1.          Participants

2.          Progress and Planning

The Commission reported the results of a public consultation which showed that efficiency of ocean observation is hampered by fragmented and opaque planning, insufficient sharing of responsibility and assets, slow innovation, precarious funding, inequitable sharing of effort and lack of standard procedures. There is an overwhelming consensus that intervention at an EU level is necessary to improve matters.

It then summarised progress on what is being done. This included:

• a study showing that the EU lags the United States in technology for ocean observation sensors and platforms owing (1) to a timid approach to risk and innovation from EU investors and (2) a market, particularly in the public sector, whose fragmentation prevents economy of scale.
• an examination of transparency in reporting in two Member States that highlighted the difficulties in identifying and collating the planning of observation for hydrography, fisheries, environment, coastal protection and offshore facilities among the different government departments at a national and regional scale.
• construction of an online searchable database on standards and best practice in protocols, equipment and data handling for ocean observation that will be ready in a prototype version by the end of 2025
• producing a simplified prototype platform for ocean observation campaigns that showed the need to develop an operational platform that is intuitive to use, with standardised metadata, automation of updates, facilities to connect to other platforms and indications of where the data collected can be accessed.
•  launching a call for tender for an operational digital platform where ocean campaign plans can be uploaded on a voluntary basis including information on the responsible body; what is being observed; why, where, when and how the observations are being made; their contribution to EU or international obligations; the campaign’s expected consumption of fossil fuel, its cost and indications of how data from the campaigns can be accessed;
• facilities to search, view and extract observations;
• application programming interfaces to connect to other platforms;
• extraction of reports in the form that meets requirements of other reporting obligations.

The platform intends to use the European Environment Agency’s Reportnet 3 platform for collecting the campaign plans and components from the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) for searching, viewing and extracting the plans.

The call for tender for the platform will close 3 September 2024 with a view to signing the contract in December 2024 and a first version operational mid-2026

3.          Questions and Answers

The experts then provided feedback to the Commission’s plans. The Commission’s answers are in italics.

3.1.            Background material

Where can we find the consultation and studies you mentioned? (NL, EE)

The consultation is on the Commission’s “Have your Say” website ([1])

The study on technology is published by the European Publications Office ([2])

The study on reporting obligations is available on the website of the European Climate, Infrastructure and Environment Executive Agency ([3])

Will there be a staff working document to justify the initiative? (NL)

The Commission services have prepared a document outlining the problems with ocean observation and assessing the cost and benefits of options to fix them. This cannot be distributed until the Commission adopts a legislative proposal. It will then be publicly available.

3.2.            Use of Digital Platform

The digital platform is really only useful if it includes a high proportion of planned observation campaign plans (EE, NL)

We are starting with voluntary usage. It also allows a thorough verification of its functionality before any future initiative to make it mandatory.

We do not have a position. We recognise that there is fragmentation and need to proceed with a step-by-step approach: checking that things work before moving forward. Joint monitoring will be an iterative process (NL)

Indeed the terms of reference for the digital platform explicitly ask for an Agile approach.

Reporting has a cost. The observation campaign plans should be simple. We should avoid duplicate work. (DE)

The specifications include an intuitive menu-driven user interface. You will be able to comment on early versions of the platform.

The platform will be able to produce reports required for other obligations, thus avoiding reporting the same information at different times in different formats.

We envisage a distributed approach. There are already many platforms such as SeaDataNet and EMODnet. A group of IT specialists should monitor the projects (ES).

SeaDataNet disseminates cruise summary reports. Connections should be seamless (BE)

Many existing platforms such as SeaDataNet and EMODnet deal with data that is collected, not the plan for collecting the data. There are links however. The platform may use some vocabulary from SeaDataNet. The visual interface will have the EMODnet look and feel.

The platform will include application programming interfaces to connect to other platforms. For instance, it will be able to import work programmes from a platform being built for the Data Collection Framework in fisheries.

Member States may appoint IT specialists to this expert group.

It should be possible to update plans as they change (NL)

This facility is included in the Platform’s specifications.

3.3.            Cooperation

We work with regional sea conventions and regional hydrographic commissions. How can we involve them? (NL)

Indeed the platform will help them. They do not have an intuitive tool for understanding what is planned. The sea conventions and regional commissions do not all routinely share plans. Regional coordination groups for fisheries will also benefit.

They could be invited to the next meeting.

Getting a complete picture of the North Sea requires some participation of organisations from UK and Norway. They should be involved (NL)

The rules allow them to join as observers. A Norwegian organisation has already asked to participate. We can invite them to the next meeting if you agree.

3.4.            Decarbonisation

Decarbonisation is a challenge for our survey fleets. We are finding it hard to estimate the carbon footprint (FR, ES)

We are proposing to use the estimated fuel consumption as a proxy. It is relatively simple to estimate. The use of drones as platforms rather than ships can reduce the footprint by an amount that is much larger than the uncertainty. But we can discuss this further.

3.5.            Innovation

How can the initiative support innovation?

The lack of innovation is partly due to the capital market in the EU which is much less prepared to take risks than its counterparts in the United |States. However, the increased transparency and collectiveness brought by the ocean observation initiative will enable improvements on the demand side, such as shared procurement.

3.6.            Role of the Expert Group, use of the IT Platform

Are there terms of references for the expert group, where can we find a description of its role ? What is the intended use of the IT platform and its broader goals ? (NL)

Terms of References are available in AGM. A more substantial description will be prepared for the next meeting.

4.          Organisation of Ocean Observation in Member States

The experts were asked to report on planning of observations in their country.

Belgium          competences are at both regional and federal levels but Belgium has a good overview on the planning of ocean observation in its territorial waters

Bulgaria           had technical problems connecting to the meeting and will report at a later date.

Croatia            Various ministries are in charge of various observations, such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the data collection framework, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and the Green Transition for the Habitats and Birds Directives and the Birds Directive, etc. A coordination group with representatives of all these responsible bodies is being set up to facilitate the future participation of experts in the subgroup on ocean observation. The planning of monitoring campaigns for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is underway. Organisational difficulties include lack of funding and technical expertise in the responsible ministries. There is no national plan.

Denmark         will send written comments.

Estonia            are setting up a observation network of buoys as a joint venture of 7 scientific institutes, reporting 75 parameters, 4 times a day in near real-time, building on innovation in platforms, sensors and communication networks which could contribute to a digital twin of the Baltic.

France             has an annual plan for its oceanographic fleet managed by Ifremer. 50% of the hydrographic fleet’s surveys, managed by SHOM are for safety of navigation. The rest are for research, renewable energy and defence. Ifremer and SHOM both participate in EuroGOOS. A global picture, including from other platforms such as drones, would be useful.

Germany         identified observation for two main purposes – “science” and “for authorities” and that there was little communication between the two worlds.

Ireland             operate 2 research vessels. The Marine Institute acts as a national hub for monitoring under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

Italy                 undertook to enquire whether it was possible to obtain and divulge this information.

Latvia              has similar challenges to the others. Observation for science, fisheries, defence and hydrography are managed separately.

Netherlands     coordinates marine data management through its Marine Information and Data Centre. A monitoring network is being developed. It is hard to keep up to date with changes.

Poland             is in similar situation to Germany. Scientific observation and administrative reporting runs on separate tracks. In 2021, a 150 page document on monitoring water was submitted. Scientific research covers a broader range of parameters. It would be useful to have an overview.

Portugal           undertook to check and provide this information at a later date.

Romania          reported that planning of monitoring of fisheries and aquaculture is coordinated with other Member States but were unaware of how it is done for other purposes.

Sweden           does not have a national plan for ocean observation

Spain               is working on coordination to achieve objectives of dissemination of data under FAIR principles, meeting the needs of the digital twin and reducing the carbon footprint.

5.          Outcome

The group:

–      endorsed the development of a digital platform as part of a step-by-step approach to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of ocean observation.

–      approved the participation of a Norwegian representative as an observer in the group.

Those members of the group unable to present comments on the Commission’s planning and coordination of planning in their country during the meeting will endeavour to send written comments or present them at the next meeting.

([1])    https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12539-Ocean-observation-sharing-responsibility/public-consultation_en

([2])    https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/af4bd5c5-b84c-11eb-8aca-01aa75ed71a1

([3])    https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/publications/study-reporting-obligations-ocean-observation_en