Upload
gail-lane
View
22
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Marine Data Infrastructure Presentation of draft interim report 1 October 2009 Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2. Consortium. NILOS Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea. in association with. Scope of the Study. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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