“Towards a Baltic Regional Spatial Data Infrastructure for MSP (MSPDAT)”

BONUS call 2015: Blue Baltic Deadline 10 March 17.00 CET Project acronym: MSPDAT Project full title: Towards a Baltic Regional Spatial Data Infrastructure for MSP Project coordinator: Jacek Zaucha, Maritime Institute Poland (Partner no. 1, HZG) Project applicants: MIG, Poland Helmholtz Zentrum Geesthacht, Germany University of Tartu, Estonia Latvian Institute of Aquatic Ecology? Tallinn University of Technology Supporters: ICES HELCOM Polish Ministry of Maritime Affairs Key theme addressed: 4.3: Maritime spatial planning from local to Baltic Sea region scale Subthemes: 4.1: Governance structures, policy performance and policy instruments 5: Developing improved and innovative observation and data management systems, tools and methodologies for marine information needs in the Baltic Sea region 1. Concept, objectives and expected outcomes of the project Supported by the EU MSP Directive, marine/maritime spatial planning (MSP) has risen to prominence in recent years. Generally, MSP is understood as an evidence-based approach to marine management (Jay, Kidd), relying on solid science to support an ecosystem approach to management (including compatibility with the MSFD) and the sustainable development of blue sectors (EC 2008, Hassler et al. 2013). With more and more EU states now engaged in preparing maritime spatial plans, and some plans already completed, high quality data and information in MSP have become a much debated issue. One data-related discourse focuses on quality assurance (Cormier et al. 2015), where it is argued that aspects such as risk assessment and conflict resolution, and ultimately planning decisions, must be based on the best available knowledge – and by implication data - at the time. The crucial importance of high quality data and information for MSP has also come to be recognised at a policy level, not least in the MSP Directive itself which requires Member States to "organise the use of best available data" (Directive 2014/89/EU)1. There is also growing recognition that beyond their key role in achieving the substantive objectives of MSP, data also play an important indirect role, for example in the context of stakeholder involvement or facilitating transboundary cooperation. The availability of data relevant for MSP planning decisions, access to such data and data reliability are therefore highly topical concern for planners throughout Europe and especially in regional seas contexts such as the Baltic. In regional seas such as the Baltic, MSP is a multi-level approach, coupling an essentially national process with transnational issues. Previous and ongoing MSP projects in the Baltic (e.g. PlanCoast, BaltSeaPlan, PartiSEApate) have identified a number of fields that require a transboundary approach to planning, such as linear infrastructure, shipping, offshore wind farming or nature conservation. The importance of a transnationally coherent approach to MSP within the Baltic has been recognised even before the publication of the EU MSP Directive (e.g. establishing a coherent network of shipping lanes or blue corridors), as have the importance of common data standards and better alignment of relevant data and information. In response to these needs, previous projects (BaltSeaPlan and PartiSEApate) have called for a mechanism that allows national planners to share and compare relevant information/data during various stages of the planning process. The same shared information could also be used during cross-border consultation on MSP, in stakeholder processes or in communication with the wider public for reasons of transparency (Schultz-Zehden & Gee 2012). So far, however, no such region-wide data sharing or exchange mechanism has been established, resulting in a piecemeal approach to data gathering, widely diverging priorities for data collection, divergent data standards and insufficient compatibility. Planners in country A, for example, are rarely able to call upon readily available data from neighbouring country B which would allow them to assess the influence of country B’s activities on their planning area, which might lead to less optimised planning decisions. Establishing a region-wide data sharing and exchange network in support of MSP is therefore a timely task, all the more as countries are currently establishing their own national mechanisms and structures for data gathering for MSP, including in some cases decentralised spatial data infrastructures (see below). Here we posit that a region-wide data sharing and exchange mechanism is a multi-dimensional task that comprises substantive, governance (data management) and technical aspects (e.g. establishing a suitable common data infrastructure). Before a region-wide data sharing and exchange network can be established technically, it is first necessary to clarify the substantive and governance-related aspects of such a network and/or infrastructure. On the substantive side, two aspects are essential, namely data needs for MSP and data quality. With respect to data needs, it is necessary to firstly more closely investigate the relationship between the information required for MSP decision-making and data. A distinction needs to be drawn here between raw data (and its availability, quality and accessibility), and interpreted data, i.e. raw data that has been transformed into another data product such as a distribution map. In order to take planning decisions, planners are likely to require the information that can be distilled from data rather than actual raw data itself. This is particularly relevant for scientific data (environmental, ecological data), but also for socio-economic data (e.g. economic impact of blue sectors on communities) which might differ widely in scope and methodology between countries. It is crucial, therefore, to understand the precise information needs during the MSP planning cycle first, and only then to investigate the relationship of that information to actual data (leading to a discussion on the availability, format, comparability etc. of the necessary data). Since planning logics differ sometimes considerably between BS countries (Schultz-Zehden & Gee 2012), this will need to be a comparative investigation. Factors influencing information (and 1 Directive 2014/89/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning. OJ L 257, 28.8.2014, p. 135–145 with this data) needs are likely to include the scale of the marine spatial plan under consideration, the stage of the MSP process, the type of plan to be developed, the process chosen for drawing up the plan (e.g. its inclusiveness or participatory nature), and the nature of the marine area under consideration (e.g. remote, coastal, contested). Inventory phases for instance will require spatial information on the marine environment and current distribution patterns of human activities, whilst planning phases will need information on potential and expected conflicts between activities, possible synergies and co-location options, and future trends. MSP “philosophies” and the respective understanding of data, information and knowledge are also likely to play a role. Once common information and from these, data needs have been established, it is then necessary to investigate data gaps and potential data constraints, i.e. factors that could prevent these data from being shared. The second substantive issue is linked to MSP data criteria. Rather than just data, planners require reliable, high quality and usable data, presented in a format that is compatible across borders and harmonised as much as possible. Data harmonisation is a key element in the development of extended data products such as GIS systems or region-wide distribution maps for species or shipping intensities, for example, and can be a time-consuming and potentially contentious issue across borders (Jay & Gee 2014). Nevertheless, the advantages of high quality, accessible, relevant and compatible MSP data clearly outweigh any disadvantages, as such a Baltic-wide system could speed up planning processes and associated processes of communication and facilitate discussions with stakeholders at a national and cross-border level. Previous projects have identified a range of problems with respect to data accessibility, data quality and lack of coherence with respect to MSP data. A key recommendation has been the development of common data standards for MSP and a common language for such data. To date, however, no such common standards have been developed, resulting in sometimes diverging data languages in MSP, a lack of alignment of MSP plans and different visualisation of data in MSP documents, especially maps. The transboundary tasks of MSP, including cross-border consultation, therefore become more difficult and time-consuming as “translation” from one data set to another is required in each respective case. The governance aspect relates to the management of shared data. On the one hand, this is concerned with the mechanisms that may be available or could be developed for reducing the MSP data constraints and risks that have been identified for the BSR. On the other hand, it is concerned with the practical management of a region-wide data sharing and exchange network, such as when to make available data, at which intervals, and quality assurance. The technical aspects, lastly, are concerned with establishing an infrastructure capable of linking different types of datasets, easy feed-in and/or access to national data, and capable of delivering extended data products for planning purposes. A regional spatial data infrastructure and web-based data portal, possibly linked to GIS facilities, are conceivable infrastructures that could deliver these needs.  n r t e s m a e n t d r i s k s Fig. 1: Conceptual framework of the MSPDAT project Summarising the above, it is clear that “organising the use of best available data” is a multi- dimensional task which is nevertheless required from a quality perspective in MSP and also for very practical reasons (such as speeding up processes of transboundary consultation). “Best available data” will need to be gathered for a wide range of physical, environmental, economic, social, cultural and also political parameters, but there is no clear-cut definition of “best” or uniform standard or even agreed common MSP data needs across the BSR. What is “best ecological data”, for example, and does the definition of “best” strongly vary between BSR countries? There is no established process for organising such data at a transnational scale, or for analysing whether currently available data provide the necessary information for MSP. This proposal is based on the premise that "best available data" means data that is relevant for MSP, of high inherent data quality, accessible and compatible (consistent) across borders. “Best available data” refers to all those data that are necessary to deliver the information required in MSP decision-making in various national and transnational contexts, especially also comprising environmental and ecological data. It also refers to data that can be used for the generation of extended data products (e.g. distribution maps). In a transboundary context, compatibility of data is an important prerequisite for creating coherence between national maritime spatial plans. This in turn requires agreed terms and standards for sharing and displaying data in maritime spatial plans. "Organising the use of best available data" in the BSR is thus a question of drawing together and sharing the best available data sources, understanding and filling data gaps, ensuring the compatibility of data from different sources and setting common standards for using data and extended data products in the respective national MSP processes. In response to this, the overarching aim of the MSPDAT project is: To enhance the capacity of MSP and to facilitate transnational coherence in MSP by supporting the organisation of best available MSP data in the BSR, by means of establishing MSP data needs, common data standards, and a system to share relevant data at a transnational level. Specifically, MSPDAT aims to: • establish transnational data needs for MSP • establish current data gaps (including the reasons for these data gaps – makes clear what can reasonably be expected from a transnational system and may steer future data collection efforts) • establish the specific role of scientific data in transboundary MSP (e.g. environmental data) • establish common data standards for MSP at the BSR level • resolve problems of language when sharing data to assist with transboundary/cross- border consultation and public consultation/transparency • technically design a regional SDI for MSP in the BSR • test the regional SDI with relevant data sets for one or two transnational issues • develop recommendations for how to take this work forward The project will develop a blueprint for establishing a regional spatial data infrastructure for MSP in the Baltic Sea region. Data issues are much debated at an EU level generally at present, so this is a pioneering step which could serve as a model for other regional seas.