Bijlagen bij SWD(2013)463 - Groenboek marine kennis 2020: van het in kaart brengen van zeebodem tot voorspellingen omtrent de oceaan. Uitkomsten van de publieke raadpleging - Hoofdinhoud
Dit is een beperkte versie
U kijkt naar een beperkte versie van dit dossier in de EU Monitor.
| dossier | SWD(2013)463 - Groenboek marine kennis 2020: van het in kaart brengen van zeebodem tot voorspellingen omtrent de oceaan. Uitkomsten van de ... |
|---|---|
| document | SWD(2013)463 |
| datum | 11 november 2013 |
Directive 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 on the protection of the marine environment across Europe
17
provider and data disseminator, these should be honoured when re-distributing data that is not owned by the disseminator.
(9) The French Authorities and the UK government were concerned about possible losses of income to organisations holding data that might result from freer access. The Romanian Parliament also made this point. The Poland Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy thought it sufficient that ICES has unrestricted access to fisheries data.
4.8. A fisheries portal for EMODnet
The portals of EMODnet offer access to data, metadata and data products. Since fisheries data is already funded separately under the Data Collection Regulation the EMODnet biology portal does not include fisheries. Respondents were asked if an internet portal similar to those used for EMODnet should be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States and how this could be linked to EMODnet. Figure 8 summarises the responses.
respondent=civil society respondent=private
no opinion 19
yes yes 41 49
Figure 8: Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet?
Particular points made were:
(1) Most respondents agreed that EMODnet should provide better access to fisheries data. This was overwhelmingly the case for civil society, private bodies and researchers. The European Marine Board was in favour of access to fisheries data via the EMODnet portal because "open access to fisheries data could also encourage cross-sector partnerships between the fisheries sector and the marine research community, including the use of fishing vessels as ships of opportunity, to act as data gatherers for the multiple oceanographic
18
parameters." The UK National Oceanography Centre was of the same school of thought: "fishing vessels have good potential to act as data gatherers for several oceanographic and biodiversity parameters and actions to encourage closer liaison between the fisheries sector and the marine research community would be welcome and beneficial to both sides."
(2) There was a substantial minority of public authorities who did not agree. The French authorities thought that individual privacy needed to be respected and that too liberal a data policy would risk a loss of commitment from the public bodies that collect the data.
(3) Some respondents, including the Geological Survey of Ireland, the UK Government, IMARES, Seas At Risk and the Norwegian Marine Institute, pointed out the existence of a number of ongoing efforts: the Joint Research Centre provides access to data assembled for the Annual Economic Report; Member States upload survey data to the ICES DATRAS portal; and a regional database, FISHFRAME, has been built by ICES that could do the job. These efforts could and should pipe data to the EMODnet biology portal or possibly the human activities portal.
(4) The civil society consortium again made the point that fish are a public resource and, therefore, the public need maximum access to information on what is going on. HELCOM felt that better access would simplify the work of regional seas conventions. Keen Marine appealed for better monitoring and policing of fisheries to combat "the fear that publication [of fisheries data] would lead to rogue exploitation."
(5) The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, the Prime Minister's Office, Finland, and SeaDataNet Research Infrastructure suggested the inclusion of an eighth EMODnet theme to cover fisheries data. The Flanders Marine Institute thought that "a logical link can be made with the biology thematic group of EMODnet." Conversely, the Countryside Council of Wales suggested incorporating it into the new human activities thematic group.
4.9. VMS data
It is notoriously difficult for interested parties to access the hourly or two-hourly reports of fishing vessel positions as reported under the Vessel Monitoring System. Respondents were asked if access should be more open. Figure 9 summarises the responses.
19
respondent=private
no opinion 6
no opinion 12
no
1
no 7
yes 21
yes 24
res'pon'dehl-pubiic
no opinion 29
no opinion 32
no 12
no
S
yes ;"4
ires 40
Figure 9: Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available?
It is important to note that:
(1) The majority of respondents were in favour of better access. The civil society representatives reiterated their opinion that the public has a right to know who is benefiting from particular stocks and fishing areas. Oceana felt that transparency on activities such as bottom trawling "can better help understand fisheries impacts and consequently adapt planning/management," whilst Seas At Risk suggested that "better scientific models on fishing patterns could be developed on a larger scale that includes the movement of vessels."
(2) Representatives of fishermen, such as the Comité National des Pêches Maritimes et des Elevages Marins, were amongst the minority who were against the proposal. They thought it against the principle of commercial secrecy.
(3) Among the public authorities, only the Argyll and Bute Council though that the public had no need for such information. Others such as the French, German, Latvian and Maltese governments were more open to the idea although they did point out that it might require a change in the law.
(4) MRAG questioned the rationale behind resisting publication of VMS data given the ease of access to vessels' Automatic Identification Systems (AIS).
(5) The Marine Board of the European Science Foundation felt that better access was essential for assessing the status of the Marine Environment and implementing the ecosystem approach to resource management.
20
(6) A number of respondents, such as the County Administrative Board of Vasterbotten (Sweden), Marine Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales, felt that removing the vessel name from the data would ease confidentiality concerns. Others (UN Group of Experts of the Regular Process, Ifremer, and OGS to name a few) suggested the use of aggregate data to preserve confidentiality. The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment thought that applying a time delay to VMS data such that it is not immediately available could overcome safety issues. The Azores Regional Directorate for Sea Affairs suggested a grace period of one year. The Alfred Wegener Institute thought four to six months appropriate.
(7) The Countryside Council for Wales felt that the data should be accompanied by detailed "usage guidelines".
4.10. Observation technology
The tenth question was in effect three questions rolled into one. What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? The respondents' answers were similarly diverse. Points raised include:
(1) The European Wind Energy Association insisted that it is the quality of observations, not quantity, that counts. Mainstream Renewable Power echoed this. They thought the focus should be on the use rather than the collection of data. The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment was on the same lines: innovation is all well and good but let us make best use of what we have already. This was also the opinion of the UK's General Lighthouse Authorities. Region Vastra Götaland, Sweden, mentioned that we still have not ensured interoperability between different Member States. The need to standardise data collection and management was highlighted by both public and private bodies to improve cost-effectiveness, whilst the International Hydrographic Organisation felt that priority setting for surveys at the regional level using available assets could reduce costs.
(2) The Norwegian Hydrographic Service and the European Marine Board advocated focusing on novel sensors that can measure parameters automatically without the need to bring samples back to the laboratory. Marine Scotland, the University of Gdansk and SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture shared this view. The Finnish Meteorological Institute thought that these could be mounted on buoys, floats and gliders. Keen Marine proposed that the EU support emerging technologies. Magic Instinct Software and Plataforma Oceanica de Canarias (Canary Islands Oceanic Platform) emphasised the need to support small companies.
(3) Seas At Risk considered that the MSFD provides a useful framework for EU monitoring efforts. The Maltese government, the Azores Regional Directorate for Sea Affairs and HELCOM, amongst others, supported this. The Alfred Wegener Institute felt that there was a need to focus on cross-border practical use of data by "[encouraging] collaboration and the adoption of Open Standards and [supporting] long-term international e-infrastructures." This would require "close alignment of EU funding regulations and EU data policies with national funding bodies."
21
(4) The French and Portuguese hydrographic agencies wanted support for hydrographic surveys. The International Hydrographic Organisation advised that "research and development activities concerning remote sensing (LIDAR and hyper-spectral technology), unmanned underwater or surface survey vehicles, automatic data logging systems to be deployed on ships of opportunity, and monitoring of sea-bottom changes would all be useful." Proteus Europe recommended the use of satellite bathymetry and seabed classification to meet the EMODnet project aims.
(5) The UK Government pointed out that Europe lags behind the US where funding is available to develop new technologies and to take them through to market. Ifremer and the Geological Survey of Ireland both suggested that the EU follow the example of the US with regard to operating as a core facility, as opposed to a collection of Member States with their own data buoys and infrastructures.
(6) The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers pointed out that the EU should build on past experiences such as the SIMORC (System of Industry Metocean data for the Offshore and Research Communities) project, which is now supported by the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers and other data providers.
(7) Eurogeosurveys, Brussels, Argyll and Bute Council and the German government, amongst others, suggested making use of fishing vessels as observation platforms. Many respondents advocated the use of multipurpose technology.
(8) The European Marine Board identified marine acoustics as "a promising and emerging field for marine observation that will advance ecosystem-based management." The Norwegian Hydrographic Service used multibeam echosounder systems (MBES) as an example of a technology that may require more investment. UBO / France Marine Universities Network and the Poland Ministry of Transport & Maritime Economy also highlighted hydroacoustics as having the potential to greatly improve marine observation.
(9) Abdelmalek Essadi University in Morocco asked that southern countries not be forgotten.
(10) Observatorio Ambiental Granadilla (Granadilla Environmental Observatory, Italy) made the point that monitoring should be considered separately from research or ocean management. EuroGOOS thought that increased support was needed for both operational observation and research. The Alfred Wegener Institute thought that national long-term monitoring efforts should be supported.
(11) The French authorities urged the Commission to concentrate on technologies that do not immediately encourage industrial investment. This could include telemetry, LIDAR and hyperspectral imaging. The Danish Cadastre also mentioned LIDAR as requiring further development.
4.11. Data from research projects
Respondents were asked if there should be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project. Figure 10 summarises the responses.
22
i esp□ ndent= civiI society
respondent=private
no opinion 6
yes 24
no opinion 5
yes 33
no 4
respondent-public
no opinion 11
no 6
no opinion 3
no 4
ires 70
yes
78
Figure 10: Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project?
Respondents were nearly unanimous in their view that data collected under publicly-funded research projects should be made publicly available. Those that answered "no", such as the UK government and Marine Scotland, agreed with the principle but felt that it should not be a legal obligation. Points raised include:
(1) EuroGOOS argued that "this should be done with the minimum possible delay in order to maximise the benefits and impacts of these observations." Others agreed that a moratorium be enforced to allow for publication of results, in accordance with Horizon 202010. The European Marine Board, OGS and the German government suggested making timely delivery of datasets a prerequisite for receiving final funding.
(2) The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission felt that "a cultural change is required in the academic environment that makes researchers appreciate the importance of data management, storage and dissemination beyond their own immediate benefit."
(3) Eurogeosurveys and the Geological Survey of the Netherlands thought that routine data dissemination would improve cost-effectiveness and reduce the risk of scientific fraud. A number of individuals from the shipping and research communities felt that the obligation to provide access to research data would improve the authenticity of published work.
EU framework programme for research and innovation, superseding FP7
23
(4) The Alfred Wegener Institute was concerned that "open access to primary data acquired in non-European territorial waters may cause withdrawal of local research permits."
4.12. Environmental data
Respondents were asked whether the process whereby obligations to report the state of the environment could be replaced by a process whereby the recipient, for instance a regional seas conventions or the European Environment Agency, pulls the relevant data from accessible on-line sources. Figure 11 summarises the responses.
respondent=civil society respondent=privat.e
no opinion no opinion
13 20
no 1
no
2
yes 15
respondent=purjlic
yes 21
respondent= research
no opinion 26
yes 47
yes 44
Figure 11: Should the 'push' process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a 'pull' process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet?
Issues raised include:
(1) The general reaction was that this was a good long-term aim but it is not going to happen overnight. PANGAEA (Germany) pointed out that "effectively "pulling" the necessary quality assessed information via web services from metadata and distributed data requires clearly defined and steered data flows from sampling to dissemination via responsible data repositories and a standardized e-infrastructure throughout the European Community." The Portuguese hydrographic office echoed the position of many: "[it] needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis." Seas At Risk thought that "inprinciple this would be a very good development, reducing reporting burden and increasing data availability. However, it requires good standardization and depends on which authority will take over the examination and verification of the raw data."
24
(2) Some hydrographic bodies felt that the "push" process ensures that the national body providing the data can vouch for the accuracy. Similarly, the Government of Malta thought that the national competent authority should be the authorised body to vet and evaluate the marine environment reports submitted.
(3) The main advantages of the "pull" process are efficiency and speed. Ifremer pointed out that the "pull process will ensure data users get quick and useful access to updated (real time) data through EMODnet." The Gruppo Nazionale di Oceanografia Operativa's response was along the same lines: "the "pull" ensures, if conditions are favorable, a near real time availability of data and there will be a more transparent, controllable system."
(4) The French and Italian hydrographic offices, the International Hydrographic Office, and the French and UK governments, amongst others, thought that a balance between the "push" of reports and the "pull" of data was necessary.
(5) Marine South East said that the "pull process will allow investment to be focused on areas of demand for data." However, a number of respondents from the academic research community were concerned that the "pull" process might lead to simplistic or false interpretations in the absence of the relevant experts.
4.13. Climate change
The respondents were asked "what information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change?" "Almost everything" was the answer. Nevertheless, there were certain common features.
(1) Pole Mer Bretagne and Ifremer, amongst others, both considered coastal monitoring a priority. The Countryside Council for Wales felt that coastal habitats "need to be considered an integral part of the coastal defence and valued as such." The UK National Oceanography Centre identified coastal flooding as the main threat to businesses and public authorities, particularly due to extreme events. These are expected to become more common in a warmer world and are much more difficult to respond to. An individual from the public research domain added that coastal zones are "more strongly affected by anthropogenic and other local factors, which could bias the climatic signal." OGS specifically mentioned coastal pollution, marine litter, habitat modification, overfishing, ballast water release and oil spills as anthropogenic pressures.
(2) Sea level rise was cited by many respondents. The Ordre des Géomètres-Experts thought it the most important. The French hydrographic service, SHOM, and other hydrographic services emphasised the requirement for "long term tide observations (...), in conjunction with satellite altimetry, to assess trends in sea level changes." The International Hydrographic Organisation thought "high resolution bathymetry [was] essential to model the impact of rising sea level caused by climate change as well as by accidental events such as storm surges or tsunamis." The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment thought that "for the North Sea, sea level rise and (trends in) climate extremes are most important, including the potential effects on society."
(3) The German government proposed sea level, water temperature, and alien species, amongst other parameters, as important for adapting to climate change.
25
The European Straits Initiative, which considers the special needs of eight straits, also listed wave forecasts, sediment transport and coastal erosion. The Gruppo Nazionale di Oceanografia Operativa also mentioned chemical species contributing to eutrophication.
(4) Oceana thought that we need to look at globally important parameters such as CO2 fluxes and acidification levels (pH), ocean circulations and currents, salinity levels, thermic absorption of seas, sea level rise, ice cover, photosynthetic behaviour and algae masses. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission highlighted the need to monitor large storms, saying "whether these storms will increase in frequency and strength is not a local but global question that needs to be addressed at the global scale." This view was shared by the European Marine Board, which also referred to earthquakes in its response.
(5) The civil society group was most interested in fish behaviour - migration, distribution and demographics.
(6) An individual from the field of public research felt that it was not possible to rank marine information in terms of how it can be useful to businesses and public authorities because "all processes, from the dynamics of the oceans to the ecosystem responses, are interrelated."
4.14. International aspects
The Commission is also aware that there are a number of ongoing efforts to do at an international level what "Marine Knowledge 2020" is doing at an EU level. The EU's ongoing efforts contribute to this by making the most significant parameters collected by more than a hundred European partners accessible through a limited number of gateways. Respondents were asked if additional measures are needed. Figure 12 summarises the responses.
26
respondent=civil society
respondent=private
no 1
no
4
yes 10
respondent=public
yes 15
respondent=research
yes 37
yes 28
Figure 12: Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS?
The consensus was that they are necessary but not sufficient.
(1) Most of the respondents who answered "no" to this question were concerned that introducing a new dimension to the Marine Knowledge 2020 initiative would overcomplicate and overburden present attempts to improve access to data.
(2) The International Oceanographic Commission urged greater engagement of EMODnet and GMES in the global GOOS (Global Ocean Observing System) and GEOSS (Global Earth Observation System of Systems) efforts, saying that "interoperability [with a global system] will bring benefits to Europe through the provision of non-European data that may impact on forecasts or the health of European seas." The International Hydrographic Organisation urged coherence between regional, national and global endeavours and highlighted the need to improve coordination with ocean mapping projects such as GEB CO (General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans)11. It also emphasised the importance of hydrography as a "foundation layer" and felt that survey data coverage could be improved. OGS thought that it would be profitable to engage with World Meteorological Collection and Production Centres. The Geological Survey of Ireland considered that Europe needs to tap into the International Oceanographic Commission JCOMM structure. The Flanders
This collaboration is already ongoing. EMODnet is already providing its quarter of a minute digital terrain model to GEBCO.
27
Marine Institute wanted stronger links with OBIS (Ocean Biogeographic Information System) and WORMS (World Register of Marine Species).
(3) The French and German authorities and the European Marine Board considered that this could be achieved through the European offshoots of the global programmes - EuroGOOS, EuroGEOSS and EuroArgo. OGS made a similar suggestion.
(4) The Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment supported the establishment of a European Ocean Observing System (EOOS) supported and operated by Member States. Its reasoning: "at present, EuroGOOS provides a platform for cooperation and exchange between European operators (to share best practice), but it does not yet provide an integrated system with common output and economies of scale." Ifremer and the Geological Survey of Ireland put forward similar views.
(5) The Romanian Parliament wanted better cooperation with ESFRI (European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructure) projects such as EuroArgo and EMSO.
(6) A number of respondents, including the Hellenic Navy Hydrographic Service (HNHS) and Marine South East were in support of participation of member states in global monitoring systems, but were concerned about the availability of funding to achieve this. The Flanders Marine Institute called for a more structured and coordinated contribution by Member States to global observation systems.
4.15. Support to observation programmes
Respondents were asked what criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports, and whether the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans (JPI-Oceans) could play a role:
(1) The Ordre des Géomètres Experts thought that support to national programmes could be based on the length of coastline and the population affected. The Poland Ministry of Transport and Maritime Economy thought that funding should be allocated to beneficiaries according to the usefulness of the intended observations.
(2) The International Hydrographic Organisation considered that the Caribbean Sea, the western and eastern coasts of Africa and the Polar Regions are poorly surveyed and that EU-supported survey programmes would improve the safety of European shipping. The Norwegian Hydrographic Service also mentioned the Arctic. EuroGOOS mentioned the importance of marine observation in areas beyond Member States' territorial waters and EEZs. This was reiterated by the French authorities.
(3) The Geological Survey of Ireland suggested that relevance to European initiatives should be the criterion - blue growth, adaptation to climate change, ESMMR, EUSA, MSFD, etc. EuroGOOS and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management specifically cited the MSFD. The Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science was along the same lines and noted that the Continuous Plankton Recorder was a good example. Deltares also considered this a worthwhile EU investment.
28
(4) The Prime Minister's Office, Finland, and the Scottish Fishermen suggested that those who share data should be rewarded with EU support. The Scottish Fishermen proposed that those who do not should have their support withdrawn. The civil society consortium was in favour of prioritising funding for observation programmes that simultaneously provide data to different thematic groups.
(5) MedPAN mentioned the monitoring of Marine Protected Areas as a priority.
(6) SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture suggested support to instruments that are cost-effective, both to install and operate, and that ensure a continuous collection of observations. An example is development and support for installing instruments and systems for capturing data on-board vessels. Investment and operating costs for the common capture of data should not be charged to the private vessel.
(7) Keen Marine felt that "the EU should always keep part of its funding for "blue skies" research that tests new ideas and assumptions."
(8) A number of respondents from the public sector, including the Prime Minister's Office, Finland, asserted that beneficiaries could be ranked according to their history of sharing high-quality data.
(9) PANGAEA believe that support should depend on strong alignment with existing data initiatives (ICSU World Data System, EMODnet, SeaDataNet etc.).
(10) The UK government proposed that JPI-Oceans play a role in deciding which observation programmes have priority. The Flanders Marine Institute and FMARES, amongst others, agreed. The Geological Survey of Ireland was in favour of receiving assistance from JPI Oceans; however, it also noted that "some countries may find it hard in the current economic climate to contribute research funds to the JPI." A reply from JPI-Oceans itself indicated a willingness to take up this role.
4.16. Governance of EMODnet and GMES
Respondents were asked how the governance of EMODnet and GMES could better accommodate the need for long-term sustainability. A number of constructive suggestions were made:
(1) Nearly everybody agreed on the need for long-term stable funding for the whole initiative. SeaDataNet Research Infrastructure said that Directives such as INSPIRE, on their own, are not enough. Some considered that this should extend to the partnerships themselves. EuroGOOS and the UK National Oceanography Centre felt that long-term funding should replace financial support through research programmes. The Geological Survey of Ireland suggested the establishment of a European Project Office comprising seconded experts from Member State data centres. In contrast, the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment strongly opposed the creation of a new EU agency.
(2) The Geological Survey of Finland considered that a model with national data archives/data centres, which are operated by national agencies/organisations, is the most sustainable. ICES thought that regional data centres could also play in an important role in governance and management. Ifremer mentioned
29
SeaDataNet as a source of experience for coordinating national oceanographic data centres (NODCs).
(3) The need to ensure that the partnerships are not closed to new entrants was stressed by the Romanian Parliament. In particular, the Senate would like to maintain the current system of competitions at regular intervals and with variable consortia, so that only the best quality data is retained.
(4) HR Wallingford and Mainstream Renewable Power provided a consolidated response. They suggested a "governance board" excluding anyone delivering a GMES / EMODnet service, but rather including those with a vested interest in ensuring the services persist because of what they deliver: "this board would contain (...) data providers and data end-users; these may be individual organisations [or] communities. The key point is that these types of organisations have businesses reliant on EMODnet outputs and can articulate the value EMODnet delivers to justify its long term operation."
(5) Marine Scotland believe that the governance needs to take into account the views of both Member States policy representatives and scientific experts.
(6) Gruppo Nazionale di Oceanografia Operativa suggested shared governance for GMES and EMODnet.
4.17. Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency
Respondents were asked if they thought there was a role for the Joint Research Centre (JRC) and/or the European Environment Agency (EEA) in the Marine Knowledge 2020 initiative going forward. Most respondents believed that the JRC and EEA could have some role in the improvement of the EU's Marine Knowledge infrastructure.
(1) Many thought that with their detailed knowledge of needs at an EU level, both the JRC and the EEA could play an important role in defining products and services. The UK government responded "both JRC and EEA could help develop tools and systems. JRC could bid for work, but as a general principle all work should be tendered openly on the market. EEA would be a customer for products from such a system that support its mandated role of providing independent information on the environment. JRC may also have a customer role in using outputs from the system. Both can therefore play a role in evaluating current capabilities and suggest future improvements." EuroGOOS took a similar view. Deltares suggested a quality control role for the JRC. Vitrociset SpA thought they could help define user requirements.
(2) The French authorities considered that JRC could consolidate its role as a repository for fisheries information. The Comité de Liaison des Géomètres Européens felt that the JRC and EEA could assume regulatory roles, "to control the reception and evaluation of data, but also to develop standards for openness and interoperability."
(3) The European Straits Initiative, Mainstream Renewable Power and HR Wallingford all advocated a missionary role to encourage data providers to increase access.
(4) The Geological Survey of Ireland considered that "either the EEA or the JRC, as legal EU entities and with responsibilities for the MSFD and GMES respectively, could host the European Project Office as proposed above.
30
However, it must be clear that this is a hosting arrangement as the key players are the Member State organisations responsible for the collection and management of marine data." The Countryside Council for Wales and the Azores Regional Directorate for Sea Affairs saw a central and organisational role for EE A.
(5) The Gruppo Nazionale di Oceanografia Operativa suggested that both the JRC and EEA forge strong links with EMODnet and GMES infrastructures to develop tailored products for their stakeholders. The Prime Minister's Office, Finland, felt that stronger roles for the JRC and EEA within the EMODnet infrastructure could improve overall benefits of the network. The Flanders Marine Institute earmarked the EEA as being best placed to act as a science-policy interface.
4.18. Coordination at a sea-basin level
Respondents were asked if a regular process is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin. Their responses are summarised in Figure 13.
respondent=civil society respondent=private
no opinion
Figure 13: Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin?
Only a very small number of respondents disagreed with the premise that some mechanism is needed at a sea-basin level to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy.
(1) The Association of German State Archaeologists said that the diversity of national regulations and systems means that some coordination is necessary. The Alfred Wegener Institute replied that "a controlling process and guidance
31
by the EC is necessary to balance national and commercial interests as well as institutional and individual research interests."
(2) The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Service and the UK Government highlighted the need to incorporate the existing systems in OSPAR and HELCOM. The Prime Minister's Office, Finland, said that these organisations already have a role within the MSFD.
(3) EuroGOOS considered that observation requirements and strategies are rapidly evolving, and offered to provide support for evaluating these through its regional capacities (ROOS). The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, Ifremer and OGS also advocated GOOS as a suitable framework for guiding observation programmes. The UK Government also thought that there was a role for "science bodies".
(4) The hydrographic community and the French authorities reminded the Commission of the important role of Regional Hydrographic Commissions that perform this task, including but not restricted to safety of navigation, coastal zone management, disaster prevention and mitigation.
(5) The University of Liege felt that such a process could aid progression towards the use of new technologies. The Institute of Marine Research in Norway made the same point: "new observational technologies and new models are continuously developed and must regularly be considered in the framework of existing monitoring programs." Keen Marine suggested a certain degree of conservatism in the adoption of new technologies for obtaining marine data to prevent the process from becoming a "slave to the next new thing."
(6) Deltares felt that it could contribute to adaptive management to cope with changing realities.
(7) The suggested time interval between reviews varied between one year (as recommended by the Romanian Senate) and six years (as recommended by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management). The Government of Malta recommended an ad hoc approach to the review process.
(8) Eurogeosurveys, Brussels, the European Marine Board, the Geological Survey of Ireland, the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, Marine Scotland and the Geological Survey of Finland all suggested involvement of the regional seas conventions in the strategy evaluation procedure.
4.19. Priorities for EU support
Respondents were asked what mechanism could be envisaged to manage the evaluation and assessments needed to inform the Commission, Member States and Parliament on priorities for EU support?
(1) The International Oceanographic Commission reported that at a European level, EuroGOOS performed such a function. EuroGOOS themselves recommended a "combination of external expertise and a permanent "Users" or "Implementation" committee."
(2) Mainstream Renewable Power advocated "a strong governance council with membership drawn from Academia, Public Bodies and Commercial Organisations with clear targets and metrics linking funding to EU objectives for Blue Economy, Climate Change, Energy and Regional Development." The Alfred Wegener Institute's reply was almost identical, as was that from the
32
European Marine Board. The hydrographic community was unanimously in favour of the involvement of regional hydrographic commissions to monitor users' needs, assess the state of knowledge and compare the quality of products available with the resources allocated.
(3) The UN Group of Experts on the Regular Process thought that "a two-tier management structure would be helpful. This could have an executive board consisting of representatives of organisations most directly involved, and a supervisory body with representation from a wider range of interests, including those from outside Europe." The government of Malta suggested the Member States Expert Group as a good starting point.
(4) The Geological Survey of the Netherlands replied "checks and balances are essential. It is important that evaluation committees are not dominated by members of one or two disciplines but ensure equal opportunity for proposals from all disciplines and represent both the supply and the demand side." The Prime Minister's Office, Finland, warned against focussing too narrowly on the technical and scientific aspects of monitoring when making assessments.
(5) It was pointed out by some, including the French Authorities and the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment, that the MSFD provides a suitable process for evaluating needs for environmental, societal and economic assessments.
(6) Oceana, Ifremer and SeaDataNet Research Infrastructure advocated the involvement of JRC and EEA in this regard.
(7) The European Marine Board, the Geological Survey of Ireland and the Flanders Marine Institute all raised the issue of maintaining a global perspective to ensure that Europe contributes to a wider, integrated international effort.
4.20. Data from licensing
Respondents were asked if data provided by private companies for licensing purposes should be made publicly available. Their responses are summarised in Figure 14.
33
respondent=civil society
respondent=purjlic
no opinion 17
no 12
jies
sis
respondent=private
no opinion 7
no
8
2B
respondent^ research
6D
Figure 14: Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available?
Again, a clear majority of those consulted thought that, in principle, data that had been used to obtain an offshore licence should be made more accessible. However there were certain reservations:
(1) Civil society organisations were almost all in favour. Seas At Risk and the North Sea Foundation thought that the data should be quality checked. A private law firm also suggested a checking mechanism.
(2) EuroGOOS felt that the private sector makes significant use of marine observing and forecasting systems run at national and EU level and, therefore, must also contribute to integrated marine observation efforts. Keen Marine made the point that "data provided by private companies to gain a license is important for setting a baseline against which to judge the effects of their activities, and it is in the public interest (insofar as it is their resource which they are allowing the private company to exploit under license) to have that data available." MAREMED and IMARES replied along the same lines.
(3) The Maltese Government considered that it depends on the nature of the data. The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission was of the same view. Many respondents supported the right of private organisations to preserve their commercial advantage by vetoing the release of certain data for an agreed length of time.
(4) The International Association of Oil & Gas Producers indicated that geophysical surveys are "critical to our ability to determine the location of hydrocarbon resources and to monitor and optimise the recovery of these
34
resources once they are determined to be of economic significance. Clearly, such geophysical data have high commercial value such that compames would resist any moves to be obliged to release them."
(5) The oil and gas producers also pointed out that wholsale release of data used in the licensing process could be detrimental for the safety and security of oil and gas installation although they did not explain why.
(6) Proteus Europe was concerned about a possible impact on project budget. The Ocean Energy Group from the Renewable Energy Association felt that "unless private companies have received public funding to support data collection, any data they collect belongs to them and is their Intellectual Property." Abdelmalek Essaadi University and the Ministry of Economic Affairs Schleswig-Holstein were in agreement.
(7) Many respondents, including governments and the hydrographic community, insisted that bathymetric data, collected by private bodies and which could impact on navigation safety, be made available to the relevant hydrographic office.
4.21. Monitoring by private bodies
Respondents were asked for their views on whether licensed offshore private sector actors should be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible. Figure 15 summarises their responses.
respondent=civil society respondent=private
no opinion 7
27
32
respondent-public respondent=researeh
no opinion 20
1313
Figure 15: Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible?
Rather surprisingly, a larger proportion of respondents indicated their openness for obliging private bodies with offshore facilities to contribute to a wider moniotoring of the sea than had responded positively to making data already collected available.
35
(1) Ifremer indicated that, since private bodies benefit from marine observations, it would not be unreasonable to expect them to contribute. The French authorities thought that it might help the authorities demonstrate their compliance with environmental impact legislation. The Netherlands have introduced under the Mijnbouwwet (Mining Act) a provision concerning monitoring of meteorological and oceanographic data by the operators of licensed offshore platforms. Moreover, they have noticed "a cooperative attitude from off shore wind companies to use the turbines as platforms for gathering data." As such, an obligation might not be necessary.
(2) The European Wind Energy Association did not give a blanket "yes" to the idea but indicated that "the industry nevertheless remains positive in offering its sites if sampling from existing structures can [contribute to wider monitoring of the sea] and if it does not interfere with the function and operation of the structures".
(3) The International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, the Geological Survey of the Netherlands, the UK Government, the Observatorio Ambiental Granadilla and Marine Scotland all agreed that any contribution to wider monitoring of the sea must be done on a voluntary basis and not as a legal requirement.
(4) The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Managament thought it would lower the cost of monitoring. The Region Vastra Götaland pointed out that "the cost of instrumenting offshore platforms to provide continuous information on the state of the sea would be an almost negligible increase in the overall costs of the installation." Many more respondents, including Nexans Norway, Thetis SpA and the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management shared this view. Corporacion Maritime was concerned about who would assume the cost of installing the equipment. The German authorities thought the cost should not be borne by private operators of offshore platforms.
(5) The Countryside Council for Wales thought that a strategic environmental assessment programme "or some form of collective approach involving developers" might provide a framework. The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment suggested a study to establish what parameters might be monitored.
(6) The UK National Oceanography Centre suggested a list of possible parameters that might be measured: "temperature, salinity, nutrients, oxygen, C02 levels, chlorophyll, pH, wind speed and direction, atmospheric pressure, air temperature, ultra violet radiation." A private company suggested PH, CO2, CH4, NOx, SOx, VOCs and turbidity. The Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment proposed biodiversity, contaminants, marine litter, noise and oceanographic characteristics. The Flanders Heritage Agency, amongst others, supported monitoring of protected underwater archaelogical heritage sites.
4.22. Public-private partnerships
Respondents were asked how public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders.
36
(1) According to the UK government "work to develop evidence relevant for marine planning and the development of new offshore industries provides particular opportunities for public-private collaboration. The Marine Environment Data and Information Network in the UK is open to private and public sector organisations. It supports organisations from both sectors in the adoption of common standards through the provision of tools and workshops, and provides Data Archiving Capabilities which are available to all." The Ocean Energy Group of the Renewable Energy Association pointed to a "joint Industry Project (JIP) between offshore wind farm developers and interested regulators facilitated by the Crown Estate in England. The project funds generic research that will benefit the whole sector."
(2) The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment believes that "a very profitable public-private partnership will develop on the [back of] free and sustainable availability of environmental data. There are opportunities for (...) different groups to promote their businesses by using these data while raising public awareness of the beauty of the seas and their vulnerability."
(3) The French authorities were cautiously in favour of the principle of giving the private sector a greater say.
(4) The Alfred Wegener Institute thought that this should not preclude public support, particularly in the early phases of the initiative.
(5) Nexans Norway thought that a scheme that showcased the private sector's participation in order to foster their public image could help. The Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the Geological Survey of the Netherlands also made this point.
(6) Seas At Risk and the North Sea Foundation were rather negative, delivering a consolidated response: "Public Private Partnerships (PPP) have increasingly been proven unsatisfactory for public authorities, especially in financial terms. To include PPP in this initiative should be critically reconsidered. The [proposal] mentioned under point 7 of the Green Paper ("(...) companies share the expenses of running the European Marine Observation and Data Network in return for a say in the setting ofpriorities") should not be considered at all."
(7) The International Hydrographic Organisation agreed, saying "regulatory or basic services such as hydrographic services (...) should not rely on private initiatives."
(8) The Prime Minister's Office in Finland wanted more information on successful schemes and suggested a study.
4.23. Other business
Upon completion of the questionnaire, respondents were given the opportunity to raise other points not covered by the preceding questions. Many respondents reiterated their views from previous sections. However, a number of further suggestions were put forward. These are summarised below:
(1) BKM (Germany), the Association of German State Archaeologists, the Flanders Marine Institute, English Heritage, and the Flanders Heritage Agency all expressed concern over the exclusion of protection and preservation of cultural heritage sites in the Green Paper. Three important reasons to support underwater cultural heritage in the context of blue growth are:
37
(a) Data on former coastlines and settlements is paramount for understanding sea level changes.
(b) High quality information on the past behaviour of the human race is a key factor in leisure and tourism related industries. Many small enterprises are developing products for tourists, divers, etc.
(c) High quality data on archaeological sites (location, types of objects present, etc.) will lower the risk of deploying activities on the affected seabed.
The International Hydrographic Organisation, the French and UK governments, the Hellenic Navy Hydrographic Services, and the French and Finnish Hydrographic Offices were concerned that the needs of shipping for Marine Knowledge had been overlooked in the Green Paper. The quality of hydrographic data is still insufficient to ensure safety of navigation beyond the principal shipping lanes in European waters and elsewhere, and for extremely large vessels.
OSPAR, Ifremer, and the Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment welcomed the Commission's efforts to maximise synergies between EMODnet and the reporting and data sharing arrangements for the MSFD. The Danish cadastre referred to the Public Sector Information Directive4 to inform data access decisions.
OSPAR is in the process of "revising its data and information management and is examining options for elaborating a new OSPAR Information System that would be adequate for present and future needs and that would take account of and if possible contribute to, the EU data and information exchange developments."
The International Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities suggested the use of EMODnet to encourage adherence to the DCF. The Asociacion Plataforma El Chorlitejo (Spain) also mentioned good fishing practice and control of imports as one of their primary concerns.
PANGAEA and the Alfred Wegener Institute felt that "strong support and coordination of certified data centres will be the key success to feed large scale e-infrastructures in Europe like EMODnet, SeaDataNet, GMES, etc. in the long-run."
The National Oceanography Centre, UK, were concerned that surveying the sea-bed in high resolution might divert funds from research that should be carried out primarily by mapping/hydrographic agencies and/or the private sector, rather than by primarily research performing organisations: "if funding to perform routine mapping were to be extracted from national and EU science budgets, it would severely impact on the quantity of research money available for other purposes."
The Netherlands Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment is opposed to additional legislation if not necessary for realising the objectives of the Green Paper. It also felt that European initiatives (e.g. EPSON, OurCoast/OurOcean, JPI Oceans) and regional initiatives (e.g. OSPAR) should be clustered. The European Straits Initiative suggested changes be made to cumbersome national legislation regarding secrecy.
38
(9) The UK government expects the Commission to "bring forward much more detailed proposals for scrutiny by Member States if it seeks to take forward any of the suggested lines of action as part of the next phase of Marine Knowledge 2020. Any such proposals will need to clearly set out the proposed use of EU budgets, anticipated commitment from Member States and governance mechanisms, especially where there is a reliance on EU legislation." The Maltese government felt that more freedom should be given to Member States to specify which data is made publicly available.
(10) The Prime Minister's Office, Finland, would like to engage in further discussion on "the links between the issues highlighted in the Green Paper and previous/upcoming Commission initiatives on IMP, including the EMFF instrument." It also felt that the Green Paper should elaborate more on the benefits of data sharing and on where the EU stands compared to other marine regions of the world concerning its marine data policy.
(11) Ifremer felt that the Commission should minimise confusion to Member States by avoiding: the duplication of tasks; the emergence of different decision making processes; and the "non-alignment" of different funding streams.
(12) The Geological Survey of Ireland made reference to the recent Nicosia declaration12 calling for the establishment of a long-term strategic partnership agreement and a separate legal entity - a European Centre for Ocean Monitoring and Forecasting. This might be useful in the context of establishing a European Project Office to oversee governance of the EMODnet/GMES portals.
(13) The CoNISMa (University of Rome) Magic Project thought that the Green Paper underestimates the specific settings of the Mediterranean Sea as far as geohazards (volcanoes, submarine landslides, etc.) are concerned.
(14) MAREMED insisted that EMODnet take into account data produced and used for the management of coastal zones by local governments in the 11 Mediterranean regions that it represents.
(15) The Institute of Marine Research, Norway, asserted the importance of models in quantifying the past, present and future state of the oceans.
(16) A consultant in the field of sustainable marine development felt that there is a need for derived indicators based upon marine data (e.g. the system used by OSPAR) to help policy makers.
(17) An individual from the public research domain emphasised the need to identify reference levels for pollution monitoring.
5. Next steps
This consultation has delivered a clear signal to the Commission that it should press ahead with the "Marine Knowledge 2020" agenda.
However, whilst the broad objectives are clear - increasing access to data, better interoperability between different systems, guaranteed long-term sustainability, more private sector involvement - choices need to be made on how to achieve them. Questions include the best incentives for encouraging more involvement or the most
Nicosia declaration for an ECOMF Strategic Partnership, 10 October 2012
39
appropriate process for defining priorities. The consultation provided a wide range of suggestions on these and other issues that will feed into the impact assessment that will guide the implementation of the next phase of "Marine Knowledge 2020".
40