Baltic SCOPE workshop discussion on FISHERIES at Baltic SCOPE Southwest Baltic case stakeholder meeting on 27 January 2016 in Malmo, SWEDEN www.balticscope.eu * The information presented is the working exercise of 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. Group discussion
FISHERIES
Baltic Scope SWB Case Work

2. What are the development plans for your sector in
2035 and 2050?
Protected
areas, N2000
Goal
sustainability
Knowledge,
data
Important fish
habitat
Plan
Market
Port
Large-
scale
Small-
scale
Selectivity
Co-
existence
Commercial,
recreational

3. What are the needs in terms of space and location of
areas?
- Agreement on using habitats, ports and fishing grounds as
base, but complexities in transferring data and evidence
into marine plan format
- Difficult to fence in fishing interests, but if we don’t, they
might not be represented at all
- Importance of highlighting limitations of spatial
designations
- Important to look at cumulative effects of spatial claims
from other activities on fisheries (can we use SEA?)
- Difficult to engage fishery sector in MSP process
- Lack of information on small scale fisheries and fish
habitats

4. What are the main conflicts and synergies with other
interest and how could those be handled?
- Specify that we’re talking about spatial conflicts only
- Agreed with list in topic paper
- Need further specification on which types of fisheries have
what kind of interactions with other sectors
- In some cases guidance exists, such as fisheries regulation
in Natura 2000, in others we need to develop it
- Develop full picture of potential synergies and conflicts,
some cases can be both
- Eg. Protected areas, windfarms

5. • Develop aggregated maps for shared fishing interests in the
whole region, as outcome of Baltic Scope
– Further exchange and cooperation is required to agree on
methodology for this
– We could draw on experience from eg ICES
– Should highligt limitations
– Should highlight economic and social /cultural values
• National political decision whether to display shared
transboundary fisheries interest, and how
– 1. Informal exchange of data and designations
– 2. Standardize methodology for representing fisheries interest
– 3. Use aggregated data in MSP, not just national interest
What recommendation is the group giving the planners for
their work with focus on transboundary aspects?

6. What recommendation is the group giving the planners for
their work with focus on transboundary aspects?
• Arguments for using aggregate data
– Logical conclusion of the CFP, although not specified
– Aggregates value of sector interest, improving incentive for
protecting fisheries interest in MSP
• Further exchange of experience between countries is
required on how to represent fisheries interest in the MSP
process
– Stakeholder processes
– Modelling method
– Evidence base
• Develop a more detailed description of interactions with
other sectors
• Add in topic paper: make clear CFP and MSP – different
regulations and interactions
• Use BSAC as regional stakeholder forum for fisheries in MSP