WP2: Data collation

At the heart of this effort is a common approach to collecting, structuring, and managing data. A project Data Management Plan provides the overall framework, while regional data calls and targeted data collection brought together information held by national authorities and other established sources. 

The work draws on national datasets, official management plans and similar legal or administrative instruments, as well as established open data sources such as ICES and EMODnet. WP2 has also compiled information on species, habitats, human activities and pressures and identifies remaining data gaps.

Rather than simply assembling existing datasets, the work focuses on making them comparable and usable together. This means checking definitions, resolving overlaps, translating and standardizing information, documenting national differences, and, where necessary, returning to the countries to clarify what the data actually represents.

The scale and complexity of the task became much clearer as the work progressed. The original expectation of roughly 300 protected sites proved far below the real regional scope, while management plans, in their native language, varied greatly in format, structure, and level of detail.

The work therefore required an adaptive approach. Templates and data structures were refined as new information arrived; a second targeted data call was used to close gaps, and national authorities became active partners in interpreting and prioritizing the information.

A central challenge has been the absence of a single standardized way of describing marine protected areas and their management across the Baltic Sea countries. The harmonization work has made those differences visible, but that is also one of its strengths: the dataset can retain important national distinctions while providing a common regional structure for analysis.

This has also required a closer look at what officially counts as an MPA or protected site under different national systems. Different designation frameworks, jurisdictions, and relationships between sites and subareas mean that the regional picture cannot rely on a single crtiteria alone. Making these distinctions explicitly is essential for interpreting both the MPA inventory and the management of information correctly.

The lessons from this process will also inform the project’s country profiles under WP7 Legislation, a as well as a  broader work on governance, helping explain not only what protection exists, but how national systems differ in the way protection is organized and implemented.