DOCSLIB.ORG

Growth and Innovation in Ocean Economy – Gaps and Priorities in Baltic Sea Basin Observation and Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Growth and Innovation in Ocean Economy – Gaps and Priorities in Baltic Sea Basin Observation and Data GROWTH AND INNOVATION IN OCEAN ECONOMY – GAPS AND PRIORITIES IN BALTIC SEA BASIN OBSERVATION AND DATA First Data Adequacy Report EMODNET Baltic Sea CheckPoint Total number of pages: 160 Leading partner: Danish Meteorological Institute Workpackage 15 D15.1 The first Data Adequacy Report Main authors Jun She, Jens Murawski, Kristine S. Madsen DMI Ciaran McLaverty, Margit Eero DTU Aqua Pekka Alenius FMI Darius Daunys, Sergej Olenin CORP/KU Stella-Theresa Stoicescu MSI/TUT Ralf Lindgren SMA Anders Soderberg, Åsa Johnsen SMHI Edited by Jun She, [email protected] A project funded by: EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE--‐GENERAL FOR MARITIME AFFAIRS AND FISHERIES, MARITIME POLICY ATLANTIC, OUTERMOST REGIONS AND ARCTIC 1 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 6 1 The scope of marine data adequacy analysis ............................................................................................ 7 2 Methodology used in BSCP DAR ................................................................................................................ 8 3 Data adequacy analysis for offshore wind farm siting ............................................................................ 10 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Data usage and requirements ......................................................................................................... 10 3.2.1 Weather and ocean data ................................................................................................................ 13 3.2.2 Biota data ....................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2.3 Seabed data .................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2.4 Human activity data ........................................................................................................................ 15 3.3 Data adequacy assessment ............................................................................................................. 16 3.3.1 Wind conditions .............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3.2 Water conditions ............................................................................................................................ 17 3.3.3 Biota conditions .............................................................................................................................. 19 3.3.4 Seabed conditions .......................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.5 Human activities ............................................................................................................................. 22 3.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................... 26 References ................................................................................................................................................... 29 4 Data adequacy for marine protected areas ............................................................................................ 30 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 30 4.2 Data requirement assessment ........................................................................................................ 32 4.3 Data adequacy assessment ............................................................................................................. 34 4.3.1 Administrative data ................................................................................................................. 34 4.3.2 Physical variables ..................................................................................................................... 36 4.3.3 Conservation features ............................................................................................................. 41 4.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 45 References ................................................................................................................................................... 45 5 Data adequacy for Oil platform leaks ...................................................................................................... 47 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 47 5.2 Data requirement analysis..................................................................................................................... 47 5.3 Data adequacy assessment ............................................................................................................. 50 5.3.1 Winds at 10m elevation ........................................................................................................... 50 2 5.3.2 Physical variables: T, S, currents, sea level, sea ice ................................................................. 50 5.3.3 Coastline and Bathymetry ....................................................................................................... 51 5.3.4 Human activity data ................................................................................................................. 51 5.4 Conclusion and remarks .................................................................................................................. 51 References ................................................................................................................................................... 52 6 Data adequacy for climate change .......................................................................................................... 53 6.1 Data requirement assessment ........................................................................................................ 53 6.1.1 Description of challenge area “Climate change” ..................................................................... 53 6.1.2 Data usage and requirements of challenge area “Climate change” ....................................... 53 6.2 Data adequacy assessment ............................................................................................................. 57 6.2.1 Temperature and salinity ........................................................................................................ 57 6.2.2 Sea Ice ...................................................................................................................................... 59 6.2.3 Data from numerical models ................................................................................................... 62 6.2.4 Phytoplankton species ............................................................................................................. 66 6.3 Conclusions and discussions ............................................................................................................ 71 References ................................................................................................................................................... 72 7 Data adequacy for coastal protection ..................................................................................................... 74 7.1 Data requirement assessment ........................................................................................................ 74 7.1.1 Description of applications ...................................................................................................... 74 7.1.2 Data requirements ................................................................................................................... 75 7.2 Data adequacy assessment ............................................................................................................. 76 7.2.1 Tide gauge observations ................................................................................................................. 76 7.2.2 Sea level from models .................................................................................................................... 77 7.2.3 Remote sensing of sea level using satellite altimetry .................................................................... 78 7.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................ 78 References ................................................................................................................................................... 79 8 Data adequacy for fisheries management .............................................................................................. 80 8.1 Data requirement assessment ........................................................................................................ 80 8.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 17 Places of Refuge for Ships: the Danish Approach
    Chapter 17 Places of Refuge for Ships: The Danish Approach John Liljedahl INTRODUCTION Every year, about 60,000 ships pass through Danish waters, and this figure does not include domestic ferry traffic. The majority of the ships will, during a con- siderable part of their passage, be less than five nautical miles from the coast- line and will pass through a strait1 into the Danish territorial sea2 or pass in a 1 Passage by merchant vessels through the Danish Straits (the Little Belt, the Great Belt and the Sound) is regulated by a treaty between Denmark and most of the European States signed at Copenhagen on 14 March 1857, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, UN/Doc. A/CONF.62/122, 7 October 1982 (hereafter LOS Convention), and customary international law. Denmark became a party to the LOS Convention in 2004. Upon ratification, the Denmark made the follow- ing declaration: 'It is the position of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark that the exception from the transit passage regime provided for in article 35 (c) of the Convention applies to the specific regime in the Danish straits (the Great Belt, the Little Belt and the Danish part of the Sound), which has developed on the basis of the 455 Aldo Chircop and Olof Linden (Eds.), Places of Refuge for Ships: Emerging Environmental Concerns of a Maritime Custom. 455–469. © 2006 Koninklijke Brill N.V. Printed in the Netherlands. 456 Chapter 17 corridor along the territorial sea of Denmark, Sweden or Germany (see Figure 1).
    [Show full text]
  • 555 the Regime of Passage Through the Danish Straits Alex G. Oude
    The Regime of Passage Through the Danish Straits Alex G. Oude Elferink* Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea, Utrecht University, The Netherlands ABSTRACT The Danish Straits are the main connection between the Baltic Sea and the world oceans. The regime of passage through these straits has been the subject of extensiveregulation, raising the question how different applicable instruments interact. Apart from applicable bilateral and multilateral treaties, it is necessaryto take into account the practice of Denmark and Swedenand other interested states, and regulatory activities within the framework of the IMO. The Case ConcerningPassage Through the Great Belt before the ICJ provides insights into the views of Denmark and Finland. The article concludesthat an 1857treaty excludesthe applicabilityof Part III of the LOS Convention to the straits, and that there are a number of difficultiesin assessingthe contents of the regimeof the straits. At the same time, these uncertaintiesdo not seem to have been a complicatingfactor for the adoption of measuresto regulate shipping traffic. Introduction The Danish Straits are the main connection between the Baltic Sea and the world oceans. The straits are of vital importance for the maritime communication of the Baltic states and squarely fall within the legal category of straits used for international navigation For a number of these states the Baltic Sea is the only outlet to the oceans (Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland). Although * An earlier version of this article was presented at the international conference, The Passage of Ships Through Straits, sponsored by the Defense Analyses Institute, Athens, 23 October 1999. The author wishes to thank the speakers and participants at that conference for the stimulating discussions, which assisted in preparing the final version of the article.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries in Denmark
    DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES FISHERIES IN DENMARK NOTE This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Fisheries. AUTHORS Jakub SEMRAU, Juan José ORTEGA GRAS Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] EDITORIAL ASSISTANCE Virginija KELMELYTE LINGUISTIC VERSIONS Original: EN Translations: DA, ES ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its monthly newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in September 2013. © European Parliament, 2013. This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy. DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT B: STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES FISHERIES FISHERIES IN DENMARK NOTE Abstract The present note was requested by the Committee on Fisheries of the European Parliament for its Delegation to the northern part of Jutland, Denmark (28-30 October 2013). The note provides a review of the main characteristics of the Danish fisheries sector, covering both the North and Baltic seas, and the waters of Skagerrak and Kattegat. It provides an overview of issues such as the legal and institutional framework, fisheries management, catches, the fishing fleet, fishing industry, trade, employment, the fish market and marine research.
    [Show full text]
  • Denmark and the Duchy of Schleswig 1587-1920
    Denmark and the Duchy of Schleswig 1587-1920 The making of modern Denmark The Duchy of Schleswig Hertugdømmet Slesvig Herzogthum Schleswig c. 1821 The President’s Display to The Royal Philatelic Society London 18th June 2015 Chris King RDP FRPSL 8th July 1587, Entire letter sent from Eckernförde to Stralsund. While there was no formal postal service at this time, the German Hanseatic towns had a messenger service from Hamburg via Lübeck, Rostock, Stettin, Danzig and Königsberg to Riga, and this may have been the service used to carry this letter. RPSL Denmark and the Duchy of Schleswig 1587-1920 The Duchy of Schleswig: Background Speed/Kaerius, 1666-68, from “A Prospect of the Most Famous Parts of the World” The Duchies of Slesvig (Schleswig in German) and Holstein were associated with the Danish Crown from the 15th century, until the Second Schleswig War of 1864 and the seizure by Prussia and Austria. From around 1830 sections of the population began to identify with German or Danish nationality and political movements followed. In Denmark, the National Liberal Party used the Schleswig question as part of their programme and demanded that the Duchy be incorporated in the Danish kingdom under the slogan “Denmark to the Eider". This caused a conflict between Denmark and the German states, which led to the Schleswig-Holstein Question of the 19th century. When the National Liberals came to power in Denmark, in 1848, it provoked an uprising of ethnic Germans who supported Schleswig's ties with Holstein. This led to the First Schleswig War. Denmark was victorious, although more through politics than strength of arms.
    [Show full text]
  • The Danish Straits Disposition Denmark Maritime Activities and Danish Prosperity Go Hand in Hand Area of Responsibility the Fero
    24-09-2014 The Danish Straits Disposition - Who is the Danish Maritme Authority (DMA) and what do we do? - Specific challenges to the DMA - The busy Straits - New ways of thinking aids to navigation - e-Navigation -ArticWeb/BalticWeb - Abnormal behavior Francis Zachariae Deputy Director General Maritime activities and Danish prosperity Denmark go hand in hand 400 KM - Population 5.470.000 - 43.094 km2 - 406 islands Area of responsibility The Feroe Islands Denmark, Faroe Islands and Greenland 1 24-09-2014 Greenland The Port and Coastal State Denmark Gateway to the Baltic 39.000 km coastline The Great Belt and the Sound Two narrow straits difficult to navigate The Great Belt – Route T: Distance (Skaw – Bornholm): 390 nautical miles Max recommended draft: 14.5 meters The Sound Distance (Skaw – Bornholm): 250 nautical miles Max recommended draft: 7.7 meters More than 70.000 passages 10.000 tankers Great Belt S – The Femern Bælt Area 2 24-09-2014 Challenges - Tricky under water currents - Heavy tra ffic - Shallow, complicated waters Solutions -AIS -VTS - Buoys, lighthouses etc. - Pilotage Hatter Area July 2009 Vessel Trafic Service (VTS) 3 24-09-2014 Pilotage: Motivation steps of NO PILOT and partly transits : • HELCOM no 23/3 rec. report • Royal Danish Navy Routine Call • Pilotage Service Provider/pilot call • DMA report of NO PILOT and partly transits to flagstates • DMA report of NO PILOT transits in the Thetis database The waters are divided into a number of small cells (400x400 m) Future - e-Navigation - ArcticWeb - BalticWeb - Abnormal Behavior Cell size is exaggerated here Near miss grounding example Situation where the ship will ground in one minute unless it Thank you very much for your attention turns.
    [Show full text]
  • More Maritime Safety for the Baltic Sea
    More Maritime Safety for the Baltic Sea WWF Baltic Team 2003 Anita Mäkinen Jochen Lamp Åsa Andersson “WWF´s demand: More Maritime Safety for the Baltic Sea – Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) status with additional proctective measures needed Summary The scenario of a severe oil accident in the Baltic Sea is omnipresent. In case of a serious oiltanker accident all coasts of the Baltic Sea would be threatened, economic activities possibly spoiled for years and its precious nature even irreversibly damaged. The Baltic Sea is a unique and extremely sensitive ecosystem. Large number of islands, routes that are difficult to navigate, slow water exchange and long annual periods of icecover render this sea especially sensitive. At the same time the Baltic Sea has some of the most dense maritime traffic in the world. During the recent decades the traffic in the Baltic area has not only increased, but the nature of the traffic has also changed rapidly. One important change is the the increase of oil transportation due to new oil terminals in Russia. But not only the number of tankers has increased but also their size has grown. The risk of an oil accident in the Gulf of Finland will increase fourfold with the increase in oil transport in the Gulf of Finland from the 22 million tons annually in 1995 to 90 million tons in 2005. At the same time, the cruises between Helsinki and Tallinn have increased tremendously, and this route is crossing the main routes of vessels transporting hazardous substances. WWF and its Baltic partners see that the whole Baltic Sea needs the official status of a “Particularly Sensitive Sea Area” (PSSA) to tackle the environmental effects and threats associated with increasing maritime traffic, especially oil shipping, in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sound Biodiversity, Threats, and Transboundary Protection.Indd
    2017 The Sound: Biodiversity, threats, and transboundary protection 2 Windmills near Copenhagen. Denmark. © OCEANA/ Carlos Minguell Credits & Acknowledgments Authors: Allison L. Perry, Hanna Paulomäki, Tore Hejl Holm Hansen, Jorge Blanco Editor: Marta Madina Editorial Assistant: Ángeles Sáez Design and layout: NEO Estudio Gráfico, S.L. Cover photo: Oceana diver under a wind generator, swimming over algae and mussels. Lillgrund, south of Øresund Bridge, Sweden. © OCEANA/ Carlos Suárez Recommended citation: Perry, A.L, Paulomäki, H., Holm-Hansen, T.H., and Blanco, J. 2017. The Sound: Biodiversity, threats, and transboundary protection. Oceana, Madrid: 72 pp. Reproduction of the information gathered in this report is permitted as long as © OCEANA is cited as the source. Acknowledgements This project was made possible thanks to the generous support of Svenska PostkodStiftelsen (the Swedish Postcode Foundation). We gratefully acknowledge the following people who advised us, provided data, participated in the research expedition, attended the October 2016 stakeholder gathering, or provided other support during the project: Lars Anker Angantyr (The Sound Water Cooperation), Kjell Andersson, Karin Bergendal (Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, Malmö/Skåne), Annelie Brand (Environment Department, Helsingborg municipality), Henrik Carl (Fiskeatlas), Magnus Danbolt, Magnus Eckeskog (Greenpeace), Søren Jacobsen (Association for Sensible Coastal Fishing), Jens Peder Jeppesen (The Sound Aquarium), Sven Bertil Johnson (The Sound Fund), Markus Lundgren
    [Show full text]
  • The Significance of International Straits to Soviet Naval Operations
    THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONAL STRAITS TO SOVIET NAVAL OPERATIONS James Paul Deaton SCHUUB 'A y-iiHUr i n it* w a i n u y n s L d Monterey, California 2 B -aaa**" 31 ^sgi2* "1 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONAL STRAITS TO SOVIET NAVAL OPERATIONS by James Paul Deaton March 197 5 Thesis Advisor: Mark W. Jan is Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. T167562 UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wr.en Dete Entered) READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORM t. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER 4. TITLE (and Subtitle) 5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED Master's Thesis; The Significance of International Straits March 19 7 5 To Soviet Naval Operations 8. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUV:f«r; 7. AUTHORC*,) 6. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfj James Paul Deaton 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM-ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA 4 WORK UNIT NUMBERS Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 93940 11. 12. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS REPORT DATE March 1975 Naval Postgraduate School 13. NUMBER OF PAGES Monterey, California 93940 211 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS*- // different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS, (of thin ri>or'J Naval Postgraduate School Unclassified Monterey, California 93940 15a. DECLASSIFICATION/ DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (at thie Report) Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, If different from Raport) 18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree elde It neceeemry end Identity by block number) Soviet Navy Straits Law of the Sea 20.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Naval Warfare and International Straits
    JIX The Law of Naval Warfare and International Straits Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg HEN IT COMES TO THE QUESTION OF WHICH RULES of W international law apply to international straits in times of naval armed conflict, one has to distinguish between straits bordered by at least one of the parties to an international armed conflict and straits bordered by States that are not directly involved in the hostilities. Although the law of maritime neutrality-let alone the general law of neutrality-is far from settled, the latter situation will, for reasons of convenience, be described as the legal status of neutral straits.1 Straits are comparatively narrow natural passageways between one part of the high seas or an exclusive economic zone and another part of the high seas, or exclusive economiczone.2 Artificial passageways must be distinguished from straits. In particular, they are not governed by the international law applicable to straits, but rather (and if at all) by special treaty provisions. That being so, for the purposes of the present study it is important to note the following provisions. • With respect to the Panama Canal, the Treaty of 7 September 19773 provides that "in time of peace and in time of war it shall remain secure and open to peaceful transit by the vessels of all nations on terms of entire The Law of Naval Wa1jare and International Straits equality.... Vessels of war and auxiliary vessels of all nations shall at all times be entitled to transit the Canal, irrespective of their internal operation, means of propulsion, origin,
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges in the 21St Century Edited by Anu Koivunen, Jari Ojala and Janne Holmén
    The Nordic Economic, Social and Political Model The Nordic model is the 20th-century Scandinavian recipe for combining stable democracies, individual freedom, economic growth and comprehensive systems for social security. But what happens when Sweden and Finland – two countries topping global indexes for competitiveness, productivity, growth, quality of life, prosperity and equality – start doubting themselves and their future? Is the Nordic model at a crossroads? Historically, consensus, continuity, social cohesion and broad social trust have been hailed as key components for the success and for the self-images of Sweden and Finland. In the contemporary, however, political debates in both countries are increasingly focused on risks, threats and worry. Social disintegration, political polarization, geopolitical anxieties and threat of terrorism are often dominant themes. This book focuses on what appears to be a paradox: countries with low-income differences, high faith in social institutions and relatively high cultural homogeneity becoming fixated on the fear of polarization, disintegration and diminished social trust. Unpacking the presentist discourse of “worry” and a sense of interregnum at the face of geopolitical tensions, digitalization and globalization, as well as challenges to democracy, the chapters take steps back in time and explore the current conjecture through the eyes of historians and social scientists, addressing key aspects of and challenges to both the contemporary and the future Nordic model. In addition, the functioning and efficacy of the participatory democracy and current protocols of decision-making are debated. This work is essential reading for students and scholars of the welfare state, social reforms and populism, as well as Nordic and Scandinavian studies.
    [Show full text]
  • FINLAND V. DENMARK: a CALL to CLARIFY the INTERNATIONAL COURT of JUSTICE's STANDARDS for PROVISIONAL MEASURES*
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 15, Issue 3 1991 Article 10 Finland v. Denmark: A Call to Clarify the International Court of Justice’s Standards for Provisional Measures Patricia A. Essoff∗ ∗ Copyright c 1991 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj Finland v. Denmark: A Call to Clarify the International Court of Justice’s Standards for Provisional Measures Patricia A. Essoff Abstract This Comment argues that a prima facie showing of the existence of a right on the merits is an implicit factor that must be met by a party requesting interim relief before the Court will fully examine a request for provisional measures. Part I of the Comment discusses the Court’s adjudicatory power to indicate provisional measures and examines the Court’s three-part test for provisional measures. Part II sets forth the factual and procedural background and holding of Great Belt. Part III argues that Great Belt demonstrates the Court’s unspoken reliance on a prima facie showing of the existence of a right on the merits when considering request for provisional mea- sures. This Comment concludes that the Court should affirmatively clarify the test for provisional measures in order to establish a uniform and predictable rule of public international law. COMMENT FINLAND v. DENMARK: A CALL TO CLARIFY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE'S STANDARDS FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES* INTRODUCTION As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (the "ICJ" or "Court") is the sole international judicial body accessible to all U.N.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Passage Through International Straits
    Transit Passage Th rough International Straits Jon M. Van Dyke* Th e Th ird United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1974–1982)1 Th e Th ird United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) began in 1974 in Caracas, Venezuela, amid great fanfare and high expecta- tions. Th e delegations gathered to negotiate a comprehensive treaty that would clarify and bring certainty to the many ocean issues that had divided nations over the years. Eight years later, after long negotiating sessions that alternated between New York and Geneva, the United Nations Conven- tion on the Law of the Sea (LOS Convention) was completed, and on 10 December 1982, 119 nations signed the document in Montego Bay, Jamaica. Th e Convention came into force in July 1994 after a suffi cient number of countries had formally ratifi ed the treaty.2 One of the central disputes among the countries negotiating this treaty concerned the width of the territorial sea, coastal State control of its adjacent off shore resources, and the navigational rights of commercial * Professor of Law, William S. Richardson School of Law, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, USA. 1 A few sections of this paper are adapted and updated from Jon M. Van Dyke, “Legal and Practical Problems Governing International Straits,” in E. Mann Borgese, N. Gins- burg and J. R. Morgan, eds, Ocean Yearbook 12 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 109, also published in H. Ahmad ed., Th e Straits of Malacca: International Co-Operation in Trade, Funding & Navigational Safety (Kuala Lumpur: Maritime Institute of Malaysia, Pelanduk Publications, 1997), p.
    [Show full text]