Transcript Data Users - Europa.eu

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
1. Analysis of present data collection
infrastructure
2. 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 2009
T1 - Inception report: 26 March 2009
T4 - Interim report: 1 June 2009
T8 - Draft final report: 25 October 2009
T9 - Delivery of final report: 25 November 2009
T10 - 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 findings
Survey 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 type
Type
Bathymet
ry
Geology
Physics
Chemist
ry
Biology
Fisherie
s
Human
activity
TOTA
L
Coastal defence
4
3
4
1
1
0
0
13
For
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
6
8
1
1
4
4
1
25
5
6
10
8
8
4
3
44
4
4
10
11
13
6
3
51
5
5
3
6
8
3
4
34
4
6
5
3
8
0
2
28
10
9
15
9
10
1
3
57
52
50
57
46
61
20
20
306
Purpose
teaching
To
exploit
resources
To
inform
the
public
To provide advice
for
marine
management
To
support
a
regulatory
requirement
To support new
developments
To understand the
behaviour of the
planet
TOTAL
60
Human activity
50
Fisheries
40
30
Biology
Chemistry
Physics
20
Geology
10
Bathymetry
0
Preliminary data collection spend
Total
Turnover
Spain
France
Holland
Sweden
UK
Average
Turnover
Total Spend
Average
Spend
% Spend
to
Turnover
800,000
400,000
422,000
140,666
52.75%
230,822,000
76,940,666
11,827,000
2,956,750
5.12%
21,000,000
10,500,000
7,250,000
3,625,000
34.52%
9,605,671
1,921,134
1,360,800
340,200
14.16%
194,871,270
21,652,363
68,051,445
13,610,289
34.92%
457,098,941
22,282,833
88,911,245
4,134,581
28.29%
TOTAL
Spend by category (values)
Bathymetry
Geology
13,071,000
7,635,000
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Fisheries
11,339,400
12,572,700
13,363,900
11,917,000
Human
activity
5,171,000
Total
Turnover
457,098,94
1
Spend by activity (proportions)
Country
ES
FR
NL
SE
UK
TOT
Avg. Collecting
Spend
21%
20%
19%
33%
22%
23%
Avg. Processing
Spend
10%
10%
12%
20%
6%
12%
Avg. Maintaining
Spend
3%
2%
8%
4%
5%
4%
Avg. Distributing Avg. Spend
Spend
on ‘Other’
2%
0
3%
1%
1%
0
3%
2%
3%
4%
2%
1%
Identified fleet costs by coastal
State
Country
ES
FR
NL
NL
SE
SE
UK
AVERAGE
(from
survey)
Days
30
60000
350
1200
175
300
3500
Spend (Euro)
50,000
40,000,000
18,000,000
3,000,000
864,000
972,000
11,695,200
Avg. Spend Per Day
(Euro)
1,666
666
51,428
2,500
4,937
3,240
3,341
Euro 9,682/day
Marine data satellite spend
Estimated Spend (M €)
Organisation
ESA
measurements provided
SST, sea level, ocean colour, ocean currents,
sea surface salinity, surface waves, oil
pollution, sea ice, icebergs, coastal change,
ocean surface winds
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
200
200
350
350
350
450
350
30
Eumetsat
SST, sea ice concentration, ocean surface
winds
36
30
30
30
30
national
sea level
35
35
35
35
35
271
265
415
415
415
TOTAL
480
350
DATA USER Spends Values
ES
FR
Turnover from survey
FTE Total
FTE Average
Av. Spend % of
turnover
Average Spend
(Euro)
No data
No data
No data
No data
No data
95,556,000
84%
44231
NL
6318
20,000,000
80,580,068
20%
25
25
SE
4,000,000
34%
53,460,000
1355
271
UK
18,297,431
16%
335,963,466,815
85079
21269
55,853,926,358
TOTAL
336,132,482,815
55,956,803,857
AVERAGE
84,033,120,704
38%
13,989,200,964
DATA USER Spends (time – FTE)
Searching
Collecting
Processing
FR
70
160
248
NL
1
1
10
SE
4
16
4
UK
1
3
2
Total
No. Companies Average Value per
user (Euro)
ES
9
478
2,655,556
1
12
600,000
6
25
212,916
10
6
30,000
Average for sample
countries
19
45
66
521
26
1,002,981
Groundtruthing Timeline
Country
France
Follow-up interviews
undertaken
2 data centres (August)
Arranged for Sept-Oct
3 data centres
2 data users
Netherlands 4 data centres
5 data users
Validation checks
Spain
3 data centres (August)
3 data centres
2 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
Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency
Swedish Maritime
Administration
SMHI
Swedish Board of Fisheries
Swedish Geological Survey (SGU)
Contact
Tove Lundeberg & Gunilla
Ejdung, Environmental
Assessment Dept.
Ake Magnusson, head of
Hydrographic Department
Marcus Flarup, Information &
Statistics, Core services team
Dr Fredrik Arrhenius,
Department of Research &
Development
Johan Nyberg
Interview (Y/N)
Y-in person
Y-in person
Y-in person
N-filled in questionnaire. Have
requested follow-up information
N-filled in questionnaire. Did
send follow up query responses
Comments
Interview completed. Have sent
them write up for approval
(awaiting response)
Interview completed. Approved
write up available.
Interview completed. Approved
write up available.
Have sent follow up queries, he
is very busy so have been
chasing
Have followed up on research
vessel spends, he has provided
these details
Data users Sweden
Organisation
Vattenfall AB (wind farms)
Baltic Offshore (pipe/cable)
Contact
Goran Loman, project manager
wind farms
Jon Lucas, Geotechnical & HSE
mangager
Stig Lindohf
Sweco Sweden (port expansion)
Kaj Moller
PA Resources (oil/gas)
Stockholm Ports (port expansion) Per-Ling Vannerus, head of
project; Karin Olofsson, info and
comms
Swedish Fishermen’s Federation Henrik Svenberg, director;
(fisheries)
Fredrik Lindberg, omsbudsman;
Marika Nilsson, economics
Interview (Y/N)
Y-in person
Y-in person
N-all staff out on vessel in Aug/
Sept. Have requested phone
interview.
N-repeatedly contacted, no
response
N-have contacted, no response
N-repeatedly contacted, no
response
Comments
Interview completed. Approved
write up available.
Interview completed. Approved
write up available.
Have requested phone
interview. No response as yet.
No response
No response
No response
Groundtruthing findings so far
MS
Turnover
(M Euro)
Raw Data
Research
Spend Data Mgmt
Fleet
Main Sector
Type
SE
Organisation
Swedish
oceanographic
Shipping
Centre
SE
Vathenfall AB
Wind farm
SE
Met office
Weather
SE
PA resources
Oil and Gas
Geological Survey of
Sweden
Geology
User
Environment
Centre
110
none
Gravel
User
140
2.8125
2.249
UK
Hydrographic office
Aggregates sector
rep.
Associated British
Ports
13
13
UK
CEFAS
UK
British oceanographic Environment
Centre
1.7
none
UK
ABP consultancy
Marine science
Scotland
Assessment
User
3.9
0.525
Marine Research
Centre
8.8
8.8
SE
UK
UK
UK
13.6
7.39
User
75
none
Centre
53
1.9
237
30
1.13
Centre
User
User and
Fisheries / Fish farm Centre
4.3
Other
1.96
0.8
Ports
35
3.36
1.7
0.525
3.3
5.5
0.5635
Fleet Findings
Original questionnaire findings:
Country
Spain
France
Netherlands
Netherlands
Sweden
Sweden
UK
Average from survey
Days
30
60000
350
1200
175
300
3500
Spend (Euro)
50,000
40,000,000
18,000,000
3,000,000
864,000
972,000
11,695,200
Avg. Spend Per Day (Euro)
1,666
666
51,428
2,500
4,937
3,240
3,341
€ 9,682 / day
Groundtruthing:
Research Fleet No. Major No. Minor Annual Fleet
Average cost / sea
Organisation
Spend Euro
Vessels
Vessels days at sea
fleet day (Euro)
Swedish oceanographic
4.3
2
280
15,000
Geological Survey Sweden
0.8
1
100
8000
Aggregates sector rep.
2.249
196
11500
Associated British Ports
13
8
2000
6500
CEFAS
3.36
1
300
11200
ABP consultancy
0.525
1
Marine science Scotland
12
2
600
19,000
Average from groundtruthing
€ 12,000 / day
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
75
Savings €m
39
19
57
99
Min costs €m
118
137
156
Max costs €m
174
25
50
75
100%
%
%reduction
% in uncertainty
Percentage
ge
Benefits of Reducing Uncertainty in Sea Level Rise
Annual Savings - Netherlands
34
26
54
Min costs €m
62
Savings €m
17
8
71
80
Max costs €m
88
25
50
75
100%
%
%
%
Percentage reduction in uncertainty
ge
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
Regulation
Fitness for purpose
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 EMODNET
EC Policy
Fitness for purpose
+
-
CFP
CFP to benefit from EMODNET
CTP
EMODNET to be interoperable with fisheries data EMODNET not in itself a CFP data in infrastructure
collected under CFP
CTP to benefit from EMODNET
EMODNET not primarily aimed at attaining CTP objectives
Industry
Environment
EMODNET not primarily aimed at attaining CFP objectives
EMODNET to support CTP
EMODNET not in itself a CTP data infrastructure
Support to industry is a key objective of EMODNET
EMODNET’s objectives are much broader than industry
Proposed legal basis for GMES
EC power to act limited to measures in support of Member
States’ actions
EMODNET to be part of larger SEIS
EMODNET not in itself an environmental measure
EMODNET to interact closely with MSFD (WISE- Support to environment policy is not main objective of
Marine)
EMODNET
Environment policy to benefit from EMODNET
RTD
Legal basis for INSPIRE, MSFD, EIONET and proposed
for SEIS
EMODNET part of Strategy for Marine and Maritime EMODNET not in itself a RTD project/structure
Research
EMODNET to be a permanently operational
EMODNET to build on existing RTD projects
infrastructure
data
EMODNET to benefit from RTD structures
TEN
EMODNET to be designed as an interoperable pan- EMODNET has several policy objectives (beyond the
European network (operational objective)
operational aspect)
EMODNET to
infrastructure
be
a
permanently
operational
data
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