Part-financed by the European Union (European Regional Development Fund) Maritime Spatial Planning as Tool for Underwater Cultural Heritage management in the Baltic States Pan-Baltic stakeholder workshop on Maritime Spatial Planning as Tool for Underwater Cultural Heritage management in the Baltic States Riga, 3-4 June A. Ruskule, BEF Palanga, 2 December, 2013

Participants at the workshop - 37: Partners: 15 Other institutions: 22 Workshop on Underwater Cultural Heritage

The main topics at the workshop Towards coherent MSP in the Baltic Sea Region, transnational and project perspective - introduction to MSP principles and ongoing activities by VASAB Session 1: Underwater cultural heritage and preservation measures Objectives and priorities in international policies for preservation of UCH UCH in the Baltic Sea - common past &common responsibility Discussion on impacts, conflicts and synergies with other sectors and requirements/solutions for protection using spatial measures. Session 2: Integrating underwater cultural heritage in MSP Examples of regional/local approaches (PL, LT, UK, SE, NL) for protection and management of UCH and integration of this topic within MSP Discussion on role of MSP as tool for protection/ management of UCH Workshop on Underwater Cultural Heritage

Key findings:  UCH – a new actor in MSP (except some countries, e.g. UK), so far not considered and involved at equal extent compared to other sea use sectors.  UCH sector in BSR has already cooperation platform at pan- Baltic level – a working group established under CBSS – to be used for co-ordination with MSP process.  UCH protection goals potentially conflict almost with all sectors, but co-operation and synergies are possible. A need for more active information exchange with other sectors - MSP can serve as platform for such cooperation.  UCH includes: wracks, submerged sites, relict cultural landscapes  UCH artefacts can be found everywhere, therefore areas which are not yet investigated, should not be left without regulation – a need for general rules/guidelines how to act when UCH artefacts are found.  Problems with identification of spatial solutions (zoning / sites designation) to present UCH interests in MSP - to be more discussed with planners at pan-Baltic level Workshop on Underwater Cultural Heritage

Some lessons learned:  Involvement of participants form other countries problematic due to financial limitations.  Very careful selection of speakers needed to ensure appropriate contribution to the workshop agenda (particularly, if costs for speakers have to be covered)  Simple, but adequate explanation of MSP principles & procedure is needed when involving of new actors of corss-sectoral dialogue Workshop on Underwater Cultural Heritage