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!