: should we choose to depict it in the plan? The integration into the
MSP vs other processes?
• Should be noted down as a plan and kept in mind that other processes take place in
parallel
• Consequence analysis needed (could be addressed during the planning process) E.g.
deep water can be longer but consume less fuel/oil. More data needed (hydrographic).

7. Recommendations
• When planning e.g. OWF, early stakeholder involvement (shipping)
is necessary.
• Maps have to be agreed with the stakeholders – relevant and
comprehensive information depicted
• Stakeholders have to reach a common understanding within the
MSP (planners should facilitate the process) to solve spatial conflicts
between sectors (e.g. energy / shipping / environment)
• (National) principles for analysing artificial objects at sea to ensure
safety are necessary (e.g. safe distances). Integrating international
organisations’ risk assessment methodology could be useful.
• When analysing conflicts and synergies more international
stakeholders (e.g. HELCOM) should be involved > harmonized
approach and data (history about the material, less project-based).
– To develop the needed information requirements in each sector (methodology) >
what kind of information is needed and available for MSP > national authorities
are less able to manipulate the data in their interests (honest discussions)

8. Thank you!