Raw materials – sustainable supply

Showing where not to source raw materials from the ocean

This model was created upon request from Zenia Stampe (RV). Distributed to the parliamentary leaders on environment of all the parties, in the Danish parliament.

After being asked this question by several politicians, my colleagues prompted me with the question “Can we make a GIS analysis on suitable areas for raw material extraction”?  To which I promptly answered “NO! – but we CAN make a GIS screening of areas where we don’t find resource extraction suitable”.

Thus I made a very simple screening of areas where raw material extraction should be avoided, if possible, an exclusion zone of sorts. The screening consists of five layers, and follows a simple Boolean – yes/no logic. If one of the five exclusion layers is present in an area, that area will be labeled “not suitable”. I chose not to display the map on an additive scale i.e. from 1 to 5, where some areas potentially overlap with more than one of the exclusion layers, since the complexity of communicating the map would increase substantially.

The exclusion layers and their significance is listed below:

• Marine protected areas (Natura 2000 incl. 500m buffer zone)
  • Protection of habitats and biodiversity
• Marine strategy areas (Havstrategiområder incl. 500m buffer zone)
  • Protection of habitats and biodiversity
• Fjords
  • High risk of large emissions of “blue” carbon
  • Avoiding recirculation of nutrients (N&P), in ecosystems that typically struggle to reach the goals of the Water Framework directive (EU).
  • Protection of biodiversity
• Bathymetry – between 0-12m depth
  • These depth zones are of great significance in restoring the eel grass habitat in Denmark, which has massive carbon sequestration potentials, apart from being of great importance as fish spawning areas – securing a sustainable supply of fish for consumption.
• Distance to coastline – 3 nautical miles
  • This border is already in effect as coastal protection against trawling activity and should thus be extended to include protection against raw materials extraction, which has a large impact on the seabed.
  • Risk of coastal erosion if not protected
  • To a high degree, spawning area for important fish species and habitat for juvenile fish in collapsing fish stocks (e.g. Baltic Cod).
  • Avoiding recirculation of nutrients close to the coast is important for reaching binding goals in EU directives.

This list is incomplete – but serves as a first screening effort in further analysis of how to plan the use of our common oceans in an intelligent way. Abstaining from resource extraction in these areas, will have large positive potentials for society, both on in the short and long term.

As a society, we must find space for both wind energy, resource extraction, fishing activity and nature conservation, protection against coastal erosion and CO₂ sequestration. I believe it is possible if we let geospatial data and analysis be a key tool in this endeavor.