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

7 April, 2025

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 third meeting of the expert group. 

Contents

1..... Participation. 1

2..... Preparation of Ocean Observation Initiative. 1

2.1.    Welcome and introduction. 1

2.2.    Digital Platform.. 2

2.3.    Study on ocean observation coordination. 3

2.4.    German monitoring requirements. 3

3..... Regional Cooperation. 3

3.1.    OSPAR   3

4..... National Coordination. 4

4.1.    Spain  4

4.2.    Italy  4

4.3.    Netherlands. 5

4.4.    Cyprus  5

5..... Ocean Observation Landscape. 5

5.1.    Landscape. 5

5.2.    Best Practice. 6

5.3.    Simplified national charts. 6

6..... The expert group. 7

1. Participation

2. Preparation of Ocean Observation Initiative

   1. Welcome and introduction

MARE reported that the Commission is analysing replies to the call for evidence on an Ocean Pact from Member States, business, civil society and private business. This will be taken into account in the vision for a holistic approach to ocean-related policies that is expected to be adopted by the Commission in time for its presentation at the 2025 UN Ocean Conference in June. The importance of marine knowledge will be recognised. As far as Marine Knowledge is concerned, the Pact will set out how the foundations of Copernicus and EMODnet will consolidate a European digital twin of the ocean, how science can meet the increasing need for fisheries management advice and how ocean observation can shift towards a “measure once use many times” approach. 

A call for proposals for new Knowledge and Innovation Community (KIC) in the field of water, marine and maritime sectors and ecosystems is open till 17 June 2025 with the successful consortium starting work in 2026. It aims to help European industry develop the means to tackle water scarcity, droughts, floods, and marine and freshwater degradation.

1. Digital Platform

The expected IT infrastructure for building a digital platform for collecting and disseminating plans for ocean observation campaigns was not available so a new call for tender was published with modified specifications. Eleven offers have been received. MARE expects that the evaluations will be completed in time to launch the platform in autumn.

The contractor will be expected to report progress and seek advice from the Member State Expert Group as the development progresses. 

Malta agreed that it would be useful to have a common format and asked how the tender would be evaluated. MARE replied that officials from the Commission and its executive agency, CINEA, were responsible. 

Belgium and Malta wondered whether this was only for monitoring required by legislation or would also include research projects. MARE confirmed that all bodies undertaking monitoring could submit their plans, on a voluntary basis for the time being.

Belgium asked when it would become operational. MARE replied that there would be some limited testing in 2026, but it would not be opened for operational use until they were confident that it met requirements. This might take some iterations.

Norway recommended to make funds available to allow scientists from one country to take part in another country’s survey.

Spain reiterated its support for the use of the IT platform and noted the need for Member States to have the opportunity to contribute their technical and practical expertise. Norway and Ireland agreed and recommended that the platform be presented to the expert group as soon as possible. MARE replied that this could happen soon after the inception meeting. 

Greece asked where the platform would be hosted. MARE replied that it would be in the Commission’s compartment of the Amazon Cloud which would ensure a smooth handover once the project was completed.

Ireland asked whether the platform would be able to connect to the commercially-run Marine Facilities Planning platform which is used by several Member States. MARE reassured them that the ability to import data from other platforms through Application Programming Interfaces had been included in the specifications. Ireland further pointed out the need for clear indications on how things will be organized at platform level and what will be required from each Member State. MARE agreed to produce a one-pager including the most relevant indications in this sense.  

France asked whether there would be legislation to encourage use of the platform. MARE replied that the Ocean Pact should clarify the Commission’s intentions.

2. Study on ocean observation coordination

In order to deepen understanding of the ocean observation landscape the Commission has opened a call for tender that closes 27 March 2025[1]. It should help the Member State Expert Group identify opportunities for enhancing coordination and guide the Commission’s ocean observation initiative.

3. German monitoring requirements

Germany was not able to attend the meeting but sent in advance (1) a list of parameters required for meeting the requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and (2) a summary of potential impacts of offshore wind farms and guidelines for assessing and reporting them.

MARE considered that these will be useful for the builders of the digital platform and will pass them this information. They will also be shared on a web space of the Commission reserved for the expert group.

3. Regional Cooperation

   1. OSPAR

The OSPAR Convention was opened for signature in Paris on 22 September 1992. It replaces the 1972 Oslo Convention  for prevention on marine pollution by dumping from ships and aircrafts and the 1974 Paris Convention on land-based sources of marine pollution. The 16 national governments and the EU that have signed the convention work together to protect Arctic Waters, the Greater North Sea, Celtic Seas, the Bay of Biscay and Iberian Coast and the Wider Atlantic.

It provides guidelines on monitoring and assessment, a number of which are shared through the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission’s Ocean Best Practices System (OBPS). These have been aligned with the European Commission’s requirements for Marine Strategy Framework Directive reporting. Data are disseminated using FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles through OSPAR’s Data and Information Management System (ODIMS).

Spain asked about experience with the Creative Common Licence. OSPAR said the choice was almost obligatory because they only have two people working on data and cannot afford to police dissemination and use.

Belgium wondered whether the assessments fed back into monitoring programmes. OSPAR confirmed that the assessments identified knowledge gaps – for instance in the abundance of marine mammals.

Greece wanted to know about cooperation with other regional sea conventions. OSPAR replied that there was some cooperation, but it was much closer with HELCOM than with the Barcelona and Bucharest conventions because it had been operating for longer. Sweden noted that they are a party to both OSPAR and HELCOM. Some of the reporting is through the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES).

4. National Coordination

   1. Spain

Spain provided a snapshot of their ocean observation activities but cautioned that the complexity made it difficult to provide a complete picture and was not officially endorsed. The presentation was prepared solely for the purpose of discussion and information sharing within the Ocean Observation expert group. The views and information presented did not necessarily represent the official position of the represented Member State,  and should not be considered as an official statement or commitment from the Member State.

The ministries of environment, science, education, fisheries, and agriculture all have responsibilities. They implement the Common Fisheries Policy, the Marine Spatial Planning Directive, the Water Framework Directive amongst others and report to many global or regional bodies such as ICES, the World Meteorological Organisation, OSPAR and the Global Ocean Observing Scheme (GOOS) with measurements from moored buoys, HF radar etc. Responsibility for fisheries surveys is shared with Portugal. They are now in the process of establishing a dedicated committee for ocean observation with mandate to improve the coordination and visibility of observing activities.

Records of cruises, with links to data, are provided through cruise summary reports managed by SeaDataNet. The data delivered by this means has decreased in recent years, partly because the United Kingdom no longer provides them.

The national priorities are (1) sustainable finance, (2) introduction of new technology and (3) improved data sharing and a strategy for enhanced governance on observation.

4. Italy

The Italian Oceanographic Commission (COI) provide guidelines and proposals for Italian participation in UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission activities. All Italian ministries with responsibility for marine activities (research, environment, safety, health, marine resources, defence etc.) participate, as well as all the most relevant national research institutions in the marine domain. It is coordinated by the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche supported by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI).

The EU’s Recovery and Resilience Fund financed the ITINERIS programme which aims to harmonise and integrate Italian observation infrastructure in order to enhance access to facilities, services and data, ensure long-term sustainable observations and feed a data centre based on the National Oceanographic Data Centre which has been operating since 2004.

A new national committee (the Italian National Oceanographic Data and Information Coordination Committee) is under the process of establishment within the COI activities, which will create a distributed and federated national data system and will allow all Ministries responsible for different activities and obligations to sit together and share and integrate information enhancing coordination.

5. Netherlands

Netherlands presented their monitoring calendar which includes plans for both regulatory and research observations. Each year every monitoring organization should deliver where and when the observations should take place along with links to background information. It does provide an annual overview of what is planned and what has been done which enables cooperation although it takes some effort to solicit contributions and not all parties provide complete information.

Their advice to the EU was to ensure a simple input procedure, provide search facilities, include a map viewer and link to contact points and data resulting from the monitoring.

6. Cyprus

Whilst the Shipping Deputy Ministry is the competent authority for maritime spatial planning and integrated maritime policy , there is no single authority responsible for ocean observation. The Department of Fisheries and Marine Research, the Department of Land and Surveys (which serves as the hydrographic service of Cyprus), the Cyprus Marine and Maritime Institute and other entities including universities all play a role. Examples of large-scale hydrographic surveys undertaken by the Department of Land and Surveys in collaboration with the Department of Fisheries and Marine Research include the mapping of Posidonia seagrass meadows and mapping of coastal and marine areas up to 250 meters deep. Also, a sea-level monitoring network including five stations around Cyprus has been established. The Cyprus Marine and Maritime Institute are involved in the EONIOS project to develop a fully autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) swarm system with AUV docking stations integrated in nature-based artificial reefs to explore and protect designated underwater areas including marine ecosystems and biodiversity. 

5. Ocean Observation Landscape

   1. Landscape

MARE listed the large number of organisations, infrastructures and projects that helped those involved in ocean observation to communicate and collaborate. They asked the experts:

• how Member State authorities and the Commission could interact with these stakeholders;
• whether the landscape could be simplified, if so, what the Commission role could be;
• whether all Member States could complete the template developed by JPI Oceans describing the organisation of Member States (Level 1 and Level 2).

Belgium wondered what the role of the proposed Ocean Forum could be. Would it be similar to the annual Digital Twin Ocean Forum –a one-way communication of capabilities – or would it be a high-level event that would allow Member States to discuss priorities? The many research infrastructures are competing with each other for funding. MARE hoped that the forum would engage representatives with a degree of authority in their Member State. They cannot invite everyone, but need a good overview of the landscape.

Ireland said that Member States already report to ICES and others. Will this be additional work? MARE said that they are already in contact with DG ENV for MSFD reporting and those responsible for the Agreement on Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) and the Data Collection Framework for government and feel that in the end the platform will reduce burden by shifting to a “report once, use many times” approach.

France agreed that, unlike meteorology and tsunami warning systems, the landscape is complex and evolving. There are moves to include bathymetry as an essential ocean variable.

Slovenia thought that presenting the ocean observation responsibilities and objectives to their ministries could help move towards a more coherent approach. Norway agreed. The landscape is less chaotic than it seems. A common way of describing it could help communication. Maybe the European Marine Board and EuroGOOS could be invited to the next meeting. 

7. Best Practice

The Commission is developing a platform that collects and verifies best practice in ocean observation operations. They wondered whether they should, in addition, develop some thoughts on the coordination of ocean observation.

Ireland reported that GOOS were beginning the process of setting up a task team to gather information from national focal points to gather information. They asked for more details of what the Commission was considering. MARE thought they might analyse what Member States have presented to the expert group and see if they could extract some lessons. GOOS could be involved.

8. Simplified national charts 

Germany and Greece have produced national charts within the EOOS framework, showing who does what and why, in a template developed by JPI Oceans. 

MARE wondered whether it would be useful for all Member States to produce a simplified form with only the first two levels (1) the political responsibility for monitoring and (2) the legal framework. 

Norway felt that the Greek and German national charts were very informative. Greece said that without a mapping, it will be difficult to see how to make the observations more coherent and sustainable. It would be good for all Member States to follow their example, even the first two levels. Ireland have started the mapping and think it a useful exercise. Italy too is beginning and points out that it is important not to duplicate efforts and re-do similar things in different contexts. Some experts pointed out that not all Member States are partners of JPI Oceans. This need not be an obstacle but in any case, any action should be aligned with them. 

Malta agreed but explanatory notes and structured answers would be needed so as to ensure coherence between different Member States. Italy said that it would need to be updated regularly because responsibilities change and that the task could be delegated to GOOS national focal points. Greece pointed out that GOOS deal with research monitoring and had little knowledge of regulatory observations.

Belgium had started to prepare the JPI template but abandoned it. They have gathered the necessary information and would be prepared to rethink their decision. Belgium and Poland agreed with Malta that clear guidelines would be needed. Ireland felt that a step-by-step approach was best. It would be relatively straightforward to collect the high-level information. Spain agreed that this expert group was the right forum to do it.  The inclusion in this discussion of the most relevant organizations involved in ocean observation and improved coordination in OO in Europe (namely EOOS, JPI Oceans, EuroGOOS, EMB) would be generally desired.

6. The expert group

MARE asked whether they should develop a smaller list of contacts who would be able to take an active role and work on shared documents. The longer list would still be used for invitations to expert group meetings. Spain thought that this could be useful. Belgium too. A reserved web space will be prepared by MARE.

MARE is tentatively planning the next meeting for autumn. If the contract for the digital platform has been signed, the contractor will be invited to participate. 

[1] https://cinea.ec.europa.eu/funding-opportunities/calls-tenders/enhancin…