Second meeting of Expert Group on Ocean Observation

Second meeting of the EU Member State Expert Group on Ocean Observation

25 September, 2024

The Commission has started work on an ocean observation initiative to achieve a common EU approach for measuring once and using the data for many purposes through joint planning of observation activities and a framework for collaboration on a national and EU scale. On this basis an expert group was set up to advise the Commission. The experts should act as focal points for all government departments in their countries that undertake, commission or oblige ocean observation. This was the second meeting of the expert group. 

Contents

1..... Participation. 1

2..... Coordination of observation. 1

2.1.     Overall view of observation campaigns. 2

2.2.     Strategies. 2

2.3.     Infrastructure. 3

2.4.     Data derived from observations. 3

3..... Hydrographic Surveys. 4

4..... Regional Sea Conventions. 4

5..... BlueTech. 5

6..... Progress in Ocean Observation Initiative. 5

6.1.     Standards and best practices. 5

6.2.     Parameters to be included in ocean observation campaign plans submitted to the ocean observation digital platform.. 5

6.3.     Observation Landscape. 6

6.4.     Terms of Reference of Expert Group. 6

Annex A                       Summary. 8

1. Participation

1. Coordination of observation

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland presented structures and ongoing processes in organising ocean observation. France and Croatia had no updates since the last meeting of the group. Croatia is now trying to find out which research institutions are working on observations for research. Cyprus is still gathering information and will send it to DG-MARE once ready.

1. Overall view of observation campaigns

Many Member States have partial views of ocean observation planning.

In most countries including Estonia and Germany, there is a separation between research and statutory observation.

Belgium  has established a group involving research, statutory monitoring, hydrography and fisheries under the responsibility of both national and regional authorities.

Germany and Greece have completed an overview of responsibilities using a template developed by JPI oceans. This shows (1) which stakeholders are involved, (2) the coverage of Essential Ocean Variables and other marine parameters and (3) links to national and international repositories.

Two national German institutions use the Marine Facilities Planning tool which includes inter alia a searchable digital map research cruise logistic planning. Information on cruise planning is subject to payment of fees for access.

Views of geological survey plans in Germany are subject to payment of fees for access.

Poland have developed an INSPIRE portal.

Malta aims to make satellite observations more accessible to citizens.

Denmark, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Spain are looking forward to seeing the Commission’s Digital Platform

1. Strategies

Nearly all coastal states in the EU (and Norway) participate in the Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS).

Hydrographers and researchers have the most capital investment in survey fleets. These are operated separately in Portugal. The French Service hydrographique et océanographique de la Marine (SHOM) which has responsibility for safe navigation, maritime policy and defence, and Ifremer, whose responsibilities cover research and environmental monitoring coordinate activities through FrOOS, the federation of national ocean observation research infrastructures and networks. Ifremer’s draft survey programme is available in draft form 6 months before the year begins, including through a map viewer and costs about €200 million a year. SHOM’s process for selecting surveys depends on the “window” – navigation, maritime policy or defence – and results in about 800 days at sea per year.

Many have developed strategies for monitoring obligations under article 11 of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Finland is implementing the MSFD hand-in-hand with the Water Framework Directive and use the same data system (PISARA) for compilation and management of monitoring data from these two directives. Germany also considers the Marine Strategy Framework Directive together with the Habitats Directive. Norway has a similar approach that aims to reduce human impact on vulnerable areas.

Fisheries surveys in northern waters are coordinated by ICES.

Germany is developing a National Strategy for a Sustainable Use of the North Sea and the Baltic („Nationale Meeresstrategie“) including monitoring as a basic element.

Denmark and Germany highlighted the importance of innovation, including through artificial intelligence to reduce costs and contribute to the energy transition.

Portugal felt that the rules of large ambitious RTD projects limited their success. For instance Atlantos and Euroseas partnerships omitted certain critical institutions. 

Spain have recently been investing in coordination of observation activities and received governmental support for those aimed at implementing national marine policy.

1. Infrastructure

Funding is often precarious. In Estonia, decisions on implementing agreed monitoring programmes are made on an annual basis. There is no guarantee in some countries that operational funding will be enough to continue operating installed infrastructure or to implement planned monitoring programmes.

Italy received €155 million for research infrastructure from the EU’s Recovery and Resilience Fund. They believe that coverage in the Adriatic and Ligurian seas is adequate but that there are serious gaps in the Tyrrhenian Sea. Next year they will be testing new infrastructure.

Estonia has launched a tender for an array of multi-purpose buoys in their waters as a contribution to Twin Baltic.

European Research Infrastructure Consortia (ERIC) offer a framework for collaboration but there is little coordination between the consortia.

1. Data derived from observations

There are a number of national efforts to disseminate the data derived from observations.

1. Finland operates a data portal (MarineFinland.fi) which allows public access to open marine data produced by government institutions. The portal is available in Finnish, Swedish and English. Work is underway to include habitats data. It does not include data from universities. In Finland sensitive marine data on infrastructure e.g. cables and pipelines, bathymetry and seafloor type are restricted. It would be good if similar precautions are done when dealing with data in joint EU marine datasystems such as EMODnet. DG-MARE are reflecting on an option to include data restrictions on a limited security-critical set of data in EMODnet
2. Germany has separate portals for research and regulatory data.
3. The Dutch marine data and information centre provides an Open Data Viewer as a data sharing platform for governmental and scientific data collection. This is coordinated by the water management, agriculture and defence ministries.
4. Poland have implemented a portal that provides access to data provided according to INSPIRE principles.

Much of  this data as well as gridded or chloropeth map layers based on this data is also available through EMODnet.

1. Hydrographic Surveys

Netherlands presented the work of the Resurvey Working Group of the North Sea Hydrographic Commission to assess the needs for resurveying. The mobility of sediments varies significantly over the sea so resurvey frequency lies between a year to 25 years. The group has been suspended in anticipation of the EU’s ocean observation initiative.

Estonia explained how the Baltic Sea Hydrographic Commission classifies priorities according to their maritime traffic. Category 1 covers the main shipping lanes, category 2 other commercial traffic and category 3 everything else including fishing. 70% has been completed, including all of category 1 is completed. 126,000 km² remains, of which 110,000 km² is category 3. In 2021 HELCOM agreed that all of category 3 must be surveyed up to HELCOM standards.

Greece conducts operational surveys but the frequency of the surveys is not sufficient.

1. Regional Sea Conventions

HELCOM have been working on harmonisation of monitoring since 1979. They now include Ferrybox and satellite data and have developed guidelines for chlorophyll a. They maintain information on planned, ongoing and past research cruises with links to SeaDataNet cruise reports, AIS signals (for on-line maps) and national web pages. In 2025 they will begin restructuring their monitoring programmes through a new HELCOM Monitoring Information Data and Assessment Strategic framework (MIDAS). They look forward to the Commission’s ocean observation initiative and will be available for future collaboration.

DG MARE aims to include the other regional sea conventions in future meetings of the expert group.

1. BlueTech

The Commission’s ocean observation initiative also aims to improve the competitiveness of the EU’s Ocean observation industry. Two Estonian companies presented their services:

The LDI company has perfected a technology for detecting small oil spills by analysing fluorescence. Their instrument has an impressive global market. It is primarily sold to factories so that they can take measures against leaks before they cause major damage. There are no specific regulations in Europe mandating its use although South Korea has strict requirements on early warnings.

Flydog Marine also has a global market, mostly of research customers. They provide customised buoys with sensors and winches that can take samples from up to 200 metres depth and can deal with waves up to 4 metres high. It is increasingly providing integrated solutions including data analysis and communication. The precarious nature of research funding means that some customers found it challenging to guarantee the necessary maintenance.

1. Progress in Ocean Observation Initiative

DG MARE presented progress in the ocean observation initiative. 

1. Standards and best practices

In response to strong demand from stakeholders, work is underway to prepare an on-line searchable database of existing standards and best practice. For instance, a user could submit a query “What is best practice for sampling dissolved oxygen in seawater in the Baltic?” Each best practice in the database is assessed for maturity together with the principal author or organisation. 32 practices have already been reviewed and the process is continuing. The database will go online in April 2025.

In response to questions, DG-MARE informed the expert group that the Commission is responsible for the database. It will be maintained and updated once the current contract has ended in 2027 as part of its data and observation infrastructure.

1. Parameters to be included in ocean observation campaign plans submitted to the ocean observation digital platform

DG-MARE aim for the platform to be intuitive to use. The information provided should enable scientists and engineers to obtain the information that is necessary and sufficient. Those responsible for the campaign should prove information in a structured manner on why they are observing, when, where, what and how they are observing, the degree of sharing, the use of fossil fuel and the cost. It will allow for information that is required for specific purposes to be collected. For instance, the Agreement on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction requires details of the environmental impact of campaign.

In answer to questions, DG MARE replied that:

• The platform provides details of the plans of observing campaigns and surveys; not the data derived from the observations but should indicate where they can be found. 
• The information collected will be open access. Users will be able to view and extract plans according to purpose, parameter measured, geographical area etc.
• The Commission has no intention of imposing what should be observed through this initiative, although it may contribute to reporting obligations for other obligations.
• Observations contributing to Essential Ocean Variable can be signalled as such.
• Where possible, it will piggy-back on other initiatives through application programming interfaces (API)
• The Commission’s planning as to what can be supported by the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework from 2028 onwards is still at a very early stage.
  1. Observation Landscape

The expert group will be kept informed of progress. At an appropriate point their IT experts may participate to the meetings

In a brief overview, DG-MARE highlighted the complexity of ocean observation. Member States are ultimately responsible but there are many initiatives, projects and bodies that aim to improve cooperation. Information made available on the IT platform should take into account existing initiatives to bring more coordination and collaboration. 

For instance, European Research Infrastructure Consortia (ERICs) do foster collaboration on specific infrastructure but there is little coordination between different ERICs. The ocean observation initiative should facilitate such coordination.

The expert group felt that the JPI template was a useful way of explaining responsibilities at a national level.

1. Terms of Reference of Expert Group

In response to a request from the expert group, DG-MARE explained in more detail what was expected from the group

The subgroup’s tasks shall be:

1. to advise DG MARE on any matter relating to ocean observation. This includes:
   1. providing feedback and opinions to DG-MARE efforts to improve transparency and collectiveness on ocean observation such as the Digital Platforms for ocean observation campaign plans and the database on standards and best practice;
   2. providing feedback and opinions on other EU policies requiring ocean observation;
2. to represent the views of all public sector bodies and public undertakings under their jurisdiction that are making, commissioning or obliging ocean observation;
   1. communicate the issues discussed in the scope of the expert group to these public sector bodies and public undertakings  that have some responsibility for ocean observation;
   2. bring issues to the table raised by these public sector bodies and public undertakings
3. to bring about an exchange of experience and good practice in the field of ocean observation. Issues could include:
   1. cross-border cooperation
   2. collaboration with third countries
   3. joint procurement
   4. EU competitiveness in global market
   5. Decarbonisation

The expert group noted that the terms of reference cover a very wide range. Some suggested concentrating on the development of a digital platform for the collection. For now, the dissemination of plans for, and coordination of, ocean observation campaigns should be considered at a later stage. Collaboration with existing initiatives (Jerico, (Euro)GOOS) is considered important. 

The Netherlands will await the legislative initiative on Ocean Observation, where the boundaries for this initiative can be decided on.

Finding one stakeholder per MS to represent the views on Ocean Observation of all public sector bodies and public undertakings under their jurisdiction was considered very difficult if not impossible. 

Some members of the expert group noted that it would be useful to also invite the United Kingdom as an observer to this group.