Baltic SCOPE workshop discussion on SHIPPING 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. Workshop on Shipping
Summary of Discussion
Rapporteur: Michael Kull, Nordregio
Baltic Scope cross border stakeholder
workshop Southwest Baltic case, Malmö
January 27-28

2. 1) Are the topic papers
giving a correct picture of
the current status?
 Sub-Question: Is there something missing? Is there
smth. to be further developed / improved / presented in a
better way?
 Further improve the connection between main body of text
with recommendations & conclusions; better link text to
recommendations
 Sub-Q: Is shipping a / the priority sector?
 From planners’ perspective > All uses have equal rights;
hence equal priority while shipping extremely important for
economy in BSR
 Other stongly developing economic sectors: Wind farming /
clean energy will be very relevant in future, recreational
fishing & rise of aquaculture
 Moveable & non-movable issues in connection to shipping

3. 1) Are the topic papers giving a
correct picture of the current
status?
Sub-Question: Is shipping a / the priority
sector?
 In CB case: plenty of space compared to SW case
and strong shipping sector interest
 Knowleageable shipping authorities but there is a
need to exchange / talk to other sectors
 Emerging & developing plans & how consider
permanent issues; how to place those in spatial
structures of the seas > permanent structures
define future uses

4. 1) Are the topic papers giving
a correct picture of the
current status?
Sub-Question: Traffic & traffic coordination:
 Improved traffic coordination > map with yellow
space on ad-hoc traffic vs. improved & well planned
TSS; note national interests, sometimes temporal in
character, e.g. PL and military use of TSS
 Suggestion: keep corridors sensibly wide & define
the largest possible routes
 Suggestion: Consideration of port development &
also in connection with terrestial issues, e.g.
development of industry in the hinterland and
analyse these in all countries of BSR
 Important: Consider current state of port strategies
but also include routing here

5. 2) What are the development
plans for your sector in 2035
and 2050?
 Sub-Q.: 400% or more increase realistic?
 Move from land / road transport to sea
transport
 Development of vessels: bigger but fewer
 Development in the hinterland: logistic
companies decide about the ports they use /
own interests based on land-based
infrastructure; good plans but choice of
usage made by others

6. 2) What are the development
plans for your sector in 2035
and 2050?
 Sub-Q.: Plans based on regression
analysis?
> Could be used but possibly related only to 5-
10 years

7. 3) What are the needs in terms
of space and location of areas ?
Sub-Q: What is the potential of robotics &
STM?
 Possibly 20%-30% merchant fleet controlled
from shore / no sailors; technology is there but
regulations not (yet)
 Probably requires permanent traffic lanes & thus
potentially leaving space for other uses of the
sea
Sub-Q: Planners and precautios issues in
relation to shipping: width of lanes, areas for
slowing down, turning, anchoring, designation of
OWF should run in paralell

8. 3) What are the needs in
terms of space and
location of areas ?
Sub-Q.: National approaches to buffer zones
 Diverse regulations / some in revised plans (DE)
some in planning (PL)
 Safety zones around structures in line with
UNCLOS (500m)
 Other buffer zones differ & so does the
designation (e.g. in SE combination of AIS, local
hydrographic surveys and national interests /
”riksinteresse”

9. 3) What are the needs in
terms of space and
location of areas ?
Sub-Q.: How wide should the routes be / spatial
requirements?
 Discussed different national approaches > see topic
paper
 Shipping routes as best possible outcome of
planning was questioned
 Not only AIS data but qualitative data (to be) used as
well
 Suggestions: Discuss emerging routes among BSR
partners, consider national interests of other
countries in national plans, BalticScope: how do the
national plans match with those of other countries in
this area, Baltic Scope to exchange knowledge & set
learning processes for partners in motion

10. 4) What are the main conflicts
and synergies with other
interest and how could those
be handled?
Sub-Q.: Topic paper dealt mainly with energy,
what about other sectors?
 Intense traffic & fisheries:
potential conflict but areas can co-exist
Intense shipping & fisheries don’t go well together
A more liberal view but basically agreeing
Empirical knowledge > PL study on the conditions;
Trawling in Öresund banned for 70 years

11. 4) What are the main conflicts
and synergies with other
interest and how could those
be handled?
Other relevant points to take from here:
 Shipping & Energy:
Buffer zones look different in different countries >
concerted action needed
EU level working group to inform IALA guidelines in
relation to OWF; large differences among states but
2-3 NM as agreement to emerge
Discussion about collision but importance of
”shadowing” radio signals and impact on traffic
safety

12. 5) What recommendation is
the group giving the planers
for their work with focus on
transboundary aspects?
Modification of Recommendations:
 Re-routing: reformulation is needed, e.g. ”avoid as far as
possible” > discussion / consultation among all countries
needed
 BalticScope laying the seeds for the devlopment of a trans-
Baltic ”Spatial Vision”

13. 5) What recommendation
is the group giving the
planers for their work with
focus on transboundary
aspects?
New recommendations:
1) For planners in Baltic Scope: look into planning of other
colleagues & echange knowledge and strive for
alignment in the representation of the routes
2) Concerning the state of shipping in 2035: impossible to
know / predict the development of size of ships; thus
the spatial requirements will not be lower / at least the
same,

14. Thank you!
Contact: Michael.kull@nordregio.se