MMO1012: A review of marine social and economic data

A review of marine social and economic data

This page has been intentionally left blank.

A review of marine social and economic data MMO Project No: 1012

Project contractor: EMU Limited, The Marine Biological Association, Plymouth Marine Laboratory

Project funded by: Marine Management Organisation and Marine Scotland

© Marine Management Organisation 2012 This publication (excluding the logos) may be re-used free of charge in any format or medium (under the terms of the Open Government Licence www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/). It may only be re-used accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Marine Management Organisation Copyright and use of it must give the title of the source publication. Where third party Copyright material has been identified, further use of that material requires permission from the Copyright holders concerned. Disclaimer This report contributes to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) evidence base which is a resource developed through a large range of research activity and methods carried out by both the MMO and external experts. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the MMO nor are they intended to indicate how the MMO will act on a given set of facts or signify any preference for one research activity or method over another. The MMO is not liable for the accuracy or completeness of the information contained nor is it responsible for any use of the content. This report should be cited as MMO and Marine Scotland (2012) A review of marine social and economic data. A report produced for the Marine Management Organisation and Marine Scotland, pp 42. MMO Project No: 1012. ISBN: 978-1-909452-01-5. First published October 2012. Front cover image The front cover image is courtesy of Keith Mutch, Marine Scotland Communication. Acknowledgements The study team would like to thank the input from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) to the Project Steering Group. We would also like to thank all the data providers who provided more detailed metadata on marine social and economic data for this review and related metadata catalogue.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/

Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Project background .......................................................................................... 3 2. Methodology ......................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Development of catalogue attributes ................................................................ 6 2.2 Key datasets .................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Prioritisation of data sources .......................................................................... 10 2.4 Consultation ................................................................................................... 11

3. Review Findings ................................................................................................. 12

3.1 Data strategies and drivers ............................................................................ 12 3.2 Data providers ................................................................................................ 12 3.3 Metadata coverage ........................................................................................ 17 3.4 Derived datasets ............................................................................................ 17 3.5 Keywords ....................................................................................................... 18 3.6 Categories of marine social and economic data ............................................ 19 3.7 Spatial information ......................................................................................... 20 3.8 Temporal information ..................................................................................... 21 3.9 Data access ................................................................................................... 22 3.10 Data protocols and standards ...................................................................... 22 3.11 Application of data........................................................................................ 23 3.12 Data issues and gaps ................................................................................... 24

3.12.1 Aquaculture ............................................................................................ 24 3.12.2 Aviation .................................................................................................. 24 3.12.3 Carbon sequestration ............................................................................. 24 3.12.4 Coastal defence ..................................................................................... 25 3.12.5 Ecosystem services ............................................................................... 25 3.12.6 Education ............................................................................................... 28 3.12.7 Fisheries................................................................................................. 28 3.12.8 Gas storage ............................................................................................ 29 3.12.9 Historic environment .............................................................................. 29 3.12.10 Leisure and recreation ......................................................................... 29 3.12.11 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) ........................................................... 30 3.12.12 Maritime transport ................................................................................ 30

3.12.13 Military defence .................................................................................... 30 3.12.14 Mineral extraction ................................................................................. 31 3.12.15 Oil and gas ........................................................................................... 31 3.12.16 Renewable energy ............................................................................... 32 3.12.17 Research .............................................................................................. 32 3.12.18 Social ................................................................................................... 32 3.12.19 Telecom and power cables .................................................................. 32 3.12.20 Waste disposal ..................................................................................... 33 3.12.21 Water abstraction ................................................................................. 33

3.13 Summary of data issues and gaps ............................................................... 34 4. Recommendations ............................................................................................. 38

4.1 Develop and promote a detailed Action Plan for marine social and economic data ................................................................................................................ 38

4.2 Improve communication between scientists and marine managers ............... 39 4.3 Improve data management and access ......................................................... 40 4.4 Develop and promote metadata guidelines and standards ............................ 41 4.5 Develop a set of keywords for marine social and economic data ................... 42 4.6 Address gaps in marine social and economic metadata and data ................. 43

5. References .......................................................................................................... 44

Tables Table 1: Description of the catalogue attributes ......................................................... 6 Table 2: List of key data providers ........................................................................... 16 Table 3: The number of datasets under each theme and data type ........................ 20 Table 4: Geographic coverage of datasets .............................................................. 21 Table 5: Gaps in evidence on ecosystem goods and benefits ................................. 27 Table 6: Summary of the range of datasets in the catalogue and data issues and

gaps ........................................................................................................... 35

Executive Summary Both the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Marine Scotland have responsibilities to deliver marine planning and licensing systems that integrate and address the social, economic and environmental objectives for our seas, supported by a sound evidence base. Social and economic data, together with information on environmental data, can be used to help guide decision-making towards sustainable development objectives. In response to these responsibilities and needs, EMU Limited (EMU), in collaboration with the Marine Biological Association (MBA) and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), was commissioned to conduct a review of marine social and economic data and tools that may facilitate decision-making. The project is funded by the MMO and Marine Scotland and is managed by the Marine Environmental Data and Information Network (MEDIN). This report focuses on the preparation of a metadata catalogue of social and economic data, an analysis of the metadata and the development of recommendations to improve the catalogue. The catalogue consists of 391 datasets representing 149 social and economic datasets and 243 locational datasets. The focus was largely on national datasets and those of regional importance. The data covered a large number of different types of socio-economic activities, including all of those listed in the Marine Policy Statement (MPS – HM Government, 2011b). Furthermore, almost a third of datasets were available online. However, some weaknesses were identified in the catalogue largely related to metadata standards and data access. Data were held by a large number of disparate data holders and with changes in marine management, much of these data had recently changed hands, making it difficult to track down the new owners and the new location of data online. Metadata records were generally poor with few meeting full MEDIN compliance. In particular, there were often poor spatial and temporal records, and little information on the protocols and standards used to collect and analyse the data and consequently poor understanding of the quality of the data. There are no existing sets of keywords that could be adopted for marine social and economic data. Recommendations to address these weaknesses have been identified and are listed below in a logical order that reflects their priority. For example, it is important to first ensure that appropriate standards and systems are in place to manage and maintain social and economic data, before centralising this data collection and investing in new research to fill in data gaps. Recommendations and their objectives are outlined below.

A Review of Marine Social and Economic Data 1 of 45

Recommendation Aim 1. MMO and Marine Scotland to develop and promote an Action Plan for the provision of marine social and economic data.

To ensure that the right information is identified and collected in an efficient and co-ordinated way to help inform decision-making.

2. MMO and Marine Scotland to maintain communication between scientists and marine managers through links to other research and data initiatives.

To ensure that good quality and relevant evidence to support marine decision-making is provided in an efficient way.

3. For the MMO and Marine Scotland to engage with existing data centres and to support the development of a federated DAC in-line with MEDIN best practice.

To ensure that metadata on social and economic data are kept up to date, are in a useable format and are widely and easily accessible.

4. MMO and Marine Scotland to work with MEDIN in the development and promotion of metadata guidelines and standards for marine social and economic data.

To improve the quality of metadata currently recorded for marine social and economic data, thus making it more readily applicable and defendable for evidence-based decision-making.

5. MMO and Marine Scotland to develop an interim keyword list for marine social and economic data and to work with MEDIN over the longer term to develop a set of keywords within the MEDIN Discovery Metadata standard.

To enable searches of the metadata catalogue by keywords that will help to facilitate marine decision-making.

6. MMO and Marine Scotland to address priority gaps in marine social and economic data through increased co-ordination.

To provide high quality, defendable evidence to underpin decision-making.

2 of 45 A Review of Marine Social and Economic Data

1. Introduction

1.1 Project background

One of the five guiding principles of the UK Government's 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy "Securing the Future" is to use sound science responsibly. The principle promotes an evidence-based approach to decision-making that ensures policy development is informed by evidence at each stage, from when an issue is first identified, to the consideration of all available policy options, development of the most appropriate response and subsequent evaluation of policy effectiveness. This means not only collecting data, but ensuring that we have the right data to enable decisions to be made, to invest in research for new data and tools to apply that data, and to develop the ability to discriminate between evidence which is reliable and useful, and that which is not. Once assessed, these data need to be made available to ensure transparency in the decision-making process and to encourage open and rigorous public debate. Two organisations with key decision-making responsibilities for the marine environment are the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and Marine Scotland. The MMO has been established to make a significant contribution to sustainable development in the marine environment, primarily for England and adjacent territorial seas. The MMO has a wide range of responsibilities that are dependent on the provision of robust scientific evidence including: • The implementation of a new marine planning system designed to integrate the

social requirements, economic potential and environmental imperatives of our seas

• The implementation of a new marine licensing regime that is easier for everyone to use with clearer, simpler and quicker licensing decisions

• Management of the UK fishing fleet capacity and UK fisheries quotas • Working with Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee

(JNCC) to create and manage a network of marine protected areas (marine conservation zones and European marine sites) designed to preserve vulnerable habitats and species in UK marine waters

• Response to marine emergencies alongside other agencies Marine Scotland's overall purpose is to manage Scotland's seas for prosperity and environmental sustainability. Similarly, it has responsibilities towards achieving good environmental status of Scottish seas alongside the promotion of sustainable economic growth and delivered via marine planning, licensing and other functions; all of which is to be supported by a sound evidence base. Both Marine Scotland and the MMO are sponsors of the Marine Environmental Data and Information Network (MEDIN), an open partnership committed to improving access to marine data. MEDIN was formally established in April 2008 (previously known as the Marine Data and Information Partnership – MDIP) and reports to the Marine Science Co-ordination Committee. Within MEDIN, data are managed through


a series of thematically ordered Data Archive Centres (DACs), each of which undergoes an accreditation process to ensure adherence to the best practices for ongoing data management. Currently the DAC network does not include expertise for the management of social and economic data. Social and economic data, together with information on environmental data, can be used to help guide decision-making towards sustainable development objectives. Collectively, they can help to provide a measure of national wellbeing, as noted by the Office of National Statistics (ONS, 2011), and are key elements in understanding the impacts of new policies. Robust and current data are needed urgently in the marine environment where policy makers are dealing with a number of new legislative requirements such as the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Marine Acts1 outlining the development of marine plans and the designation of new Marine Protected Areas. In addition, the development of plans and policies requires particular procedures or steps to be taken. For example, new policies require an Impact Assessment (IA) as set out by government guidance (HM Government, 2011a) and new plans require a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) covering the wider social and economic impacts2. There are guidelines provided on stakeholder consultation and it is important that details surrounding the policy or plan options are clearly communicated. In response to these responsibilities and needs, the MMO and Marine Scotland have commissioned EMU Limited (EMU), in collaboration with the Marine Biological Association (MBA) and the Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), to conduct a review of marine social and economic data and tools that may facilitate decision-making. The project is managed by MEDIN. Input to the project from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the JNCC has been invited for completeness and to complement their projects on social and economic themes. Social and economic data themes to be covered by the study include: • Data on financial value or economic activity associated with uses of the sea –

Turnover, Gross Value Added (GVA), employment • Data on the economics of supply chains (i.e. for wind farms, fisheries) and

income distribution • Data on the geographic location of use and non-use values of activity and

infrastructure - both coastal and marine • Data relating to the characteristics of coastal and linked marine communities:

employment, demographics, business base, health and wellbeing data including access to recreational and leisure facilities, wealth / deprivation indices, quality of life indicators

• Data for input to ecosystem services models such as services provided by ecosystem types, value of services and changes in wellbeing values

1 The UK Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 and the Northern Ireland Marine Bill. 2 Incorporates the requirements of the EU Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001/42/EC or 'SEA Directive'. This was transposed into English law by the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (the SEA Regulations).


This report highlights the approach taken to collate relevant metadata on social and economic data; to review the quality and availability of that data and to make recommendations on data requirements and management arrangements. A review of tools to apply social and economic data has been captured in a separate report. The review of tools highlighted the various ways in which social and economic data may be used to help inform decision-making. Information on tools, along with policy requirements, has helped to identify the need for social and economic data in this report. For example, the location of an economic activity and its financial value may be combined to provide a spatial layer on the distribution of economic wealth from a particular activity. Similarly, the location of ecosystem services and their 'value' can be combined to provide spatial layers on the distribution of human wellbeing provided by the sea's resources. Both derived spatial layers can help to illustrate areas of high economic wealth in the marine environment and can be used to inform Impact Assessments of policy options, for example, the impact of different marine planning options. Information on the location of activities and their pressures (e.g. noise from construction and disturbance to the seabed from dredging) can be combined with environmental information on the location of sensitive ecological features (e.g. marine mammals and biogenic reefs) to provide an assessment of the status of the marine environment – an important objective for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). Interpretation alongside social data can indicate those parts of society that might be influenced by this economic wealth and associated environmental pressures. Metadata can be simply explained as data that describe data, or more specifically "data about the containers of data", i.e. the spatial and temporal characteristics, how data were collected, the quality of the data, from where data originated and, importantly, where data is held. The outputs of the study are therefore: 1) A catalogue of metadata describing social and economic data 2) This report, which analyses that catalogue and makes recommendations for

better management of social and economic data


2. Methodology In order to prepare and review a catalogue of marine social and economic data, a number of key tasks were carried out: 1. Development of catalogue attributes 2. Initial preparation of catalogue from key datasets 3. Prioritisation of data sources 4. Consultation with the marine community 5. Review and assessment of data

The way that we approached each of these tasks is outlined below.

2.1 Development of catalogue attributes

A number of attribute headings were agreed upon in order to appropriately record the compiled metadata. These are listed and described in Table 1. Table 1: Description of the catalogue attributes

Attribute Group

Attribute Description

Descriptors

Project ID Internal Project ID. To be replaced by globally unique identifier (GUID) once a valid MEDIN discovery metadata record is created.

Dataset Title The title is used to provide a brief and precise description of the resource, which in most cases will be a dataset. The following format is recommended: 'Date' 'Originating organisation/programme' 'Location' 'Type of Dataset'. It is advised that acronyms and abbreviations are reproduced in full.

Category These were largely based on chapters from Charting Progress 2: Aquaculture, Aviation, Carbon Sequestration, Coastal Defence, Ecosystem Services, Education, Fisheries, Gas Storage, Historic Environment, Leisure and Recreation, Marine Protected Areas*, Maritime Transport, Military Defence, Mineral Extraction, Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, Research, Social, Telecom and Power Cables, Waste Disposal, Water Abstraction.

Marine Policy Statement (MPS) chapter

This column was added to assist the MMO and Marine Scotland in identifying areas that directly related to the MPS. They are broadly similar to the categories above: Historic Environment, Coastal Defence and Flooding, Waste Water Treatment and Disposal, Tourism and Recreation, Defence and National Security, Energy Production and Infrastructure Development, Ports and Shipping, Marine Aggregates, Marine Dredging and


Attribute Group


Disposal, Fishing, Aquaculture. INSPIRE Theme

INSPIRE Spatial Data Themes as listed in the GEMET Thesaurus - www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes: Agriculture and Aquaculture Facilities, Area management/restriction/regulation zones and reporting units, Energy Resources, Land Cover, Land Use, Mineral Resources, Production and Industrial Facilities, Protected sites, Statistical Units, Transport Networks, Utility and governmental services.

Data Type Type of data, i.e. economic, social or location. Dataset Parameters (i.e. keywords)

To allow searching of the dataset, keywords should be chosen.

Original ID Code assigned by the data owner which is used to uniquely identify it within the databases of the organisation. The code and the codespace should not include any spaces.

Abstract The abstract should provide a clear and brief statement of the content of the resource (e.g. dataset). It is recommended that acronyms and abbreviations are reproduced in full.

File Format (if digitised)

Indicate the formats in which digital data can be provided for transfer.

Spatial Information

Geographic Range

Keywords selected from controlled vocabulary C191 at http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/client/vocabServer.jsp Other vocabularies including ICES areas and rectangles www.ices.dk or Charting Progress 2 regions may be used.

Spatial Reference Information (where applicable)

Describes the system of spatial referencing (typically a co-ordinate reference system) used in the resource.

Spatial Resolution

Provides an indication of the spatial resolution of the data, e.g. the average distance between sampling locations. For single samples and observational data MEDIN recommends using 'not applicable'. However, socio-economic data are often reported for selected polygons, for example ICES rectangles, MCZ Regional Project areas, SEA zones and Devolved Administrations. This column may require further definition.

Temporal Information

Dataset Start Date

The start date of the range covered by the resource.


http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes

http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/client/vocabServer.jsp

Attribute Group


Dataset End Date

The end date of the range covered by the resource.

Revision Date The date the resource was last revised or modified.

Frequency of Updates

This describes the frequency that the resource (dataset) is modified or updated.

Contact Details

Contact Name Provides a description of an organisation or person who is the originator for the dataset or resource. Name may be an individual or a role in an organisation.

Organisation Provides the name of the organisation who is the originator for the dataset or resource.

Address Provides the postal address of an organisation or person who is the originator for the dataset or resource.

Email Address Provides the contact email address for an organisation or person who is the originator for the dataset or resource.

Data Access

Data Licensing and/or use Constraints (incl. Charges)

Describes any restrictions imposed on the resource for security and other reasons. If there are no limitations on public access, this must be indicated.

Currently in DAC?

Is the dataset or resource already archived within the MEDIN DAC network?

UKDMOS Reference (if applicable)

Records the existing UKDMOS ID if the dataset or resource has one.

Link to Online Data (where applicable)

If the resource is available online, provide a web address (URL) that links to the resource.

Link to Existing Metadata (where relevant)

If metadata currently exist for the resource (regardless of metadata standard used), provide a link.

Date of Last Metadata Revision

If metadata exist, provide the date when they were last updated.

Lineage of Data

Protocols/Standards used to Collect the Data (where applicable)

Record details of protocols or standards used in data collection. Will contribute to the 'Lineage' element in the final metadata record.

Have the Data been QA/QC'd?

Record details of any QA/QC procedures applied to the resource/dataset. Will contribute to the 'Lineage' element in the final metadata record.

Known Gaps Free text field to record known gaps/limitations of the resource.


Attribute Group


Additional Information

Further Comments/ Recommendations

Additional comments/recommendations on the dataset/resource.

Reports using this Data Source

List of reports where dataset/resource has been used. Semi-colon separated list for multiple entries.

Information Completed by

Name of the person completing the record.

Date of Record Date metadata were created. *MPAs are defined here as areas of marine nature conservation interest, for example, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs), Special Protection Areas (SPAs), Marine Conservation Zones (MCZs), Highly Protected MCZs in Wales (HPMCZs) and Nature Conservation MPAs in Scotland.

According to the scope of work described in Section 1.1 the data themes are defined as follows:

• Economic: o Data on financial value or economic activity associated with uses of the

sea – Turnover, Gross Value Added (GVA), employment o Data on the economics of supply chains (i.e. for wind farms, fisheries) and

income distribution o Data on the value of ecosystem services and changes in wellbeing values

• Social: o Data relating to the characteristics of coastal and linked marine

communities: employment, demographics, business base, health and wellbeing data including access to recreational and leisure facilities, wealth / deprivation indices, quality of life indicators

• Location: o Data on the geographic location of social and economic activities and

infrastructure, both coastal and marine, which can be combined with economic and social data to provide spatial datalayers of the distribution of values

Note that data on the location or spatial distribution of ecosystem services will derive from ecological data on ecosystem features and processes held by other DACs. In addition, some ecosystem services are reflected by measures of social characteristics, for example, cultural heritage and identity, and physical and mental health.


2.2 Key datasets

A number of nationally available key datasets and existing data archive centres that were initially queried for relevant marine social and economic data included:

• MMO data catalogue (MMO, 2011a) and Strategic Scoping Report (MMO, 2011b) • Marine Scotland:

o Scotland's Marine Atlas www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/16182005/0

o National Marine Plan Interactive www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/seamanagement/nmpihome

o Marine Scotland Interactive www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/MSInteractive

• Charting Progress 2 (CP2) data sources spreadsheet - UK Marine Monitoring and

Assessment Strategy (UKMMAS) • National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA, 2011) • Defra – Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) regional and national project data • JNCC - data sources for pressure layers • The Crown Estate's Marine Resource System (MARS) • Economic and Social Data Service (ESDS) - extensive range of key economic

and social data • ONS - extensive range of key economic and social data • The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) - Maritime Data

website, Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES), UKDeal, RESTATS - performance statistics on renewable energy sources

• Ministry of Defence (MoD) - DASA - UK Defence Statistics; and • Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI) In addition, a number of commercial and independent data holders were queried including Seafish, Kingfisher Information Service - Cable Awareness (KIS-CA), the Royal Yachting Association (RYA) and the British Marine Federation (BMF).

2.3 Prioritisation of data sources

A system of prioritisation of data sources was required given the potentially large number of datasets, particularly at local levels or for individual studies. It was agreed with the project steering group focus mainly on national datasets with a few key regional datasets also prioritised, including those from the Regional MCZ projects. In some cases regional datasets were simply a subset of a national dataset and these were excluded. Only where additional information or value was added at a regional scale were the data retained. In addition, the MPS (HM Government, 2011b) was used as a guide to ensure all relevant themes were considered in the catalogue.


http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/03/16182005/0

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/seamanagement/nmpihome

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/science/MSInteractive

2.4 Consultation

A number of key data providers were consulted with including the MMO, Marine Scotland, Defra and the JNCC as part of the Project Steering Group. Press releases were sent out advertising the study and its aims via the Communications and Management for Sustainability (CMS) email list and via announcements at the Coastal Futures conference. A key data gap and therefore an area of interest for the study was valuation data on ecosystem services, much research on which is carried out by universities and research institutes. Therefore, those universities involved in carrying out social and economic research were sent written questionnaires regarding whether they had relevant data, and, if not, which existing data sources they did use in their research. They were also asked whether they were involved in the development of tools to apply social and economic data in decision-making. Initial email contact was followed up by telephone interview to assist responders in the preparation of the questionnaire or in the provision of alternative forms of information. In addition, contact was made with groups such as the Valuing Nature Network (VNN) to ensure that an overview of the latest research on ecosystem services was obtained.


3. Review Findings

3.1 Data strategies and drivers

As part of our data review we also explored the current data strategies that exist to drive the creation and collation of specifically marine social and economic data. The main high-level policy drivers are: • The MSFD which has numerous requirements for economic and social analysis

in many aspects of its implementation (eftec and enveco, 2010) • The MPS which notes a number of social and economic considerations that

should be taken into account in developing marine plans and in taking decisions on licensing

• The overall UK vision for the marine environment of 'clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas' which has resulted in two assessments to date of the status of UK Seas (Charting Progress). These assessments have been conducted by the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy of which the MMO and Marine Scotland are contributors

The UK marine science strategy developed by the Marine Science Co-ordination Committee (MSCC) (2010) provides a high-level focus on the social and economic research required to provide the scientific evidence to support critical policy decisions. These needs were largely identified in relation to the policy objective to sustain and increase ecosystem benefits. Defra in turn has a marine research programme (Defra, 2009) which includes a research theme on marine economic and social evidence. This includes objectives related to evaluating ecosystem services and better understanding how the benefits of marine ecosystems are distributed across society. However, these strategies are very high-level and there are few detailed action plans in place to deliver evidence requirements. MEDIN (2011) has developed an action plan or implementation plan for the creation, maintenance and dissemination of marine reference data which include key marine bathymetry, geology, management units and key infrastructure. It does not cover the location of marine activities and their environmental, economic and social impacts.

3.2 Data providers

The breadth of information that was captured in the catalogue meant dealing with a large number of fragmented and disparate data holders resulting in a total of 392 datasets (149 social and economic data and 243 locational data) from over 90 different data providers (see


Table 2 for the key data providers). Inclusion of a wide range of data was facilitated through public notification of the study. This resulted in responses from non-governmental organisations, universities and research institutes that helped to expand the data coverage from the core data providers. Detailed phone and email discussions were held with key providers of marine social and economic data and site visits were paid to The Crown Estate. Given the variability and inaccessibility of datasets, it is unlikely that every dataset has been included and equally new datasets are continually being created. In addition, with changes in marine management, much data had recently changed hands making it difficult to track down the new owners and the new location of data online. For example, data gathered through the MCZ process is currently undergoing a change in ownership. Datasets identified in 2008 through the CP2 process have changed in their web locations with the creation of Marine Scotland and the MMO. Additionally, Marine Scotland was formed in 2009 by bringing together the functions of the Fisheries Research Services, the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the Scottish Government's Marine Directorate. Some further changes are noted in


Table 2. It is clear, with so many disparate datasets, that a central Data Archive Centre is needed to co-ordinate metadata for social and economic datasets, to ensure they are kept up to date, meet metadata standards and are widely and easily accessible. Therefore, either a new DAC is required that is tailored for the social and economic metadata covered in this study, or adaptation of the DAC role by an existing data centre will be needed. It may be that a distributed or federated DAC (where MEDIN takes a lead in co-ordination, training and liaison) can be created through the adoption of core standards and guidelines by those current holders of social and economic data. The core functions of a MEDIN DAC are: • To ensure the secure, long-term curation of key marine datasets, according to

best practice and to relevant national and international standards • To make available clear, searchable information on their data holdings, by the

generation and publication of metadata on the MEDIN portal • To form the first point of call for expertise on the management of marine data It is also worthwhile pointing out that several of the data providers in


Table 2 are industry organisations or non-governmental organisations, such as BMAPA, BMF and RSPB that are solely dependent on the contributions from their memberships which influences their ability to fund long-term research. Site visits by the MMO and Marine Scotland to key data providers of social and economic data, such as the ONS and ESDS are recommended to fully evaluate the breadth and quality of the data holdings to ensure the information captured within each metadata record is as complete as possible (where publically available and non-confidential), relevant to marine planning needs and to identify plans for the long-term funding of current datasets. Site visits would also provide an opportunity for skills transfer in the creation and maintenance of metadata records to ensure future updates and new datasets can be described by those responsible for maintaining them.


Table 2: List of key data providers Key data providers Anatec Marine Management Organisation (MMO)British Marine Aggregates and Producers Association (BMAPA)

Marine Scotland (including MS Science)

British Geological Survey Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) British Marine Federation Ministry of Defence (MoD) BritNed National Air Traffic Service (NATS) Cabinet Office National Centre for Social Research Cefas National Grid Commissioners of Irish Lights National Renewable Energy Centre Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland (DARDNI)

Natural England

Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR – disbanded 2009)

Net Gain, Natural England

Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)

Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA)

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)

Northern Lighthouse Board

Department for Work and Pensions Office for National Statistics (ONS) Department for Transport (DfT) Oil and Gas UK Dive Site Directory OSPAR Department of Environment Northern Ireland (DOENI)

Ports and Harbours of the UK

English Heritage Renewable Energy Association Environment Agency (EA) Royal Commission on the Ancient and

Historic Monuments of Scotland (RCAHMS)

EUROCONTROL, The European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation

Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historic Monuments of Wales (RCAHMW)

Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory (EVRI)

Royal Yachting Association (RYA)

Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE)

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB)

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Scottish Centre for Social Research Historic Scotland Scottish Enterprise HM Government Scottish Government Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs) – replaced the Sea Fisheries Committees (SFC)

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)

International Association of Maritime Institutions (IAMI)

Seafish (Economics)

Imperial College Centre for Environmental Technology

Seazone Solutions Limited


Institute of Shipping Economics and Logistics (ISL)

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) – disbanded in 2007

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)

Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (SEMTA)

Kingfisher Information Service Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)

Magic Seaweed Shipbuilders & Ship Repairers Association (SSA)

Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB)

The Crown Estate (TCE)

Marine Conservation Society (MCS) Trinity House Marine Fisheries Agency (MFA – merged into MMO 2009)

UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO)

UK Directory of the Marine Observing Systems (UKDMOS)

Welsh Assembly Government Historic Environment Division (CADW)

3.3 Metadata coverage

The review indicated a wide variation in the extent of metadata and summary information that are created alongside datasets, ranging from none to fully MEDIN compliant. There appears to be a challenge in ensuring that all the datasets are described to a common baseline. Only those from the ESDS had complete metadata records that included quality assurance and control procedures. The poorest metadata records were those sourced from one-off research projects. Some of the MCZ Project metadata were recorded inconsistently, i.e. the data were there but recorded under incorrect attribute headings. It is clear that many of the providers of this data are not familiar with data standards and protocols. The emerging requirements under the EU INSPIRE Directive (2007/2/EC) may provide impetus for public bodies to improve the quality of the metadata, and encourage wider interoperability between spatially referenced social and economic data holdings. In cases where the MEDIN Discovery Metadata standard was utilised, the recording of metadata was often inaccurate, resulting in significant work to Quality Assure and edit the datasets. For example, many of the metadata records from the MCZ Regional Projects recorded the MCZ Project as the originator of a dataset, and recorded the actual originator's details (e.g. a national dataset provider) under "Protocols/Standards used to collect the data".

3.4 Derived datasets

Reuse, regionalisation and modification of datasets seem far more prevalent in the social and economic sector than elsewhere, resulting in a large number of derived datasets and difficulty in identifying the original controlled dataset. In addition, the derived datasets are often the most applicable to decision-making, having been adapted in some way to facilitate that process. However, this derived data may then be tailored to a given regional area or time period, giving rise to the issue, which is the most "useful" dataset to record in the catalogue.


There was a large amount of regionalised data, for example from the Regional Projects set up to support the selection of MCZs. Many of these were effectively regional subsets of national datasets resulting in a large amount of duplication within the catalogue. A certain level of auditing was therefore required to assess and remove these regionalised and derived datasets, particularly where the national dataset was the centrally maintained dataset and the regional cropping was only performed for a particular time period. This was only possible, however, if suitable metadata had been recorded alongside the regional datasets, allowing us to match them up with the relevant national datasets. Only where additional information or value was added at a regional scale were the data retained; for example, stakeholder responses to the MCZ projects. The majority of the remaining datasets are of primary data.

3.5 Keywords

Currently in the database three category descriptors were applied that may be used as keywords to search the database; "Category", "MPS chapter" and "INSPIRE Theme". Further discussion on how the catalogue may be utilised by decision-makers may help to eliminate one or two of these keyword lists, thereby simplifying the catalogue and producing a definite keyword list. The "Category" descriptor was based on the activities explored in CP2 and extended to include other categories such as the Historic Environment. The "MPS chapter" category was based on chapters from the MPS and although it was relevant to the marine theme of the data and marine planning purposes, it did not cover all data themes and would need extending. It was broadly equivalent to the "Category" descriptor. The "INSPIRE theme" from the GEneral Multilingual Environmental Thesaurus (GEMET) was not particularly relevant to the marine environment or social and economic data, for example, marine tourism and recreation and coastal defences (including marine breakwaters) were best categorised under the land use category; there was no suitable category that commercial fisheries might fit under. The MEDIN Discovery Metadata standard was assessed for suitability in describing social and economic data. A variety of terms is currently used in different areas of the standard including: • INSPIRE keywords (www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes) • MEDIN Keywords (http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/client/vocabServer.jsp) • Vertical Extent Keywords (http://vocab.ndg.nerc.ac.uk/client/vocabServer.jsp) In addition, the current MEDIN Discovery Metadata standard uses the SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary. However, this proved to be inadequate to support the description of social and economic data. The project team investigated alternative thesauri and the most likely candidate was the HASSET (Humanities and Social Science Electronic Thesaurus) developed by the Economic and Social Data Service at the University of Essex. However, detailed inspection of the HASSET list revealed that it did not contain appropriate terms. It may be possible to extend the HASSET terms; however there is no current Web


http://www.eionet.europa.eu/gemet/inspire_themes



service/interface to the full thesaurus, meaning that integration into tools such as the MEDIN online and desktop metadata creators would be problematic. There are two approaches to resolving this issue: 1. Identify an alternative thesaurus/keyword list for social and economic data as

with the current "Category" descriptor or an extended "MPS Chapter" descriptor; or

2. Extend the SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary to include social and economic terms

In the short-term, option 1 will enable immediate searchability of the catalogue. Longer-term, the extension of the SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary would seem the logical mechanism for capturing social and economic keywords and would have the benefit of integration with existing resources utilised by MEDIN and other EU partners. The MEDIN metadata tools currently interface with, and automatically update from, the SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary and so the inclusion of social and economic keywords to these tools would be seamless.

3.6 Categories of marine social and economic data

Table 3 below indicates the broad categories of marine, social and economic data that have been captured in the catalogue and the number of datasets represented. There are slightly more datasets recorded in the table below than there are in the catalogue and this is because a few datasets were applicable to more than one category of data, e.g. fisheries and aquaculture economic values and energy statistics that covered oil and gas, and renewable energy. A low count does not necessarily imply that there is a data gap or that data coverage is poor; even a single dataset may be sufficient if it is comprehensive for that particular category. For example, there are few social datasets but these are generally comprehensive datasets held by the ONS and ESDS. A number of ecosystem services are covered by existing categories such as fisheries, coastal defences and education. Therefore, the ecosystem services category mostly focused on general studies that did not correspond to a single existing category, for example the value of marine biodiversity. Other systems of categories, for example the chapters of the MPS and INSPIRE spatial data themes, were limited in describing the types of data explored in the catalogue and did not always provide a clear and useful breakdown of economic activities that would help inform marine planning. For example, there is no relevant category for fisheries which was best classified as "Land Cover" (Physical and biological cover of the earth's surface including artificial surfaces, agricultural areas, forests, (semi-) natural areas, wetlands, water bodies).


Table 3: The number of datasets under each theme and data type Data Category Data Type

Economic Social Location All Themes 16 1 Aquaculture 7 7 Aviation 2 1 Carbon Sequestration 4 Coastal Defence 12 1 6 Ecosystem Services 4* Education 2 2 Fisheries 16 3 36 Gas Storage 6 Historic Environment 1 13 Leisure and Recreation 27 31 Marine Protected Areas 17 7 Maritime Transport 14 1 51 Military Defence 1 3 Mineral Extraction 4 9 Oil and Gas 4 22 Renewable Energy 5 23 Research 1 Social 2 7 Telecom and Power cables 8 Waste Disposal 1 15 Water Abstraction 4 Total 134 15 243 * plus 14 non-primary studies held in the EVRI database

3.7 Spatial information

Table 4 indicates the geographic coverage of the datasets. Given the focus of the study on UK and country-level datasets, these are the more dominant. However, there are a few regional datasets, particularly for England, given the recent initiatives on regional marine planning and MCZ projects. As noted above, many national economic datasets are often regionalised using a number of careful and robust assumptions in order to assign spatial values. From experience with the regionalisation of data for CP2 regions, it can then be very difficult to disaggregate this information into other regions, e.g. marine planning regions. The re-regionalisation of data will ultimately result in new derived data with lower levels of accuracy. It is recommended to always return to the raw data that underpinned the original regionalised data and reapply the same assumptions but to the new spatial boundaries. It is therefore important to agree these assumptions so that they are used consistently to regionalise data to the same standards.


The remaining spatial information associated with social and economic data is a challenge. Only 74 datasets had spatial reference information, i.e. a co-ordinate reference system. To create metadata, more detailed bounding box-type spatial information may be helpful to describe the areas to which the data relate. Under the current MEDIN Discovery Metadata standard, the spatial resolution of a dataset generally refers to the average distance between sampling locations. However, socio-economic data are often reported for selected polygons rather than points, for example ICES rectangles, MCZ Regional Project areas, SEA zones and Devolved Administrations. A slightly different definition or use of this attribute is recommended for social and economic data compared to existing MEDIN datasets. Table 4: Geographic coverage of datasets Data Type Geographic Range Economic Social Location Global 2 3 Europe 1 1

UK and Ireland 2 3 69 UK and Netherlands 1 UK 64 3 29 Great Britain 6 1 Irish Sea 2 12 England, Wales 7 1 15 England 7 2 9

North east England 1 19 East Anglia and East of England 4 1 South east England 4 49 Isles of Scilly 1 Southampton 2 Single sites 6

Wales 1 2 Scotland 7 1 24

Pentland Firth and Orkney 1 Outer Hebrides, Scotland 2

Northern Ireland 2 4 Grand Total 114 14 243

3.8 Temporal information

Over half of the social and economic records (85) had information on either the start or end date of the data, i.e. when records first began and when the latest record was published. Only 31 locational datasets (13%) were provided with such metadata. However, it can be assumed that most locational datasets (e.g. locations of infrastructure) will be updated at least annually from a maritime navigational hazard objective. Better metadata recording is recommended in the future to help fill gaps in the remaining records.


3.9 Data access

Only 105 of the 392 records had information about data access. However, of these, only 16 indicated that there were data restrictions of some kind or access costs for the MMO and Marine Scotland; for example, archived reports were only available to members, digital data were not readily available or they were private company data. Furthermore, 152 of the data records (almost a third) were available online, providing free and ready access. In addition, there are two existing national data centres established for social and economic data, the ONS and ESDS, where access to most data is free. However, ONS data may be restricted to a particular spatial scale, e.g. regional level, with a charge for the provision of more detailed economic data at smaller local scales. In addition, although the ONS and ESDS datasets are very comprehensive they do not hold a lot of information specifically related to the marine environment and a number of complex assumptions are required in order to apply the data to marine policy and planning. MEDIN already has an action plan in place for improving management of, and access to, locational data (MEDIN, 2011). While the plan primarily addresses the location of infrastructure and other reference data, which MEDIN considered a priority, the approach it takes can be applied to other social and economic data. In particular, the action plan notes the influence of the 'Open Government Licence'3 which facilitates the use and re-use of a broad range of public sector data. However, this will not address information which is commercially sensitive or confidential for reasons of national security.

3.10 Data protocols and standards

Information on the protocols and standards used to collect and analyse data was extremely poor. Of the 149 social and economic datasets, only 33 records had information on protocols, standards and quality control procedures. Of the 243 locational datasets, only 29 had information on protocols and standards and none had metadata on quality control procedures. In terms of uncertainty in the data, only four records in the catalogue had specifically recorded information on known gaps or issues with the data, for example, information on years when surveys were not carried out or information that the current dataset is undergoing review and is soon to be updated. Those data managed by the ONS and other affiliated groups (e.g. see the defence statistics in Section 13.12.13) are governed by a Code of Practice which requires the statistics to be produced, managed and disseminated to high professional standards. Once approved, such data are allowed to carry the UK National Statistics Quality Mark logo. The UK Statistics Authority is an independent body established in 2008. It has a statutory role to assess all official statistics to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the Code. Some data that were designated as National Statistics before the introduction of the Authority are allowed to carry the logo until formally assessed by the Authority. Examples of such datalayers include previous years' economic statistics on the maritime sector and these are noted in the catalogue.

3 www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/about-the-ogl.htm


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/about-the-ogl.htm

3.11 Application of data

Given that our main sources of information for social and economic datasets were from studies such as CP2, Scotland's Marine Atlas, the NEA and the MCZ projects, the majority of the data had been applied to support these studies, for example: 1) To support assessments of the productive status or ecosystem service value of

UK seas 2) The development of spatial layers mapping the distribution of anthropogenic

pressures associated with marine activities

Information on how the data have been used, and by whom, can be extremely helpful as these studies often provide useful methodologies on how to interpret data and opportunities to share experiences of applying data. This could potentially lead to guidance on accepted practice on the application of socio-economic data. An example is given below of the potential value of such guidance: A number of assumptions were developed to describe the spatial distribution of economic value from marine activities for CP2 (UKMMAS, 2010). These were later refined for a study for The Crown Estate on Valuing Change in UK Seas (Saunders et al., 2010). A different approach may have been refined and adopted yet again for the East of England Marine Plan. The Crown Estate's Marine Resource System (MaRS) probably uses a different set of assumptions and Cefas another set of assumptions again. Having an agreed and consistent set of assumptions or methods for applying economic data would likely be helpful to ensure a consistent approach to decision-making. The degree to which the concept of 'sustainability' is captured in economic figures and policy impact assessments is currently poor. As was highlighted in CP2 (UKMMAS, 2010) and the NEA (2011), we generally have very good annual figures on GVA for productive use services such as fisheries and oil and gas, but these do not adequately capture the flow of stocks and whether this value is sustainable the following year and over the longer-term. The ability to do this for fisheries for example, would require indicators of Maximum Sustainable Yield (Fmsy), such as those being developed for the MSFD. For non-renewable stocks such as oil and gas and marine aggregates, incorporation of stock flows would require knowledge of stock estimates or estimates of the longevity of currently known stocks. These data exist to varying levels of confidence, but agreed methods to use these data to prepare spatially-allocated datalayers of the sustainable economic value of an activity do not exist. Different approaches have also been applied by a number of projects in order to describe and map the distribution of pressures from anthropogenic marine activities. It is important that an integrated approach is adopted that builds on the best evidence available from industry, regulators and the statutory nature conservation advisors. A consistent and agreed approach is being explored for the development of pressure layers under the UKMMAS group, starting with an internal workshop hosted by The Crown Estate in June 2012.


3.12 Data issues and gaps

This section provides an assessment of the data held for each main category in the database. Characteristics explored include the provision of spatial or locational data indicating where socio-economic activities are carried out (not just the location of associated infrastructure), the provision of data that highlight the economic value of that activity in either production estimates or monetary values, and any recorded data coverage (spatial and temporal), data access or quality issues. Some of these issues were experienced and noted during CP2 and other projects such as the baseline assessment for the MSFD. This experience and further background is provided here by the project team. 3.12.1 Aquaculture Data on the location of licence areas for aquaculture farms is held by The Crown Estate with additional information on the type of fish or shellfish farm generally provided by various devolved administrations and their agencies. Depending on the agency, these data do not always provide details on the type of farm and its operational status. Economic information on production volumes and farm gate prices is provided annually by agencies such as Cefas, Marine Science Scotland and DARDNI. However, these data are aggregated for each stock at a devolved administration level. Individual farm data are confidential, including the production systems used at each site. Lack of information on the scale and type of production at each farm hinders the ability to produce robust spatially-explicit economic layers and environmental pressure layers. Information is provided on employment figures within the industry as a whole but is unable to be spatially allocated. 3.12.2 Aviation Maps and charts of marine aviation routes, radar service areas, offshore safety areas and air traffic advisory routes are provided by National Air Traffic Service (NATS). From experience in EIA projects, this level of detail is generally sufficient for marine planning purposes, particularly with respect to offshore wind farms. 3.12.3 Carbon sequestration This category relates to the natural process of carbon sequestration and storage which is an ecosystem service provided by certain features of the marine environment such as saltmarshes, seagrass and algal beds and phytoplankton. This has been included as there is an economic value associated with such ecosystem services and the catalogue has recorded known data sources. The location of such biological features will be held by existing DACs such as DASSH - Data Archive for Seabed Species and Habitats. National-scale datalayers of the distribution of such values are as yet undeveloped but may be explored through the second production of the NEA. The raw data for such assessments are available at a level that would enable broad European regional sea assessments but are insufficient to support regional planning purposes.


3.12.4 Coastal defence This category includes the location and value of both artificial and naturally-occurring coastal and flood defence features. Although the location of current artificial defences is known and well-managed by the EA there is currently no single datalayer of future coastal defence requirements. This information is generally held within individual shoreline management plans. However, there are projects in place to address this such as the National Coastal Erosion Risk Mapping (NCERM) data. In addition, there is no single datalayer on the location of naturally-occurring coastal defence features. However, environmental data exist on the location of such features, including saltmarshes and shallow subtidal sandbanks, which might enable such a layer to be produced. A key data gap is information on the economic value of such features in protecting human life, productive land and assets. There are some specific case studies which provide a methodology for making such assessments (e.g. see ProjectID SocEco0000085 on the value of saltmarsh as a sea defence for Norfolk, Sussex and Essex) and the NEA assessed the cost of replacing natural sea defences with artificial ones. There are also a number of guidance documents on assessing the costs of flood risk. 3.12.5 Ecosystem services Ecosystem services are those services provided by natural features and processes of the marine environment that provide a benefit to human wellbeing. This may be in the form of provisioning services such as fish to support commercial fisheries and a varied diet, or may be regulating services such as carbon sequestration to maintain an equable climate. Some of these categories are described above where datalayers existed. This section provides an overview of data gaps for other ecosystem services not captured by the catalogue. The number of datasets specifically focused on the valuation of ecosystem services was generally low. The data centre EVRI had 14 datasets relevant to the marine environment in the UK ranging from 1995 to 2011. Studies included the benefits of natural and man-made coastal defences, marine protected areas and water quality. However, very few of these were original primary valuation studies, instead relying on existing socio-economic data already presented in the catalogue or unspecified primary research. Many were also specific to a particular geographical area, although methods such as benefits transfer (see Section 3.13) could be used to apply this information elsewhere and at different spatial scales. Furthermore, although access to metadata was freely available once registered, the studies were often presented in subscription-only journals or books. In summary, ecosystem services analyses and valuation studies are best sourced through detailed literature searches.


Table 5 provides an overview of data gaps relevant to all ecosystem goods and benefits. A "good" is defined here as something of anthropocentric instrumental value, i.e. of both personal use (direct and indirect) and non-personal use (bequest, altruistic, existence). A "good" generally requires the input of complementary capital in order to realise a (human) benefit (Fisher et al., 2009).


Table 5: Gaps in evidence on ecosystem goods and benefits Service Group

Final Ecosystem Service Goods/Benefits*

Provisioning Service

Fish/shellfish, etc. (wild and farmed – this includes that produced through artificial re-seeding of natural beds using harvested larvae)

Wild fisheries: fish/shellfish

Other wild food: algae, Salicornia

Other biological resources Ornamental materials (shells)

Seaweed for fertiliser

Medicines

Regulating Service

Climate regulation (e.g. Carbon sequestration and storage)

Reduced greenhouse gas emissions

Natural hazard regulation – from sandbanks & other habitats

Provision of natural sea defence

Prevention of coastal erosion

Waste breakdown & detoxification (e.g. Immobilisation of pollutants)

Improved air, water and sediment quality

Purification (e.g. water filtration through saltmarsh)

Improved water and sediment quality

Cultural Service

Environmental settings: religious/spiritual & cultural heritage and media

Sites of religious/cultural significance; World Heritage Sites; folklore; TV & radio programmes; films

Environmental settings: Aesthetical/inspirational

Paintings, sculptures, books

Environmental settings: recreation/tourism

Opportunities for recreation including boating, fishing, bird watching, etc.

Environmental settings: physical/mental health & security and freedom

Opportunities for exercise, local meaningful space, wilderness, personal space

Environmental settings: education/ecological knowledge

Resource for teaching, cognitive development, research and development

*Legend: Dark grey = minimal social and economic or value data; Light grey = some data, but insufficient to support impending policy needs; Unshaded = reasonable, but not perfect, data coverage Note: Draft Ecosystem Services Classification for the Marine Environment from a VNN project (in draft); adapted from NEA (2011), Atkins et al. (2011), Barbier et al. (2011), Fisher et al. (2008, 2009), Beaumont et al. (2007)


3.12.6 Education Education was a category explored in CP2 as it was recognised that the marine environment provides many opportunities for learning and gathering of new information. In addition, most marine activities are supported by training requirements, thereby providing secondary sources of economic value to training providers such as nautical colleges. This information may be useful for marine planning purposes in understanding the wider economic value of marine plan areas. There are no spatial layers describing the distribution of educational marine resources, although they may be indicated by the provision of safe and sheltered areas for training and pristine areas for study. An attempt was made to identify such areas during CP2 and later for the baseline assessment to inform the MSFD, however, the data sources proved too disparate to collate in the short timeframes and limited budgets of the projects. The educational value of the marine environment and its spatial distribution therefore remain a large data gap. Although interesting from a holistic view, this information may not be a priority for marine planning purposes (it is not identified as a key theme in the MPS) and the need for such information might best be explored at individual plan levels rather than expressed through any formal national-scale Action Plan. 3.12.7 Fisheries Projects such as CP2, MCZ regional projects and MSFD projects amassed a large amount of available information on fisheries including; the location of different fishing activities, the economic values of fish stocks, the sustainability of each stock and predictions for future change under the Common Fisheries Policy. The provision of fisheries monitoring data is largely governed by the EU Data Collection Framework (DCF), EC Regulation 199/2008, which provides for data collected in the framework of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), including Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data, to be used for the purposes of such 'national programmes'. It requires Member States to provide anonymised data to 'end-users' to support scientific analysis as a basis for advice to fisheries management; in the interest of public debate and stake-holder participation in policy development, and for scientific publication (Article 18). VMS is a requirement for all EU vessels greater than 12 m in length; prior to 2012 the restriction was 15 m. In the UK, these data are collected by the MMO, Marine Scotland and DARDNI. Further reporting is carried out by Cefas, Defra and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities (IFCAs). Recently efforts have begun to describe the inshore fishing fleet of vessels less than 12 m in length (e.g. Scotmap in Scotland and FishMap Môn in Wales) and to assess the social implications of fishing traditions (see catalogue ProjectID SocEco0000483). Industry organisations such as Seafish also provide useful economic data on the market, fishing fleet and supply chain. A key requirement is an annual spatial assessment of the distribution of economic values and environmental pressures associated with each fishing gear type. This requires reconciling VMS data with landings data and combining this with individual surveys of the less than 12 m fishing fleet.


3.12.8 Gas storage This category is derived from CP2 and refers to the storage of gas reserves and captured CO2 in depleted gas storage reservoirs and geological features. There is currently only one subsea gas storage reserve in the UK: the Rough 47/8 Alpha facility in the North Sea. Therefore this category is generally concerned about future activities related to carbon capture and storage. There are a number of spatial layers indicating potential geological storage basins and areas of specific interest for development, such as the Gateway facility in the Irish Sea. Various attempts have been made to assess the future location and economic potential of the industry, however, due to uncertainty in the market, the confidence in such estimates is low and the timeframe within which they might be realised is unpredictable given the current economic climate. 3.12.9 Historic environment The historic environment is recognised as a key theme for marine spatial planning under the MPS. The catalogue includes 12 layers on the location of features of historical importance including wrecks, monuments and designated protected areas. However, given the submerged nature of many archaeological remains, the existence and/or location of many heritage assets are often unknown until a development or activity is proposed and archaeological surveys are undertaken prior to preceding development. Understanding the value of these historical features is also difficult; methods that employ information on visitor numbers and spending may be useful for coastal assets but this perhaps is not relevant to submerged marine features that cannot be 'visited' but may have an educational or non-use value. This information helps to inform assessments of the significance of any identified heritage assets. 3.12.10 Leisure and recreation Marine leisure, recreation and associated tourism is a key theme for marine spatial planning under the MPS. There are 27 layers on social and economic data that largely capture participation and visitor numbers and the related economic turnover from the sector and 31 spatial layers that might be used to spatially allocate these values. However, this section is hindered by a number of different issues. Data are either 1) collated at a national level, making marine-specific and spatially-allocated assessments difficult or 2) collated at a local or site-specific level, often for a single activity, making it difficult to scale up for national level assessments. A number of the social and economic data layers are from one-off studies with no plans for renewal or update. Even those that are updated regularly may be dependent on funding from internal memberships (e.g. the British Marine Federation) reports. The MMO and Marine Scotland may need to take a greater overview of this sector and work closely with data providers to assess whether data can be provided in a format to better support marine planning. Some work is already underway with further spatial data layers collated under the MMO contract number MMO1013.


3.12.11 Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) There are good spatial data on the location of MPAs in the UK and an increasing number of studies on the value of such sites. The RSPB has carried out studies on the economic value of selected sites based on visitor numbers. Impact Assessments for proposed SAC and SPAs in 2010 captured potential economic costs and benefits of management measures. Recent studies on MCZs have further explored and assessed the evidence of the likely ecosystem service benefits as a result of potential management measures. This information is being expanded by a VNN case study group to encompass all MPAs in the UK including existing SACs and SPAs and proposed Scottish MPAs (Pers. Comm., J. Saunders, EMU Limited, 2012). This information will help to inform the Impact Assessments for MCZs which will be an additional data source to add to the catalogue, when finalised. A number of the studies held within the EVRI database were also focussed on the ecosystem service benefits of MPAs. 3.12.12 Maritime transport There are a number of annual statistical publications and one-off specialist reports on the activity and economic contribution of the maritime transport sector, including freight, passenger traffic and port activities. Due to concerns surrounding navigational safety, there are also numerous spatial layers relevant to maritime transport including port locations, safe anchorages, traffic separation schemes and vessel routes. While this information enables a spatial assessment of the value of maritime transport to individual port developments, there is less readily available spatial information on shipping density and frequency to help inform marine spatial planning assessments and pressure assessments of noise impacts and collision risks. This information is available through the interpretation of Automatic Identification System (AIS) data4, however the effort required to sterilise this data (i.e. remove any commercially sensitive information) makes this data extremely expensive to source at useful levels of spatial resolution. 3.12.13 Military defence Military defence activities are relevant to marine spatial planning under the MPS as large areas of the seabed are set aside for training purposes including low-flying training, submarine training and bombing practices. Although spatial data on the boundaries of these areas are available, the actual areas used in any one year, and frequency of use, are considered confidential. This hinders the assessment of pressures such as litter and noise that may help to inform cumulative impact assessments at marine plan levels and co-location assessments alongside other activities. However, through the MPS, the MoD is committed to working closely with the MMO and Marine Scotland to facilitate marine plans (HM Government, 2011b) which will help to overcome limitations in the confidentiality of such data.

4 Automatic Identification System (AIS) is an automatic tracking system used on ships and by vessel traffic services for identifying and locating vessels by electronically exchanging data with other nearby ships and AIS Base stations.


Naval activities also provide significant levels of economic contribution to local regions in terms of employment and supply chain (UKMMAS, 2010). Economic and social data on the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is provided by the Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA), which is responsible for publishing all of the official and national statistics for the UK. As such, it follows the National Statistics code of practice on standards and procedures. The key publication is the Annual UK Defence Statistics (UKDS) which includes sections on financial accounts, personnel, health, assets, land holdings, search and rescue operations and sustainability reporting (e.g. waste recycling and carbon dioxide emissions). Whilst extremely thorough, the data are not specific to the marine environment and a number of assumptions are required to extract relevant naval data from the dataset and indicate the economic contribution from naval training and port activities at a national level (UKMMAS, 2010). Individual reporting from each naval base often provides more relevant indicators on the contribution of naval activities to local economies but these are infrequent. 3.12.14 Mineral extraction The key marine sector that this category relates to is marine aggregate extraction. However, the category was used in CP2 to capture smaller economic contributions from sea salt extraction companies that technically, also come under this economic sector in terms of the standard industrial classification units used for the national accounts. Furthermore, the extraction of potash may require the designation of exclusion zones that could restrict other extraction and construction industries on the seabed (UKMMAS, 2010). The marine aggregate sector provides an example of best practice in terms of the availability and quality of spatial and economic data. Much of this has been achieved through research funded by the previous Marine Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund and voluntary agreements by the companies concerned to share data. Data on the actual areas dredged and the tonnage extracted remain confidential, however, hindering more detailed pressure assessments. Sea salt extraction is only carried out at three sites in the UK at present: Porthkerris, Cornwall (Cornish Sea Salt Co.); Maldon, Essex (Maldon Crystal Salt Company) and Anglesey, Wales (Anglesey Sea Salt Company). Economic data for CP2 was sourced by contacting the companies directly. Whilst providing a relatively small economic contribution compared to other marine industries, the dependence of these companies on high water quality, means that they are vulnerable to changes in the marine use of the waters that they extract and therefore will be important to consider in marine planning. 3.12.15 Oil and gas The most up-to-date spatial layers on the distribution of oil and gas infrastructure and fields are available through the DECC and the UKDeal datalayer maintained by DECC and Oil and Gas UK. These layers are also distributed by commercial organisations such as Seazone but may not always match those from DECC, depending on how recently they have been updated. Similarly, the most reliable production and economic data should be sourced directly from DECC, in particular through the Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES). Annual reports of this data are published by the ONS and Oil and Gas UK. These reports may vary slightly in


estimates of economic turnover due to different assumptions used in the calculation of statistics. As with the industries discussed above, economic data are generally published at a national level due to commercial sensitivity of individual company data. However, using information on the production levels of each oil field and applying some coarse assumptions, the spatial distribution of the economic value can be estimated. 3.12.16 Renewable energy The Crown Estate has the most up-to-date information on the leases that they award for renewable energy development. The development status of such lease areas, i.e. whether they are under construction or operational, can be sourced through the Renewable Energy Planning Database (REPD) which tracks the progress of projects from inception, through planning, construction and operational phases. Commercial datasets that provide a similar function include 4Coffshore. As with the oil and gas sector the most reliable production and economic data should be sourced directly from DUKES and the more specific RESTATS - the Renewable Energy STATisticS database, both managed by DECC. 3.12.17 Research Information on marine research is available through the UK Directory of the Marine Observing Systems (UKDMOS) - a database of where, when and what is being monitored by the UK in the marine environment. A number of other research activities are carried out in the UK, e.g. by Universities and other education providers, however this information is not easily sourced (the research institutes themselves may not be able to provide an overview of such research). Although this category was not recognised in the MPS as a key activity at a national level for marine spatial planning purposes, it may be important at a local-scale, e.g. places such as Plymouth where marine research forms a large part of the local economy. 3.12.18 Social This is a large category that is vital for informing policy development and includes information such as local employment figures, population demographics and social attitude surveys that capture the values, concerns and aspirations of individuals. Much of this information is managed by either the ONS or ESDS and is therefore governed by high quality standards. However, the information may not be well-tailored for the marine environment. This is a key category, therefore, where communication with both the ESDS and ONS may help to support the provision of data that is more relevant to marine planning. 3.12.19 Telecom and power cables There are several sources of spatial data on the location of telecommunication and power cables with the main one being Kisca or the Kingfisher Information Service - Cable Awareness. This is a joint initiative between Subsea Cables UK (formerly the UK Cable Protection Committee) and Seafish (the Sea Fish Industry Authority). The dataset includes in-service and recently out-of-service cables. Information on future power cable routes for offshore wind farms can also be sourced by contacting developers directly.


Whilst this spatial information is useful for marine planning purposes, for a wider consideration of economic contribution, the value of telecom and power cables is unknown. How cables should be valued in relation to their specific use of the seabed was discussed with industry partners and economists during CP2 (UKMMAS, 2010). In relation to the marine environment, the principal value is not the resource that is being transported (in this case information and communications) but the use of the seabed to provide a substrate for the cable. Although a number of market values were presented in CP2, these reflected the value of the industry rather than the use of the seabed. Possible valuation methods include replacement/substitution costs (i.e. if unable to deploy a cable, what would be the alternative) but such counterfactual scenarios are seen as unrealistic and difficult to specify. Although an analysis of economic value would help to fill an interesting gap in our understanding, it is possibly not vital to marine planning if the importance of such cables can be recognised through the prioritisation of policy objectives. 3.12.20 Waste disposal The disposal of waste material into the marine environment, as defined in CP2, includes the regulated discharge of wastewater and the disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. It is reflected in two chapters of the MPS: 3.6 Marine dredging and disposal, and 3.10 Waste water treatment and disposal. Much of the information regarding waste disposal, e.g. locations, volumes, intensity, and monitoring, is managed by either the relevant environment agencies (EA, SEPA and NIEA) or Cefas (licensed disposal sites for dredged material). The economic value of waste disposal service is, however, unknown. For CP2, the income that the environment agencies receive from licensing within the UK was used in the absence of any other suitable indicator. The true value of the sea's ability to assimilate waste is more complicated as it is partly dependent on demand (i.e. how much waste needs to be assimilated by the environment) and partly dependent on supply (i.e. the capacity of the sea to cope with particular volumes, concentrations and types of waste). Insight on this may be gained through further developments of the NEA and associated National Environment Research Council (NERC) and VNN research programmes. 3.12.21 Water abstraction As with waste disposal, water abstraction is managed by the environment agencies who maintain information on abstraction volumes. In the marine environment these abstractions are largely for cooling water purposes of coastal power stations (hence the categorisation of spatial layers for power stations in the catalogue). The direct-use value of cooling water to the power sector is not easily quantifiable although substitution/replacement cost methods can be used. A large proportion of UK electricity production is reliant on a coastal location for cooling water and the analyses in CP2 applied an assumption that once-through cooling water systems provide a 2% gain in energy output over alternative air-cooled condensers. These analyses would benefit from further research and discussion. However, although an analysis of economic value would help to fill an interesting gap in our understanding for national purposes, it is possibly not vital to marine planning if the importance of coastal power stations is recognised through the prioritisation of national policy objectives.


3.13 Summary of data issues and gaps

In summary, information on marine social and economic data is needed by the MMO and Marine Scotland to support a number of policy initiatives and regulations as follows: • Information is needed on the location of marine socio-economic activities to help

inform ecological pressure assessments for marine planning and marine licensing (particularly where cumulative impacts are being assessed) and to facilitate derived layers on the distribution of economic value from activities

• Information on social and economic data is needed for Impact Assessments (IAs) of policy initiatives and management measures associated with marine planning

• Data to inform an assessment and valuation of Ecosystem services are becoming increasingly important to support the development of policies and the incorporation of an ecosystem-based approach to marine management

To support these measures it is critical to identify data issues and gaps in order to prioritise future research and data collection. A summary of these data issues and gaps is provided in Table 6 which brings together the data issues presented in Sections 3.10 above compared with the need for that data with respect to the MMO and Marine Scotland's responsibilities towards marine decision-making. Some solutions are provided towards addressing these issues. Many of these issues may be resolved through co-ordination with other data providers (such as DECC, Defra, NERC and the MoD). It is likely that such co-ordination is already underway. Where there is no obvious single data partner, e.g. education and recreation sectors, direct funding of research may be required. Alternatively, this information may be sourced through the consultation stages associated with the marine planning process. It is important to also be aware of a number of initiatives that are currently underway to fill some of these data gaps, including a government study of the economic and social value of recreational sea angling in England5.

5 http://www.seaangling.substance.coop/


http://www.seaangling.substance.coop/

Table 6: Summary of the range of datasets in the catalogue and data issues and gaps Data Category

Data Held Issues and Gaps Solutions

Aquaculture Shellfish and finfish country level economic values and location of farms.

Individual farm data on e.g. employment, production systems and economic value is confidential, inhibiting data on value distribution.

Work with Marine Scotland and Cefas to provide more detailed spatial layers.

Aviation Links to relevant maps and radar charts.

None identified at present.

NA

Carbon Sequestration

Economic value data.

Spatial datalayers of value undeveloped.

Key ecosystem service study. Co-ordinate with the NEA team and VNN to assess possibility of future studies.

Coastal Defence

Location of current defence.

Value of both natural and man-made coastal defences.

Co-ordinate with: - EA on the

development of dataset of future coastal defence requirements and an assessment of value;

- NEA on valuation of natural defences.

Ecosystem Services

General studies.

See Table 5 for a description of gaps.

Co-ordinate with the NEA and VNN groups.

Education Lists of marine training providers.

Spatial distribution and value of education as an ecosystem service.

Develop a single datalayer on marine education providers and their activities through regional planning initiatives.

Fisheries Landings statistics, effort data (VMS).

Economic value and sustainability of stocks unknown.

Co-ordinate with MSFD research on sustainability.

Gas Storage Locations of possible gas storage.

Economic value unknown.

Co-ordinate with DECC on the spatial distribution of future sites and value of the industry.

Historic Environment

Locations of wrecks and maritime archaeology.

Value of maritime historic environment unknown.

Co-ordinate with English Heritage and SNH on possible valuation research.


Data Category

Data Held Issues and Gaps Solutions

Leisure and Recreation

Location data, MCZ stake-holder data and some economic surveys.

Disparate datasets on economic value of activities.

Key data gap requiring research. However, co-ordinate with Defra on relevant MPA-related projects.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs)

Location data. Gaps in the value of individual MPAs, e.g. in terms of ecosystem service value.

Co-ordinate with Defra and Marine Scotland on the Impact Assessments for proposed MPAs.

Maritime Transport

Location of ports, anchorages, shipping routes.

Data on shipping density not always freely available and difficult to assign economic value.

Co-ordinate with the MCA on data availability.

Military Defence

Practise areas and installations, economic data.

Data not always publically available.

Co-ordinate with the MoD.

Mineral Extraction

Marine aggregate spatial and economic data.

Site-specific extraction data.

Co-ordinate with TCE and their agents on commercially sensitive data.

Oil and Gas Spatial and economic datasets.


NA

Renewable Energy

Spatial data, performance statistics, economic data.


NA

Research Monitoring studies from UKDMOS.

Unknown extent and value of local academic research.

Potentially work with NERC to develop an overview of academic research – both location and value.

Social Mostly held by ONS and ESDS data archives.

Can be difficult to aggregate data at appropriate spatial levels.

Work with ONS and ESDS to explore availability of marine-specific data.

Telecom and Power Cables

Location of cables.

Value of cables unknown.

Unlikely to be a priority for marine planning.

Waste Disposal

Waste disposal and water discharges.

Economic value of waste disposal service unknown.

Co-ordinate with NEA on future research on this issue.

Water Abstraction

Locational data. Economic value of water abstraction service.

Unlikely to be a priority for marine planning.


It is worth pointing out that sometimes there is not the time or money to gather together primary data to feed in to the tools that support decision-making. Benefit transfer is a method of using primary valuation research results from one site to make secondary predications about values at a different site, at which primary results are unavailable. The transference of values tends to be between sites which are similar in both environmental and social structure. This technique enables the estimation of values without the need for primary studies. An additional advantage of benefit transfer is that it supports a wider scale perspective of values, for example the valuation of a large number of services across a multitude of environments, which would be very resource intensive using primary techniques. There are many benefit transfer methodologies which vary considerably in complexity, but despite extensive use of benefits transfer there is still no commonly agreed method. Care must be taken when transferring values between sites, and a good understanding of the initial dataset, and associated assumptions and conditions is essential. There is significant potential for error in the transference of values, particularly between different environmental settings as, although the techniques for adjusting social and economic parameters are well developed, adjustments for environmental factors are still in their infancy. It is anticipated that as the body of primary valuation evidence grows the capacity for, and quality of, benefit transfer will improve.


4. Recommendations This review has noted a number of weaknesses in the current provision of marine social and economic data to facilitate decision-making. This section notes the study team's recommendations to strengthen both the coverage of data and the provision of useful metadata to better support the MMO and Marine Scotland in their responsibilities. Recommendations have been listed in a logical order that reflect their priority, for example, it is important to first ensure that appropriate standards and systems are in place to manage and maintain social and economic data, before centralising collation of metadata and investing in new research to fill in data gaps.

4.1 Develop and promote a detailed action plan for marine social and economic data

In order to better direct data collection and subsequent management a case needs to be made that outlines the need for these data and relates the need to policy and legislation. Despite a number of high-level strategies described in Section 3.1, data needs could be made more explicit with reference to the tools available to support marine decision-making (see Tools Review, Saunders et al., 2012). For example, more detailed guidance on the types of data needed to help inform decisions and how these data should be used are included in guidance documents on economic and social analysis and Impact Assessment (HM Government, 2011a). These needs were outlined in the Introduction (Section 1) and detailed in Section 3.12 according to each type of social and economic data. It is therefore recommended that the MMO and Marine Scotland explore a detailed 'Action Plan' (akin to MEDIN, 2011) for the provision of marine social and economic data to better support their roles in marine planning and licensing. This could be based on the detailed data issues and gaps as identified in this report. There also appears to be no regular and systematic review of marine social and economic data to ensure that it is appropriate for the purpose for which it is intended. A 5-yearly review of the Action Plan would aim to re-assess any data gaps and ensure that data are relevant to decision-making. The methodology adopted in this study provides some of the structure for such reviews, meaning that future evaluations could be carried out efficiently and effectively. We noted a number of cases where there was a duplication of research effort, particularly in relation to new and emerging fields such as ecosystem services analysis and new policy drivers such as the MSFD. A detailed plan for delivering evidence needs and linking in to existing research (see Recommendation 2 below) would help to ensure that new research efforts are well co-ordinated, effective and efficient. Therefore, there is value in communicating the Action Plan to co-ordinating bodies such as the Productive Seas Evidence Group (PSEG) and MSCC. In addition, the Action Plan could highlight the inter-relationships between social and economic data and other marine reference datasets, for example, how this information could be used to construct datalayers of anthropogenic pressures, leading to sensitivity maps when overlaid with maps of sensitive marine features.


Information flow from managers to scientists and funding bodies is inhibited when data needs are not highlighted as subjects for future research in a formal evidence framework that commits anybody to action (Pullin and Knight, 2003). Therefore, it is important that the Action Plan outlines how data provision may be better funded and supported.

Recommendation 1: MMO and Marine Scotland to further develop and promote an Action Plan for the provision of marine social and economic data. Aim: To ensure that the right information is identified and collected in an efficient and co-ordinated way to help inform decision-making.

4.2 Improve communication between scientists and marine managers

As noted above, improvements are needed in communication among managers, scientists and funding bodies to ensure that good quality social and economic information is collected and provided in a useable format to support the tools that help inform decision-making. The likely avenue for this is through the MSCC which has representatives from the MMO and Marine Scotland. The MSCC Communications Strategy (MSCC, 2011) suggests that an existing structure is in place that could include social and economic evidence. Other actions presented in the strategy e.g. email alerts known as the 'Marine Ripple Effect' can be used to ensure that new research, issues and gaps are highlighted. As a starting point, it is recommended that the MMO and Marine Scotland link up to maintain their existing links with current research initiatives such as those being explored by the UK Environmental Observation Framework (UK-EOF) and the VNN. The UK-EOF has been established to "facilitate the on-going environmental evidence required to understand the changing natural environment and its societal interactions, thus guiding current and future environmental management, policy, science and innovation priorities for economic benefit and quality of life". A workshop report (UK-EOF, 2010) suggested the following initiatives to improve the flow of information and collaboration between natural sciences and socio-economic science communities: 1. "Building a Community of Practice through a 'user network' to facilitate

communication between users of specific datasets 2. Encouraging face-to-face activity between scientists; in particular, holding

workshops or group sessions in which environmental datasets held within the UK-EOF Observation Activity catalogue can be discussed by social and natural scientists (and vice-versa), along with an explanation of their potential use and how the data can be accessed

3. The specific role of UK-EOF in facilitating collaboration by providing an information infrastructure


4. Incorporating socio-economic metadata into the UK-EOF Observation Activity Catalogue and making the appropriate links to relevant data repositories or hubs, so that there is one place in which data sources can be discovered

5. Writing guidance which may help users to understand the scientific value of joining socioeconomic and environmental data, provide examples of the analyses and applications, as well as direction to where social, economic and environmental datasets can be found. Potential limitations and considerations should also be included"

The VNN is an interdisciplinary network for valuing biodiversity, ecosystem services and natural resource use. The VNN has two aims, firstly to create a network of people interested in valuing nature, and secondly to carry out research. One of the funded projects is the "Coastal Management: Environmental and ecological economics and management" consortium. A key aim of this group is to encourage and improve the utilisation of currently available socio-economic data, in both the academic and policy making environment. One of the research projects led by Nicola Beaumont aims to build upon the study presented here, i.e. the metadata catalogue of marine social and economic data and associated reports, and will cover four main areas:

1. A basic overview and analysis of the meta-database 2. Interpretation of the data for use in policy (including an assessment of how to

handle uncertainty in the data, aggregation of the data, and the application of qualitative data)

3. Analysis of gaps in the data and future research agenda; and a detailed assessment of monetary values associated with UK marine ecosystem services, and the application of these values in a management context

It is anticipated that this group will add value to the database and associated reports by taking the analysis a step further, raising awareness of the meta-database and the need for meta-databases amongst academics, and providing direction for future research. A key aim of the VNN is to enable academics to provide evidence and advice to inform decision makers. It is anticipated that this research will provide significant additional input in improving our understanding of what data are available, how these data can be interpreted and the importance of providing data in a useable format.

Recommendation 2: MMO and Marine Scotland to maintain communication between scientists and marine managers through links to other research and data initiatives. Aim: To ensure that good quality and relevant evidence to support marine decision-making is provided in an efficient way.

4.3 Improve data management and access

A large amount of data is held in a number of different places, with poor adherence to recognised best practice on data management and with few plans in place for their


future management. To ensure a transparent approach to decision-making, access to data needs to be available not only to marine managers, but also (where confidentiality agreements allow) to those who might be affected by the decisions made using this evidence. The development of a federated series of data centres comprising a distributed MEDIN DAC for social and economic data is therefore recommended, with MEDIN taking a lead in co-ordination, training and liaison given the core functions outlined in Section 3.2. Additionally, each MEDIN DAC is required to undertake an accreditation process, the details of which are available from the MEDIN website (www.oceannet.org/data_submission/). Annual reporting on this ensures that they continue to meet the requirements for data to be current, accessible and of a high-quality. Some data are already managed by existing national data centres of the ONS, ESDS and EVRI; however these centres are poorly tailored specifically for the marine community. It may be possible for these data centres to extract MEDIN compliant metadata from their existing catalogues; however this will require liaison with MEDIN and their familiarity with the MEDIN Discovery Standard. As an initial step, we recommend the MMO, Marine Scotland and MEDIN engage with the ONS and ESDS to see if there is potential within their remits to better support data needs for marine decision-making.

Recommendation 3: For the MMO and Marine Scotland to engage with existing data centres (ESDS and ONS) and to support the development of a federated DAC in-line with MEDIN best practice. Aim: To ensure that metadata on social and economic data are kept up to date, are in a useable format and are widely and easily accessible.

4.4 Develop and promote metadata guidelines and standards

Information on metadata is vital for ensuring the quality of evidence used to underpin decision-making. For example, lack of information on when data was collected and standards used to collect it makes it difficult to defend such evidence when used to inform an important policy decision. Given the poor quality of metadata for the datasets identified in the catalogue, we recommend the modification of the existing guidelines for data providers to ensure that metadata records are complete and fully MEDIN compliant, including examples relevant to social and economic datasets. We recommend that the MMO and Marine Scotland work with MEDIN to ensure that there is a consistent set of vocabularies and keywords to support the delivery of marine planning and licensing. As a minimum, this guidance would cover aspects where there are current gaps and weaknesses, such as spatial and temporal information, keywords, details of the protocols and standards used to collect and analyse data, and any information on the quality of the data. In terms of guidelines and standards for spatial attributes, suggestions from this study include:


http://www.oceannet.org/data_submission/

• Applying more detailed bounding box-type spatial information in order to describe

the areas to which the data relate (i.e. the spatial reference information attribute) • Adaptation of existing MEDIN Discovery Metadata standards relating to the

'Spatial resolution' attribute to reflect that social and economic data are reported for selected polygons rather than sampling points

• Taking socio-economic data and associating (or linking) it with the locational data to which it relates. Where insufficient detail exists to link to one record, the data would need to be linked to a group of records

It is also recommended that 'Reports using this Data Source', originally intended just for the internal study team use, is an important metadata attribute to maintain in the catalogue as such links can provide important information on how to apply such data to policy analysis and appraisal (see Recommendation 7 below).

Recommendation 4: MMO and Marine Scotland to work with MEDIN in the development and promotion of MEDIN metadata guidelines and standards for marine social and economic data. Aim: To improve the quality of metadata currently recorded for marine social and economic data, thus making it more readily applicable and defendable for evidence-based decision-making.

4.5 Develop a set of keywords for marine social and economic data

A suitable set of keywords is needed for marine social and economic data to enable the better categorisation of data and facilitate searching by users of the catalogue. Currently in the database there are three category descriptors; "Category", "MPS chapter" and "INSPIRE Theme", as described in Section 3.5. Further discussion on how the catalogue may be utilised by decision-makers may help to eliminate one or two of these attributes thereby simplifying the catalogue, producing a single definite and refined keyword list. As outlined in Section 3.5, two steps are recommended: 1. In the short-term, identify an alternative thesaurus/keyword list for social

economic data as with the current "Category" descriptor or an extended "MPS Chapter" descriptor

2. In the longer-term, engage with SeaDataNet to link in with their future plans and extend the SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary to include social and economic terms

Step 1 can be carried out immediately by the MMO and Marine Scotland and would enable searching of the catalogue for marine planning purposes. Step 2 might be best co-ordinated by MEDIN over the longer-term. In both approaches, development of keywords should initially be done at a high-level so as not to present a barrier to metadata creation. However, it is important that the hierarchy is extended as a priority to ensure the appropriate level of granularity is achieved in metadata records describing social and economic datasets. This work must be done in collaboration


with the creators and users of social and economic data, i.e. the MMO and Marine Scotland, to ensure the terms are relevant and the relationships logical.

Recommendation 5: MMO and Marine Scotland to develop an interim keyword list for marine social and economic data and to work with MEDIN over the longer term to develop a set of keywords within the SeaDataNet Parameter Discovery Vocabulary. Aim: To enable searches of the metadata catalogue by keywords that will help to facilitate marine decision-making.

4.6 Address gaps in marine social and economic metadata and data

Once the structure and management for social and economic data have been refined, it then makes sense to start addressing some of the data gaps. These gaps and the need for them are summarised in Table 6 based on an analysis of the current catalogue. The Action Plan could be used as a framework to prioritise some of these data needs, taking in to account when this information might be needed and its importance to decision-making. It is important to note the provision of social and economic evidence specifically to support the roles of the MMO and Marine Scotland but this will have a wider application in relation to delivering MSFD objectives at a national level. It is therefore recommended to share any priorities for social and economic research with other co-ordinating bodies with a research agenda such as the MSCC and the Research Councils. As with Recommendation 2 this will facilitate more efficient funding and provision of marine data and reduce the risk of duplication of research. As noted earlier, most social data is well managed by the ONS and ESDS. However, these data are not always easily applicable to the marine environment. In order to fill in current gaps in metadata, it is recommended that the MMO and Marine Scotland continue to support MEDIN so that they can liaise directly with key data providers to fully evaluate the breadth and quality of the data holdings and to ensure the information captured within each metadata record is as complete as possible (see Section 3.2).

Recommendation 6: MMO and Marine Scotland to address priority gaps in marine social and economic data through increased co-ordination. Aim: To provide high quality, defendable evidence to underpin decision-making.


5. References Atkins, J.P., Burdon, D., Elliott, M., Gregory, A.J. (2011). Management of the marine environment: Integrating ecosystem services and societal benefits with the DPSIR framework in a systems approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 215-226. Barbier, E.B., Hacker, S.D., Kennedy, C., Koch, V.W., Stier, A.C. and Silliman, B.R. (2011). The value of estuarine and coastal ecosystem services. Ecological Monographs, 81(2): 169–193. Beaumont N.J., Austen, M.C., Atkins, J., Burdon, D., Degraer, S., Dentinho, T.P., Derous, S., Holm, P., Horton, T., van Ierland, E., Marboe, A.H., Starkey, D.J., Townsend, M., Zarzycki, T. (2007). Identification, Definition and Quantification of Goods and Services provided by Marine Biodiversity: Implications for the Ecosystem Approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 54: 253-265. Defra (2009). Defra's marine research programme. Defra, London. eftec and enveco (2010). OSPAR Regional Economic and Social Assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive – Final Report. A report produced for Defra. November 2010. Fisher, B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., Groot, R.d., Farber, S., Ferraro, P., Green, R., Hadley, D., Harlow, J., Jefferiss, P., Kirkby, C., Morling, P., Mowatt, S., Naidoo, R., Paavola, J., Strassburg, B., Yu, D., Balmford, A. (2008). Ecosystem services and economic theory: integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological Applications, 18: 2050-2067. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., and Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics, 68: 643-653. HM Government (2011a). Impact Assessment Guidance, August 2011. London. HM Government (2011b). UK Marine Policy Statement, March 2011. The Stationary Office, London. ISBN: 978-0-10-851043-4. MEDIN (2011). Action Plan for Reference Data and Working Group Meeting Report 6 Oct 2011. Available at: www.oceannet.org/library/work_stream_documents/. [Accessed March 2012] MSCC (Marine Science Co-ordination Committee) (2010). UK marine science strategy: shaping, supporting, co-ordinating and enabling the delivery of world class marine science for the UK. 2010 – 2025. A report produced for HM Government, the Scottish Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Welsh Assembly Government. MSCC (Marine Science Co-ordination Committee) (2011). Communicating UK Marine Science: Inspiring people to value our seas and oceans. Available at: www.defra.gov.uk/mscc/files/mscc-comms-strat.pdf


http://www.oceannet.org/library/work_stream_documents/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/mscc/files/mscc-comms-strat.pdf


MMO (Marine Management Organisation) (2011a). Marine Data Catalogue, July 2011. Available at: www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/documents/data_catalogue.pdf MMO (Marine Management Organisation), (2011b). Strategic scoping report for marine planning in England, June 2011. Available at: www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/ssr.htm National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) (2011). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report, UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge. ONS (Office of National Statistics) (2011). Measuring National Wellbeing. Measuring what matters. National Statistician's Reflections on the National Debate on Measuring National Well-being, July 2011. Pullin, A.S., and Knight, T.M. (2003). Support for decision making in conservation practice: an evidence-based approach. Journal for Nature Conservation, 11: 83-90. Saunders, J., Tinch, R., Ozdemiroglu, E. and Hull, S. (2010). Valuing the Marine Estate and UK Seas: Initial Static Baseline Assessment [online] The Crown Estate, 53 pp. ISBN: 978-1-906410-17-9. Available at: www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/207037/initial_static_baseline_assessment_of_uk_seas_2010.pdf. UK-EOF (UK Environmental Observation Framework) (2010). Assessing the Socio-economic Observation needs within the UK-EOF. A Report of the Key Findings & Future Options presented at a Socio-economic Workshop (September 2010). The Social Marketing Practice & UK-EOF. Version 1.3, November 2010. UKMMAS (UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy Group) (2010). Charting Progress 2: Productive Seas Evidence Group Feeder Report, Published by Defra on behalf of UKMMAS.

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/documents/data_catalogue.pdf

http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/ssr.htm

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/207037/initial_static_baseline_assessment_of_uk_seas_2010.pdf

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/207037/initial_static_baseline_assessment_of_uk_seas_2010.pdf

Documents

MMO1012: A review of marine social and economic data