Part-financed by the European Union(European Regional Development Fund)

Pan-Baltic stakeholder workshop on

“Maritime Spatial Planning - “Maritime Spatial Planning - Shipping and Ports Shipping and Ports in the Baltic Sea”in the Baltic Sea”

Brussels, 24 October 2013

Peter Askman, Region SkåneHenrik Nilsson, WMU

Palanga, 2-3 December, 2013

Workshop on Shipping & Ports

Participants by country and sector

Main topics

Existing Baltic Sea platforms for MSPExisting Baltic Sea platforms for MSP

Integration of Shipping and Port sectors in MSP

Integration of Shipping and Port sectors in MSP

Communication and division of responsibility

Communication and division of responsibility

Port industry - Key findings:-Limited dialogue on MSP implications for ports on a pan-Baltic level; Low interest; No platform, communication gaps between different levels.-Enormous pressure from city developers: Growing cities versus expanding ports - Cities are taking over port areas. -Ports moving from the city centers, into coastal sea areas, closer to the shipping lanes; -Concentration to fewer, higly developed ports;-Container ships larger deeper and wider lanes;-New future navigation structures and corridors required.-Consideration to be taken with new pipelines & cables

- MSP planners should establish a continuing dialogue with the transport market players (the driver) to learn about future developments and needs of ports/shipping;

- MSP planners should focus on the container sector – the bulk market always finds their “own ways”, independent of shipping corridors;

- Long licensing procedures for port development ports must become involved in MSP at a very early stage.

- Ports are individual players - they lack a unified voice. - Ports act on the local, regional, national and international

arena: The communication level depend on the issue;- A need for port organizations to get early input from MSP.

Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Shifts in trade - huge impacts on shipping patterns - can be predicted;

MSP should take account to increased demand for seaborne transports;

Increase expected in general cargo, but most of all container; The B Sea can expect larger container carriers with specific

needs considering navigation, routes and MSP; Successful example of changing ship traffic lanes: Norway; Early “flexible” drafts of plans to get sectors on the arena; Few resources to participate continuously in the planning

process;

Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Smart MSP may have positive effects on shipping economy, maritime safety;

Benefits of coordinating shipping routes and other uses in the same “office”;

Enhanced communication & early discussions with shipping authorities is essential

Shipping sector is scattered in terms of stakeholders and lacks information on MSP.

The focus should also be on the cargo owner (transport buyer) Use existing platforms for MSP interactions with the shipping sector:

IMO, IALA, IHO, ICS Create tools for transnational and bilateral communication on maritime

spatial plans.

Part-financed by the European Union(European Regional Development Fund)

Pan-Baltic stakeholder workshop on

Climate Change Adaptations Climate Change Adaptations and and

Maritime Spatial Planning Maritime Spatial Planning in the Baltic Seain the Baltic Sea

Skanör, 13-14 May 2013Peter Askman, Region SkåneHenrik Nilsson, WMU

Palanga, 2-3 December, 2013

Workshop on Climate Change

Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Participants by sectors and countries

Main topics

Click View / Header & Footer to edit

Adaptation of MSP to Climate change. Adaptation of MSP to Climate change.

Pan-Baltic strategy to climate changePan-Baltic strategy to climate change

Implications of climate change on marine ecosystem and maritime activities

Implications of climate change on marine ecosystem and maritime activities

Key findings: Need of •Strategic approach,

•Awareness rising in the field of CCA and MSP/ICZP,

•Communication and information strategies,

•Easily interpreted information/Visualisation of data

•Structure for dialogue and support

•Common “language” between researchers and planners.

•“what is in it for me”-perspective for the key drivers & key implementers!

Key findings: Need of •Pan-Baltic cooperation - on different levels

•Adaptive and flexible planning process (uncertainty of climate change prognoses and other changes).

•Plan for the unexpected.

•Multiplayer perspective

•Multifunctional perspective

•Cases & experiences

•Coordination and guidelines at European level

Some lessons learned:

Careful selection of speakers needed to ensure appropriate contribution to the workshop agenda Keep presentations short – focus on question, answers, discussionsPrepare key questions for discussionEstablish contacts, especially with the industry for continuous dialogue