Case of Middle Bank

1. Case of Middle Bank Magda Matczak and Jacek Zaucha Maritime Institute in Gdańsk Rostock 14-15. January 2013

2. MSP Stakeholder approach should be implemented as a course of separate actions in PL and SE with light involvement of the other partners: • SWAMwill work on its stakeholder process in the MaritimeSpatial Planning (MSP) without mixing MiddleBank test (pilot) to this work. However, inviting representatives of MoG to some meetings might be considered but cannot be determined in advance. • MoGwill work in Poland in awareness rising among PL stakeholders. SE experience will be used as a starting point. • MIGshould work on Boundary GIS application asking SWAM for their expectations, clarifying issue of compatibility etc. and offering final product. MSP Stakeholder approach

3. Jointly (under MSP Planners Group line of actions) the partners will: • discuss the state of the art in terms of stakeholder involvement methods (general discussions about stakeholder involvement, their roleboth from a national perspective and a transboundery perspective and to clarify differences in national and transnational processes), • examine currently existing opportunities (structures and forms through HELCOM, Espoo convention, RAC (Regional Advisory Consul within fishery), environmental,transboundery groups such as WWF, CoalitionClean Baltic etc, groups and organizations that are coming together based on interest and demands and working in collaboration with formal structures), • come up with an assessment of the existing opportunities and necessary changes in terms of the stakeholder involvement in the MSP in the areas of partners jurisdiction, the assessment will be worked out in structured discussions. MSP Stakeholder approach

4. Outcomes as the result of the action line “MSP Stakeholder approach”: • Boundary GISas a tool of cross-border MSP consultation with manual of its use in English (MIG, MoG). • List of relevant SE stakeholders if Poland startsMSP (prepared by SWAM) and list of relevant PL stakeholders if Sweden startsMSP(prepared by MoG) – with focus on existing structures and opportunities to involve stakeholders. MSP Stakeholder approach

5. MSP Planners Group should become a joint PL-SE Forumserving as a platform for useful exchange of remarks and discussing MSP practicalities, thus preparing ourselves to the joint future work. The Region Skane will be invited as well, at least to the meeting in Hamburg, Gothenburg and Szczecin. Planners Group

6. First meeting in Hamburg(resp. MIG): • discussing the draft plan of the Middle Bank prepared by Poland and on that basis differences in the planning culture and routines between Pl-SE=> the result: a short note where we can easily meet and what requires further work • discussing what we know and what information is missing => the result: a short note on possible synergies from information exchange, main hindrances in terms of knowledge availability for MSP • Second meeting in Gothenburg (resp. SWAM) • discussing state of art in MSP in each country: legal provisions and practicalities (e.g. legends) => the result: a list of ideal minimum content of MSP plans in both countries, • discussing approach to involvement of stakeholders[in both countries => the result: a short note on possible ways how PL can involve SE stakeholders and how SE can involve PL stakeholders Planners Group

7. Third meeting in Gdańsk – discussing concrete cross-border MSP tools (resp. MIG): • boundary GIS and its possible PL-SE application, • possibilities of using a digital model as a stakeholder communication tool (tbc) • cross-border planning zones in the EEZ, • cross-border application of SEA (in practical terms) ,=> the result: informal choice of the most suitable tools for SE-PL, • data model produced by BaltSeaPlan=> the result: inventory what data are available, what are missing, on what data we should work together and how relevant is that data model to the SE-PL case. Planners Group

8. Fourth meeting in Szczecin (resp. MOG): • simulating situation that PL starts real MSP of its waters and how SE should be involved at each stage, and what entities , • simulating situation that SE starts real MSP of its waters and how PL should be involved at each stage, and what entities, • discussing relevance of minimum requirement report produced by PlanBothnia to the SE-PL case=> the result: practical and informal fine-tuning of possible planning procedures in each country, recommendations for possible formal changes. Planners Group

9. Outcomes as the result of the action line “MSP Planners Group”: • trust between PL and SE civil servants responsible for MSP, • stock-taking on what is available now in terms of the stakeholder process (methods, institutions, experience) and recommendations how to make use of it and improve existing stakeholder processes, • opinion on data model and minimum requirements on transnational MSP • perhaps also two papers about stakeholder perspective (tbc) • Common good and stakeholders: Who is defending / speak on behalf of the see?Who has the right to represent the see? • What is a stakeholder conflict?:A discussion about what a stakeholder conflict can be. Sorting out what’s behind the conflict, misunderstanding, lack of knowledge, real conflict what are the core? Planners Group

10. Thankyou