Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning ... - Seanergy 2020

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3 DATA AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT3.1 Why is data and information management important to MSP?Data and information management is important for MSP, not only in order to create spatial plans but alsofor governments to assess development plans and for renewable developers to provide the evidence to beable to better select sites. The ability of MSP to make the best use of the maritime space, avoid conflictsand protect natural resources depends on the availability and, moreover, quality of data and informationon which it is based.An up-to-date overview of environmental, socio-economic and geo-technical aspects provides a basis todetermine development opportunities, assess impacts of a potential development and also to compare itwith current or future planned spatial uses and likely conflicts. It is also often important to understand howdifferent spatial uses interact; one example in this sense is how fisheries nursery grounds are unlikely tobe compatible with sand extraction, whereas mariculture may be compatible with offshore wind farms.One of the key findings of the EU Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project (Baltcoast) was that thesuccess of conflict resolution depends on the quality of information available (Baltcoast, 2005), andconcludes that for data to be useful it must be: up-to-date, objective, reliable, relevant and comparable.3.2 Progress per sea basinIt is immediately apparent that the North Sea countries have proceeded well in terms of data andinformation management for MSP purposes. Germany and Belgium both have fairly comprehensivedatasets for both the territorial sea and EEZ that are integrated into layered Geographic Informationsystems (GIS). In Belgium this is one GIS system covering marine environmental data 7 , while in Germanythere are two: a GeoSeaPortal offering access to environmental data and a system known as CONTISproviding data on different uses of the sea 8 . Both countries also make this data freely available and muchof it is accessible through the internet. Belgium has the added advantage of having one centralisedinstitution that coordinate data collection and synthesis. Data sets in the Netherlands are also fairlycomprehensive and available in GIS format but are not yet integrated into a centralised GIS system.Instead different institutions are delegated „owners‟ of different data sets thereby preventing overlap.There are however plans to improve data sharing and this has been started with meta-informationcomplied by the National Oceanographic Data Committee (NODC). In the UK (bordering both the North Sea7 This data is centralised at MUUM (Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models), which is a departmentof the Royal Belgian Institute of the Natural Sciences.8 BSH developed the GeoSeaPortal which offers a central access to basic and specific geological data about the seaand its coasts, available at http://www.bsh.de/de/Meeresdaten/Geodaten/index.jsp; CONTIS is a database providedby the BSH which focuses on the German Continental Shelf and the Exclusive Economic Zone, available athttp://www.bsh.de/en/Marine_uses/Industry/CONTIS_maps/index.jspDeliverable 2.312 | P a g e
and the Atlantic Sea) there is an integrated GIS system that has been complied by The Crown Estate andavailable to wind farm developers but this is not publically available. Progress in Denmark is moremeasured as although there are significant efforts through the National Survey and Cadastre (including itsresponsibility by law to implement the INSPIRE Directive) there are still a number of different maritime datasets that have not yet been integrated into a single GIS system.By comparison countries bordering the Baltic Sea appear to have made less progress in relation to dataand information management, with the exception of Lithuania where there are current effort to integratedifferent data sets into a single GIS system, although this is being coordinated at an EU level through theBaltSeaPlan rather than at the national level. Other Baltic Sea countries are characterized by theavailability of some information but with gaps and also by a lack of coordination or integration into a singleGIS system. For example, although there are a number of different data sets in Finland the quality of thedata for MSP uses has been questioned (Iuga, 2010); data and information in Poland was described as„rather patchy‟ (Blažauskas & Suzdalevand, 2011); and in Estonia there is a lack of data coverage withinthe EEZ. There are no integrated GIS systems for these countries or for Latvia or Sweden. In constrats,there are current efforts in Lithuania to integrate different datasets into a single GIS system through aninitiative coordinated at the EU level, through the BaltSeaPlan Project 9 .Progress in countries bordering the Atlantic Coast and Irish Sea is mixed. Both UK and Portugal have madesignificant progress with integrated systems, while data and information management in other countries(Spain, Ireland, France) appears to be more sectoral with more limited integration. Although data is notfully comprehensive in Portugal there are efforts underway to extend the data coverage and integrate datainto a single GIS system and much of the data is publically available within a WebGIS interface. In the UKthere is extensive environmental data and some socio-economic data integrated into a single GIS systemknown as the Marine Resource System (MaRS), although as mentioned above this data is run by the CrownEstate, and the main problem seems to be the lack of access to this data. Both France and Spain haveextensive datasets but these are not always available in GIS although there have been significantimprovements in France recently in this respect. Ireland‟s data sets also appear to be sectoral and lackingin socio-economic data.The Mediterranean region has made some progress in terms of data and information management. Spainand France have been mentioned above and both collect a range of data although not all of this isavailable in GIS format. In Greece and Italy relevant data is also collected but is collected by a range ofdifferent institutions and in different formats making it difficult to integrate and use for maritime planningpurposes. However, there has been an effort in Greece recently by the Centre for Energy Resources andSaving (CRES) to collect all relevant data for MSP and this should improve further with the establishment ofan independent authority for O-RE.9 For more information, please check the BaltSeaProject initiatives at http://www.baltseaplan.eu/Deliverable 2.313 | P a g e
Page 2 and 3: EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis study forms p
Page 4 and 5: TASK 2.6: TABLE OF CONTENTSTASK 2.6
Page 6 and 7: 1 INTRODUCTIONThis report responds
Page 8 and 9: Before going any further in terms o
Page 10 and 11: procedures, in terms of for example
Page 14 and 15: 3.3 Best practice in data and infor
Page 16 and 17: the required data. Once the „cada
Page 18 and 19: Encourage the use of legislation to
Page 20 and 21: As the effectiveness and efficiency
Page 22 and 23: seabed without an EEZ claim being m
Page 24 and 25: een granted. A similar indicator wa
Page 26 and 27: The national reports indicate that
Page 28 and 29: The EIAs should be harmonised to en
Page 30 and 31: Levels of public consultation are m
Page 32 and 33: What particularly distinguishes som
Page 34 and 35: All relevant stakeholders are repre
Page 36 and 37: 6.3 Best practice in sector conflic
Page 38 and 39: 6.3.3 Conflict minimisation agreeme
Page 40 and 41: 7 TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATIONThe aim
Page 42 and 43: Support regional sea-basin cooperat
Page 44 and 45: 6. Stakeholder participation;7. Pre
Page 46 and 47: 2. Specifying criteria for selectin
Page 48 and 49: Optimal spatial use of the maritime
Page 50 and 51: 9 FINAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS9.1 O
Page 52 and 53: There should be a central instituti
Page 54 and 55: 9.3.2 Transboundary cooperationUse
Page 56 and 57: Iuga, D (2010) Analysis of MSP in t
Page 58 and 59: Task 2.7: Table of Contents1 ATLANT
Page 60 and 61: 2. ATLANTIC OCEAN AND IRISH SEAThe
Page 62 and 63:
• MSP on a sea basin level should
Page 64 and 65:
• Possible impacts of grid expans
Page 66 and 67:
undertaken like the „North Seas C
Page 68 and 69:
3. MEDITERRANEAN SEAThe Mediterrane
Page 70 and 71:
3.1.2 Good practicesGreece has rece
Page 72 and 73:
simplifies the permitting and licen
Page 74 and 75:
) consult all relevant groups and s
Page 76 and 77:
• Explore the role of the existin
Page 78 and 79:
• limited availability of maritim
Page 80 and 81:
In Denmark, the Integrated Marine S
Page 82 and 83:
a) is legally anchored on renewable
Page 84 and 85:
4.5.2 Policy recommendations• The
Page 86 and 87:
development of ORE in the North Sea
Page 88 and 89:
Estonia has established a four stag
Page 90 and 91:
5.5.2 Good practicesPoland and Latv
Page 92:
Poland BaltSeaPlan 0 500 wind YesSw
show all

Comparative analysis of Maritime Spatial Planning ... - Seanergy 2020

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?