Suchergebnisse

Blue growth is a relatively new policy of EU enhancing sustainable use of the sea resources. The relation between blue growth and maritime spatial planning (MSP) are not obvious. Both belong to a class of EU policies and both cover the sea space. Since maritime spatial planning in the Baltic Sea Region (BSR) has recently gained its momentum, the maritime spatial planners face the challenge of incorporating the concept of the blue growth into their planning processes. This paper facilitates this task by providing a comprehensive information on the international projects executed by the maritime spatial planners and the relations of those projects to the concept of the blue growth. This is important in order to capitalize on what has been achieved so far. However, it seems that has been so far no single "planning project" focusing exclusively on the blue growth and this growth has been tackled in such projects rather at ad hoc and non-systematic manner. Thus, the research on relations between MSP and blue growth seems to be still pending. Possible directions of its development are suggested in the final part of the paper ; Renata Kozak

The MIMIC project (Minimizing risks of maritime oil transport by holistic safety strategies) developed proactive management approaches to risks related to maritime oil transportation, focusing on the Gulf of Finland, in the Baltic Sea. In this sea area, the volume of oil transportation has nearly quadrupled during the past ten years. This has raised concern of major oil accidents. The project - estimated oil transportation volumes for years 2020 and 2030  - examined the composition of ship crews  - estimated oil accident probabilities  - estimated damage in ships caused by an accident, and the consequent oil outflow  - evaluated optional measures to control oil accident risks and produced a related decision support model  - developed tools for estimating the length of oiled shoreline after an accident  - developed tools for examining the recovery efficiency and optimal disposition of Finnish oil combating vessels and for forecasting the clean-up costs of oil spills  - improved operational tools for guiding oil combating activities  - identified and assessed security threats and pondered their connection to safety - analysed the prevailing regulatory system related to maritime safety  - developed a proposal for a proactive risk governance approach for the Gulf of Finland Oil transportation volumes in the Gulf of Finland for the years 2020 and 2030 were estimated by expert elicitation, and six different scenarios were built. The realization of the scenarios depends on several factors, such as political and economic development in Russia, and the policies of the EU. The composition of the crews of ships sailing in the Gulf of Finland and Archipelago Sea were examined. The survey showed that shipping crews are highly international in the Gulf of Finland, as in the whole Baltic Sea. The result involves a requirement to take multiculturalism into account in ship operations, to enhance the understanding of cultural differences and to improve intercultural communication. Probabilities for grounding accidents were assessed based on accident reports, and probabilities for collision accidents updated. The analysis indicates that inadequate communication and cooperation on the bridge is the most significant contributing factor in a grounding accident. A simulation model (accidental damage assessment model, ADAM) was developed for estimating the damage in ships caused by different types of accidents, and for predicting the consequent amount and duration of oil outflow. It was concluded that a large number of possible collision scenarios with the current structural configurations of ships would lead to an oil spill. Similarly for groundings, the kinetic energy of a vessel is sufficient to cause severe bottom damage and oil spill, depending on the bottom topology. The oil transportation scenarios and the results of the accident modelling were integrated into a Bayesian decision support model that enables examining the cause-effect relationships related to oil accidents and their consequences, and evaluating the costeffectiveness of different types of risk control options in reducing the risks of oil accidents. The cost-effectiveness of the ENSI (Enhanced Navigation Support Information) service, compulsory pilotage, and improved crashworthiness of ships was evaluated. According to the results, the ENSI service is the most cost-effective measure to control oil accident risks. A Bayesian decision support model was also developed for examining the recovery efficiency and optimal disposition of Finnish oil combating vessels in the Gulf of Finland. It was found out that the environmental and accident conditions have a bigger impact on the recovery efficiency than the disposition of the oil combating vessels. Another model was built for forecasting the clean-up costs of oil spills and for the optimization of a costeffective oil-combating fleet. Two approaches were used in assessing the extent of polluted shoreline as a consequence of accidental oil spills. The method developed within the project has potential as a generally applicable tool in estimating the length of polluted shoreline, but needs further development regarding scaling, computing efficiency, and user-friendliness. The project further developed tools for situation awareness building for oil spill response operations. The integrated Seatrack Web and SmartResponse Web applications enable upto-date assessment of the oil drifting in the sea and environmental values at risk, and thus facilitate decision making regarding effective oil combating activities. The SmartResponse Web includes also a model (ADAM) for assessing ship damage and leakage in a collision or grounding accident, and a section related to maritime security. Maritime security threats in the whole Baltic Sea were identified and assessed, and their connection to safety pondered. The study indicates that the current security level in the Baltic Sea is relatively good. A conceptual model was outlined for supporting the analysis and evaluation of security threats and facilitating the development of an integrated view on security and safety. The competence of the regulatory system and policy instruments in ensuring maritime safety in the Gulf of Finland were analysed and improvements were considered. Reanalysing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the existing policy instruments and supporting shipping companies to voluntarily improve their safety performance is recommended. MIMIC proposes establishing a proactive regional risk governance framework involving stakeholders, for analysing, managing and communicating maritime safety risks in the Gulf of Finland.

Stakeholder involvement is perceived as an important development in the European Common Fisheries Policy. But how can uncertain fisheries science be linked with good governance processes, thereby increasing fisheries management legitimacy and effectiveness? Reducing the uncertainties around scientific models has long been perceived as the cure of the fisheries management problem. There is however increasing recognition that uncertainty in the numbers will remain. A lack of transparency with respect to these uncertainties can damage the credibility of science. The project Judgement and Knowledge in Fisheries Involving Stakeholders (JAKFISH) was a 3 year project with 10 partners from the EU and Norway. It provided an integrated approach to stakeholder involvement into fisheries management and examined the institutions, practices and tools that allow complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity to be dealt with. The JAKFISH project reviewed the general literature on participatory modelling in natural resource management and derived a number of key recommendations from that review. The project also developed a fisheries management simulation game that was successfully applied in a number of occasions. In four different case studies, the JAKFISH project invited fisheries stakeholders to participate in the process of framing the management problem, and to give input and evaluate the scientific models that are used to provide fisheries management advice. JAKFISH investigated various tools to assess and communicate uncertainty around fish stock assessments and fisheries management. We conclude that participatory modelling has the potential to facilitate and structure discussions between scientists and stakeholders about uncertainties and the quality of the knowledge base. It can also contribute to collective learning, increase legitimacy, and advance scientific understanding. Modelling should not be seen as the priority objective. The crucial step in a science-stakeholder collaboration is the joint problem framing. The JAKFISH project also carried out social network analyses of the institutions and networks involved in six fisheries management systems (four in Europe, one in Australia and one in the USA). The results suggest that management systems with high participation in decision-making tended to have more disagreement about facts and values. When experts discuss matters more with colleagues from other stakeholder groups, their values, interests, opinions, and knowledge tend to differ. Consensus within a stakeholder group seems to be higher if the most important discussion partners are selected within the group. The discussion about the role of uncertainty in natural resource management and decision-making often assumes that it is the scientists that help other stakeholder better understand uncertainties and that this happens after the uncertainties have been identified. Our research refuted both assumption. Communication about uncertainty is clearly a two-way process and it already is happening during the problem framing and research process. An important difference has been identified between scientific proof-making and scientific justification. Scientific proof-making is evaluated against set of internal scientific criteria. Scientific justification is evaluated by a broader community consisting of scientific peers, government officials, industry stakeholders and environmental NGOs. Whether scientific uncertainty becomes an issue in a policy making context, not only depends on the amount of uncertainty, but also on the stakes involved and the burden of proof placed on the science. The claim in the EU Habitats Directive that site designation is an exclusively scientific exercise places all the burden of proof on the science which then triggers disproportionate attention to scientific complexity and uncertainty, particularly where stakes are high. The JAKFISH project has shown that participatory modelling requires an effective facilitation strategy where scientists, stakeholders and policy-makers actively connect and discuss. There is a need to train the participants in these process. It needs the realization that participatory modelling both builds trust and is built on trust, that it takes time and effort and that the outcome is more than the individual parts.