Part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund) Model case Pomeranian Bight Pilot / Arkona Basin Examples of transnational cooperation and dialogue: Combined Grid Solution, Baltic Pipe and other cross-border projects Kira Gee, Stephen Jay, Bettina Käppeler

The task Key question: What can we learn from existing transnational planning processes in the pilot area for cross-border and transnational MSP? Combined Grid Solution and Baltic Pipe selected as case study examples; NordStream pipeline and other transnational projects in Poland also briefly touched upon. Stakeholder process in Sweden considered.

Background Combined Grid Solution (CGS): The first offshore grid of its kind in the world A joint German-Danish project To connect two offshore wind farms in the southern Baltic Sea to national grids and to provide a transmission link between the two countries Swedish plans to also connect a wind farm (Kriegers Flak) have been postponed Initiated by 50Hertz and Energinet.dk (two TSOs) €150m funding from the European Energy Programme for Recovery (Trans European Networks - Energy (TEN-E)).

Background

Baltic Pipe: A proposed gas pipeline between Denmark and Poland in the southern Baltic Sea Route yet to be finalised, but would cross the German EEZ; one possible route would also enter the Swedish EEZ. First discussed in 2001 by the Danish energy company DONG and the Polish oil and gas company PGNiG to increase natural gas supply to Poland; Revived in 2007 between Eneginet.dk and PGNiG, later Gaz-System Review in 2009 and change of purpose for Baltic Pipe to the export of gas from Poland to Denmark (bidirectional flow)

Background

Empirical basis Document analysis 24 telephone/face to face interviews based on semi-structured questionnaire Interview focus: – Understanding of the purpose of the project – Understanding of roles and responsibilities – Wider national support received/policy environment – Transnational communication (e.g. initiation, organisation, representation, information) – Evaluation of process so far (outcomes, outputs)

Results: Success factors in the CGS project CGS: A transnational project that is established and working well 1. External success factors: Favourable policy environment – project would not have happened without EU support 2.Internal success factors: Widely shared view of the purpose of the project Clear direction from the beginning and clear understanding of roles and responsibilities (e.g. the two TSOs as drivers of the project) Meeting between all relevant parties early on to explain purpose and status of the project

Results: Success factors in the CGS project Openness and trust between the project partners Parallel communication structures at several levels: – Central, leading dialogue between 50Hertz and Energinet.dk, – Technical dialogues in bilateral working groups, – Dialogue between the two companies and the licensing authorities – In DK: Communication with stakeholders – Sharepoint facilities/internal newsletter to aid communication Regular contact with counterparts, and Regular contact with authorities even if there is nothing new to report

Authorities see their role as enablers of the process (although they depend on action of applicants) BSH as a key player with good overview of the overall context of the project; „open door“ policy (e.g. willingness to host meetings) Previous experience with Espoo rules (NordStream) helpful in establishing communication pathways; informal agreement between authorities to follow Espoo rules as a good basis Results: Success factors in the CGS project

Difficulties experienced: Different traditions in stakeholder consultation: Denmark more pro-active in informing stakeholders early in the process Full access to all necessary data in DK but not in DE, leading to duplication of effort and lengthier process Sensitivity required with respect to respective communication styles (requires willingness to learn and openness on the part of the partners) Results: Success factors in the CGS project

Baltic Pipe: Early stage of planning and transboundary communication Initial geophysical survey has been carried out; Some consultation took place with national agencies during this survey; Gaz-System now considering the more detailed survey required and entering into more detailed discussions with the relevant government organisations; Company-level discussions are not very active at present. Results: Lessons from the BP project

1. Uncertainties about the viability of the project as a limiting factor in the early stages of preparation Gaz-System liaised with regulatory authorities in Poland, preliminary permissions being granted to allow initial planning; Uncertainty on whether transnational discussions should be initiated at a commercial or political level; Gaz-System reluctant to take a lead in organising transnational discussions, seeing this as more of a role for the authorities (e.g. Polish Maritime Offices);  Importance of establishing the right moment and means for widening the discussion Results: Lessons from the BP project project

2. Striking a balance between formal and informal communication Importance of frequent meetings recognised, ideally face to face Recognition of a „natural process of building links“ through informal of communication (NordStream example) Informal communication needs to be supported by formal communication: „In Poland, you need a formal structure first, before informal discussions can take place, whereas Danes are generally more informal.“ Advantage of a small focused team of representatives Reluctance to widen out discussion too much: “the practical difficulties of having an unworkable number of organisations involved”. Results: Lessons from the BP project

3. Looking ahead: What will be needed for successful transboundary cooperation? Recognition that Baltic Pipe should not be divorced from other transnational issues (e.g. N2000).  Importance of a transnational MSP framework: Greater cooperation in planning needed, so that marine plans mesh with each other. Better understanding of each other‘s licensing arrangements needed  role of a compendium Better understand each other‘s decision-making cultures: “Slavic countries make decisions very quickly; Swedes think a lot more, and think they have the best participation in the world... We lost a year waiting for their decision”. Core principles of equity, mutual respect and understanding, and sensitivity to administrative and cultural differences should guide all discussions. Results: Lessons from the BP project

Recommendations for transboundary projects External factors Understand the importance of a favourable external environment – Where possible, garner political support of the project at different levels; obtain the necessary financial support Establishing internal project structures Design one lead organisation (or consortium) responsible for driving the project – Ensure this organisation understands its role in bringing together national partners, setting the agenda and ensuring follow up. Share roles and responsibilities equitably between participants – Ensure there is clarity of purpose and clear understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities Gain appropriate national representation in transnational discussions – Ensure all relevant bodies are involved

Recommendations for transboundary projects Principles of communication Ensure early notification of initiatives with transborder implications Consider following the principles of the Espoo Convention from the start Hold an initial project meeting with all parties early on in the process – Authorities as important facilitators Ensure good communication within each nation – Agree to keep each other informed even if there is nothing new to report Set up formal structures and means of transnational communication – Working groups, regular teleconferences, face to face meetings etc. Make good use of informal forms of communication – Use all forms of communication, preferably face to face meetings, to get to know each other

Recommendations Use language(s) which ensure that all parties are properly included – Use English in informal communication and national languages at the political level Be sensitive to cultures of communication and decision-making – Patience may be required! Understand each other’s regulatory framework Develop an understanding of the policy, planning and licensing framework for each nation – Consider drawing up a compendium of requirements (what, when, how) Access to data Ensure good access to information and data – Role of authorities as facilitators where possible

… so what is the added value of transboundary MSP? Advantages of transboundary MSP: Provides wider framework for transboundary projects, ensuring a more holistic perspective can be taken by licensing authorities Can be a way of establishing pathways of communication between responsible authorities (formal and informal “getting to know one another”) Can help to establish Espoo principles for cross-border communication Disadvantages of transboundary MSP: Perceived as too rigid by some: Plans are not updated often enough, ideal cable routes might turn out to be outside designated routes