Marine Data Infrastructure

Presentation of draft interim report 1 October 2009

Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2

NILOS

Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea

Consortium

in association with

Scope of the Study1. Analysis of present data collection

infrastructure2. How much time and money is spent by

various public and private organisations on various types of marine data?

3. What is the benefit of reducing uncertainty (or what is the opportunity cost of uncertainty)?

4. What legal instruments can the EU deploy?

Timeline

T0 - Start of project: 25 February 2009T1 - Inception report: 26 March 2009T4 - Interim report: 1 June 2009 T8 - Draft final report: 25 October 2009T9 - Delivery of final report: 25 November 2009T10 - End of project: 25 December 2009

Tasks 1 and 2 • Task 1 – Assessment of spend by public bodies (‘data

centres’) on collecting, processing, maintaining and distributing marine data, income from sales of raw data, purpose (defence, research etc)

• Task 2 – Assessment: time and money spent by ‘data users’ of on the acquisition marine data. Data users: (a) private organisations involved in port expansion, wind-farm siting, pipeline or cable laying and fisheries management; (b) public authorities that regulate such activities; and (c) bodies concerned with nature conservation and fisheries management.

Tasks 1 & 2: Methodology

• Literature review – all coastal Member States• Survey – 5 Coastal States (France, the

Netherlands, Spain, Sweden & UK)– Survey questions agreed at inception meeting– Translated– Sent to named individuals

• Meetings & follow up – 5 Coastal States

Tasks 1 and 2: preliminary findingsSurvey response

Data Centre Data Users

Number % of total Number % of total

Sent to 141 100% 122 100%

Logged responses 123 87% 71 58%

Part completed 57 40% 21 17%

Fully completed 26 18% 6 5%

Number of comments 17 7

Purpose and typeType

PurposeBathymet

ryGeology Physics

Chemistry

BiologyFisherie

sHuman activity

TOTAL

Coastal defence 4 3 4 1 1 0 0 13

For teaching students

4 7 7 6 7 1 1 33

National defence 4 2 1 1 2 0 0 10

Sea navigation 6 0 1 0 0 1 3 11

To exploit resources

6 8 1 1 4 4 1 25

To inform the public

5 6 10 8 8 4 3 44

To provide advice for marine management

4 4 10 11 13 6 3 51

To support a regulatory requirement

5 5 3 6 8 3 4 34

To support new developments

4 6 5 3 8 0 2 28

To understand the behaviour of the planet

10 9 15 9 10 1 3 57

TOTAL 52 50 57 46 61 20 20 306

Preliminary data collection spendTotal

TurnoverAverage Turnover

Total Spend Average Spend

% Spend to

Turnover

Spain800,000 400,000 422,000 140,666 52.75%

France230,822,000 76,940,666 11,827,000 2,956,750 5.12%

Holland21,000,000 10,500,000 7,250,000 3,625,000 34.52%

Sweden9,605,671 1,921,134 1,360,800 340,200 14.16%

UK194,871,270 21,652,363 68,051,445 13,610,289 34.92%

TOTAL457,098,941 22,282,833 88,911,245 4,134,581 28.29%

Spend by category (values)

Bathymetry Geology Physics Chemistry Biology Fisheries Human activity

Total Turnover

13,071,000 7,635,000 11,339,400 12,572,700 13,363,900 11,917,000 5,171,000 457,098,941

Spend by activity (proportions)

CountryAvg. Collecting

SpendAvg. Processing

SpendAvg. Maintaining

SpendAvg. Distributing

SpendAvg. Spend on ‘Other’

ES 21% 10% 3% 2% 0FR 20% 10% 2% 3% 1%NL 19% 12% 8% 1% 0SE 33% 20% 4% 3% 2%UK 22% 6% 5% 3% 4%TOT 23% 12% 4% 2% 1%

Identified fleet costs by coastal State

Country Days Spend (Euro)Avg. Spend Per Day

(Euro)ES 30 50,000 1,666FR 60000 40,000,000 666NL 350 18,000,000 51,428NL 1200 3,000,000 2,500SE 175 864,000 4,937SE 300 972,000 3,240UK 3500 11,695,200 3,341AVERAGE (from survey) Euro 9,682/day

Marine data satellite spend

    Estimated Spend (M €)

Organisation measurements provided 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

ESA SST, sea level, ocean colour, ocean currents, sea surface salinity, surface waves, oil pollution, sea ice, icebergs, coastal change, ocean surface winds

200 200 350 350 350 450 350

Eumetsat SST, sea ice concentration, ocean surface winds

36 30 30 30 30 30

national sea level 35 35 35 35 35

TOTAL 271 265 415 415 415 480 350

DATA USER Spends ValuesTurnover from survey FTE Total FTE Average Av. Spend % of

turnoverAverage Spend

(Euro)

ES No data No data No data No data No data

FR 95,556,000

44231 6318

84%

80,580,068NL 20,000,000

25 25

20%

4,000,000SE

53,460,000 1355 271

34%

18,297,431UK

335,963,466,815 85079 21269

16%

55,853,926,358TOTAL

336,132,482,815 55,956,803,857AVERAGE

84,033,120,704 38% 13,989,200,964

DATA USER Spends (time – FTE)Searching Collecting Processing Total No. Companies Average Value per

user (Euro)

ES

FR 70 160 248

478

9

2,655,556NL 1 1 10

12

1

600,000SE 4 16 4

25

6

212,916UK 1 3 2

6

10

30,000Average for sample countries

19 45 66 521 26 1,002,981

Groundtruthing TimelineCountry Follow-up interviews

undertakenArranged for Sept-Oct

France 2 data centres (August) 3 data centres2 data users

Netherlands 4 data centres5 data users

Validation checks

Spain 3 data centres (August) 3 data centres2 data users

Sweden 4 data centres (September)2 data users

Validation checks

UK 6 data centres (September)7 data users

Validation checks

Groundtruthing Methodology

Data Centres: Purpose is to validate the results of the survey and gather further information from data centres and users. This is carried out by conducting follow-up interviews in person and secondarily over the phone. Where follow-up interviews have taken place these have been integrated into the preliminary findings.

Data Users: The methodology for groundtruthing data users is to identify anecdotal evidence from private companies that can give a picture of the situation that could be repeated for others in the same sector. The focus is on a few of private companies / organisations which have responded and have agreed to participate. Further effort is being made to contact other organisations that are involved in these sectors and phone interviews conducted with them. Implications of this in terms of the potential to extrapolate the data is taken into account.

Data centres

Organisation Contact Interview (Y/N) CommentsSwedish Environmental Protection Agency

Tove Lundeberg & Gunilla Ejdung, Environmental Assessment Dept.

Y-in person Interview completed. Have sent them write up for approval (awaiting response)

Swedish Maritime Administration

Ake Magnusson, head of Hydrographic Department

Y-in person Interview completed. Approved write up available.

SMHI Marcus Flarup, Information & Statistics, Core services team

Y-in person Interview completed. Approved write up available.

Swedish Board of Fisheries Dr Fredrik Arrhenius, Department of Research & Development

N-filled in questionnaire. Have requested follow-up information

Have sent follow up queries, he is very busy so have been chasing

Swedish Geological Survey (SGU) Johan Nyberg N-filled in questionnaire. Did send follow up query responses

Have followed up on research vessel spends, he has provided these details

Data users Sweden

Organisation Contact Interview (Y/N) CommentsVattenfall AB (wind farms) Goran Loman, project manager

wind farmsY-in person Interview completed. Approved

write up available.PA Resources (oil/gas) Jon Lucas, Geotechnical & HSE

mangagerY-in person Interview completed. Approved

write up available.Baltic Offshore (pipe/cable) Stig Lindohf N-all staff out on vessel in Aug/

Sept. Have requested phone interview.

Have requested phone interview. No response as yet.

Sweco Sweden (port expansion) Kaj Moller N-repeatedly contacted, no response

No response

Stockholm Ports (port expansion)

Per-Ling Vannerus, head of project; Karin Olofsson, info and comms

N-have contacted, no response No response

Swedish Fishermen’s Federation (fisheries)

Henrik Svenberg, director; Fredrik Lindberg, omsbudsman; Marika Nilsson, economics

N-repeatedly contacted, no response

No response

Groundtruthing findings so farMS Organisation Main Sector Type

Turnover (M Euro)

Raw Data Spend Data Mgmt

Research Fleet Other

SESwedish oceanographic Shipping Centre 13.6 7.39 1.13 4.3 1.96

SE Vathenfall AB Wind farm User 75 none

SE Met office Weather Centre 53 1.9

SE PA resources Oil and Gas User 237 30

SEGeological Survey of Sweden Geology Centre 0.8

UK Hydrographic office Environment Centre 110 none

UKAggregates sector rep. Gravel User 140 2.8125 2.249 0.5635

UKAssociated British Ports Ports User 13 13

UK CEFAS Fisheries / Fish farmUser and Centre 35 3.36

UK British oceanographic Environment Centre 1.7 none 1.7

UK ABP consultancy Assessment User 3.9 0.525 0.525

UKMarine science Scotland Marine Research Centre 8.8 8.8 3.3 5.5

Fleet Findings

Country Days Spend (Euro) Avg. Spend Per Day (Euro)Spain 30 50,000 1,666France 60000 40,000,000 666Netherlands 350 18,000,000 51,428Netherlands 1200 3,000,000 2,500Sweden 175 864,000 4,937Sweden 300 972,000 3,240UK 3500 11,695,200 3,341Average from survey € 9,682 / day

Original questionnaire findings:

OrganisationResearch Fleet Spend Euro

No. Major Vessels

No. Minor Vessels

Annual Fleet days at sea

Average cost / sea fleet day (Euro)

Swedish oceanographic 4.3 2 280 15,000Geological Survey Sweden 0.8 1 100 8000Aggregates sector rep. 2.249 196 11500Associated British Ports 13 8 2000 6500CEFAS 3.36 1 300 11200ABP consultancy 0.525 1 Marine science Scotland 12 2 600 19,000Average from groundtruthing € 12,000 / day

Groundtruthing:

Task 3: What is the benefit of reducing uncertainty?

• Awareness of uncertainty in policy development • Scientific uncertainty & engineering uncertainty –

engineering of uncertainty• Benefits of uncertainty reduction • Sources of uncertainty – problem identification,

mismatch of data & problem, influence of implicit frameworks, limitations of CBA

• Measuring uncertainty

•Case studies•UK – Thames Estuary•NL – Delta•Venice

Benefits of Reducing Uncertainty in Sea Level Rise

Annual Savings - United Kingdom

39

Min costs €m

Savings €m

50%

75%

100%

Max costs €m

Percentage reduction in uncertaintyge

25%

19

174

99

118

137

156

57

75

Benefits of Reducing Uncertainty in Sea Level Rise Annual Savings - Netherlands

17

Min costs €m

Savings €m

50%

75%

100%

Max costs €m

Percentage reduction in uncertaintyge

25%

8

88

54

62

71

80

26

34

Task 4: What legal instruments can the EU deploy?

• Purpose of EMODNET• Relationship of EMODNET to other EU initiatives

involving marine environmental data: GMES, SEIS, Marine Strategy Framework Directive (WISE-Marine), INSPIRE, Environmental Information Directive, European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET), European Research Area (ERA), CFP Data Collection Regulation, IDABC project

• Legal basis for EMODNET: does the Community have the right to act?

• Scope of Community powers– Need for appropriate Treaty legal basis– Legal basis must be based on objective factors – particularly the aim &

content of the measure– High threshold for dual legal basis– Effect of error in choice of legal basis…

• Principles governing exercise of Community powers: – subsidiarity– proportionality– approximation of laws, – powers specifically granted to the Community– supplementary powers

Instruments available to the Community

Instrument Fitness for purposeRegulation General application

Binding in its entirety

Directly applicable

Directive Binding as to the result to be achieved

Implementation by Member States required

“sui generis” Decision General application

Binding in its entirety

Directly applicable

Suitable for defining frameworks

Recommendation Not binding

Suitable if no intention to impose mandatory rules

Determining the legal basis for EMODNETEC Policy Fitness for purpose

+ -CFP CFP to benefit from EMODNET

EMODNET to be interoperable with fisheries data collected under CFP

EMODNET not primarily aimed at attaining CFP objectives

EMODNET not in itself a CFP data in infrastructure

CTP CTP to benefit from EMODNET

EMODNET to support CTP

EMODNET not primarily aimed at attaining CTP objectives

EMODNET not in itself a CTP data infrastructure

Industry Support to industry is a key objective of EMODNET

Proposed legal basis for GMES

EMODNET’s objectives are much broader than industry

EC power to act limited to measures in support of Member States’ actions

Environment EMODNET to be part of larger SEIS

EMODNET to interact closely with MSFD (WISE-Marine)

Environment policy to benefit from EMODNET

Legal basis for INSPIRE, MSFD, EIONET and proposed for SEIS

EMODNET not in itself an environmental measure

Support to environment policy is not main objective of EMODNET

RTD EMODNET part of Strategy for Marine and Maritime Research

EMODNET to build on existing RTD projects

EMODNET to benefit from RTD structures

EMODNET not in itself a RTD project/structure

EMODNET to be a permanently operational data infrastructure

TEN EMODNET to be designed as an interoperable pan-European network (operational objective)

EMODNET has several policy objectives (beyond the operational aspect)

EMODNET to be a permanently operational data infrastructure

Choice of legal instrument• Regulations and "sui generis" Decisions: instruments of general

application that are binding and directly applicable in all Member States. As the EMODNET legal act may need to define the roles and responsibilities of the Member States in the network, such type of instrument may be suitable to achieve the desired objectives of EMODNET.

• A Directive may be a useful instrument in so far as the Community’s action on EMODNET would require national rules to be amended or added to in order to achieve the intended result.

• A Recommendation on EMODNET would have no binding force. It could be envisaged if the Community would consider it not appropriate to adopt mandatory rules in relation to this particular component of the EU’s maritime policy.

Next steps• Tasks 1 and 2

– Groundtruthing continues, verification of survey results, globalisation

• Task 3 – Scale up to establish Community-wide estimates

• Task 4– Largely complete– Further discussions/clarifications

Thank you