WORKPACKAGE 2 Maritime spatial planning related mapping of Maritime Cultural Heritage
The goals for the workpackage included co-operation between maritime cultural heritage officials in the partner countries to bring together information about the MCH management. This included information on the various registers used to gather MCH data as well as the ways, how this data is made publicly available.
To gather the various datasets, several questionnaires and templates were sent to the partners to be filled. Due to the different tradition of management in the partner countries, discussion was needed to define the best way to gather the information. Simply, we needed to discuss what information was wanted and how things are defined. Wording presented difficulties due to terminology gaps, different register traditions, different ways to construct the data etc.
Very soon it became apparent that it was not practical to force a standard site categorisation. MCH management varies in each country, and has been developing through different histories and practices, which is visible in the management practices and registers. A joint categorisation would require an enormous amount of management and discussion, which would have been impractical in the scope of the BalticRIM project. Furthermore, the partners saw no particular reason for such categorisation, but agreed that it is beneficial for the government agencies working around MCH management co-operation to be aware of the different practices and datasets in other countries around the Baltic Sea. This facilitates management as well as the protection of the maritime and underwater cultural heritage.
The datasets used for Maritime and Underwater Cultural Heritage management in each country around the Baltic Sea are presented in the adjacent table.
Maritime Cultural Historical (MCH) categories in the Baltic Sea Region registers
This document contains the different categories, which are used by the BalticRIM partner institutions to classify various types of maritime cultural heritage sites. Each partner was requested to fill in a questionnaire and look for maritime categories in their register(s). Some categories were common to all partners, such as “wreck” and “burial”. The questionnaire revealed also gaps, especially categories, which describe large-scale phenomena were extremely rare, for example sea battle area. Some phenomena of the maritime cultural heritage had not been classified in any country, such as “ship trap”.
The categories also make visible the variability of the MCH. It is evident that it is not possible, or even necessary, to unify the registers or formulate pan-Baltic MCH categories. The variability of the categories also derives from the different nature of the heritage administration traditions.
The maritime categories have been compiled from the register or registers of the heritage officials in each county or country. The document is an overall view on the comprehensive MCH in each partner region.
Maritime Cultural Heritage Data Accessibility Template version 1.0
The Data Accessibility Template includes information from each BalticRIM partner country. In addition, Sweden has provided data. The template describes how and in which form data on Maritime and Underwater Cultural Heritage is available. Open access data are shared by WMS and/or WFS services and on webpages. In some countries interface services are not used, and the data are available in traditional archival forms. Template also indicates if data is restricted.
The information has been gathered from the participants by a questionnaire, where various forms of data sharing were marked. The various institutions, which took part to the questionnaire, are visible in the first column of the template. Some information has not been provided and this has been indicated in the template.
The BalticRIM templates are devised to collect, organize, analyse and display the various Maritime and Underwater Cultural Heritage data in the Baltic Sea Region.
2. Maritime Cultural Heritage Management
The template displays some of the various systems that can be used to evaluate Maritime Cultural Heritage. The systems of evaluation differ in each country.
3. Environmental and Human Impacts
The templates give an example of the various measurable environmental and human impacts that affect Maritime and Underwater Cultural Heritage in the Baltic Sea.
This work package fosters a better planning through an early exchange of knowledge between different sectors. The main outputs of this work package are working methods and tools to include Maritime Cultural Heritage aspects in Maritime Spatial Planning.
O3.1Status report on results of sectoral dialogues
O3.2 Status report on a common heritage impact assessment strategy for MSP regarding MCH
O3.3 MCH-MSP game
O3.4 Status reports for each pilot planning case
O3.5 Synthesis of maps & cross-sectoral plans
Work Package 4 was divided into 2 groups of activities. The work package as a whole was devoted to looking at and creating possibilities how cultural heritage could be managed according to the ways of Blue Growth.
A4.1. In this group of activities it was found out how the notion of cultural heritage has been used in other Blue Economy sectors. More specifically, maritime and coastal tourism of Blue Economy sectors was dealt with. In addition another sector was named where cultural heritage has been used and could be potentially used in the future as well – creative industries. Good practices how cultural heritage has been used in different INTERREG projects and national maritime spatial plans were also found out for the report.
A4.2 was meant to discuss different management issues of cultural heritage. In this group of activities a questionnaire to both Finnish and Estonian hobby divers was conducted to find out what they find important in their activity and what local cultural heritage management offices could do differently to help increase diving tourism in the area. The questionnaire was compiled by the Finnish Metsähallitus and conducted in Estonia by Muinsuskaitseamet. In the course of conducting group of activities 4.2 several good examples were collected from case study holders. All cases are outlined in the report.
WORKPACKAGE 5 Transnational outreach and lessons learnt
This WP aims to link the efforts of the BalticRIM Project to ongoing and future developments in maritime spatial planning (MSP).
A5.1 focusses on the synchronisation with ongoing MSP processes. This task was carried out mostly independently and in close collaboration between MCH and MSP experts within each state.
A5.2 offers more opportunities for a broader platform, as it facilitates the exchange of ideas on an international level, mostly thorugh conferences and workshops. Highlights include the participation in the workshop of the MUSES Project (Multi-Use in European Seas) in Venice 2018, or the Strategov Conference contribution in St. Petersburg 2019, Russia's most important conference on spatial planning, at which the BalticRIM Project was jointly presented by the Lead Partner with one of the Russian MSP associates. The exchange of ideas occured not only on an international level, but the project's goals were also communicated on a local level on many occasions.
A5.3 summarises the achievements of the project in a final report, which includes the methodology, the statutory basis and practical limitations, while showcasing some highlights and 'best practise' examples. Recommendations are formulated for future planning efforts with regard to the underwater and maritime cultural heritage. The BalticRIM Project can be only viewed as the first concerted effort to include cultural aspects into MSP and not all goals could be achieved. Thus, this final report forms a significant contribution as "roadmap" for future developments.