EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 8.9.2010 
SEC(2010) 998 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
European Marine Observation and Data Network 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
 
COM(2010) 461 
SEC(2010) 999  
 
 
EN 2   EN IMPACT  ASSESSMENT 
1 CHANGES INTRODUCED SINCE PREVIOUS VERSION ................................................................. 4  
2 PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF IN TERESTED PARTIES .............................. 4  
2.1 IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................... ..... 4 
2.2 ORGANISATION AND TIMING ................................................................................................................. 5  
2.2.1 preparation.................................................................................................................... .................. 5  
2.2.2 present status................................................................................................................. .................. 6  
2.2.3 next steps..................................................................................................................... .................... 6  
2.2.4 scope of this im pact assessment ................................................................................................ ...... 7  
2.3 CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE ........................................................................................................... 7  
2.3.1 Outside Ex pertise .............................................................................................................. .............. 7  
2.3.2 Stakeholder Consultation ....................................................................................................... ......... 8  
3 PROBLEM DE FINITI ON............................................................................................................. ............. 9  
3.1 ISSUE ............................................................................................................................... ..................... 9  
3.1.1 Need for cohere nt approach..................................................................................................... ....... 9  
3.1.2 Barriers to applicatio n of marine data......................................................................................... ... 9 
3.1.3 Compe tition.................................................................................................................... ............... 10  
3.1.4 Uncertainty.................................................................................................................... ................ 10  
3.2 PROPORTIONALITY – MAGNITUDE OF CURRENT EXPENDITURE ........................................................... 11  
3.3 DRIVERS ............................................................................................................................... .............. 11  
3.4 WHO IS AFFECTED ?............................................................................................................................. 1 2 
3.4.1 Science ........................................................................................................................ .................. 13  
3.4.2 National and Loca l Authorities ................................................................................................. .... 13  
3.4.3 Private Co mpanies .............................................................................................................. .......... 14  
3.5 BASELINE ............................................................................................................................... ............ 14  
3.5.1 Obligations.................................................................................................................... ................ 15  
3.5.2 Enabling Actions ............................................................................................................... ............ 15  
3.5.3 Current data avail ability ...................................................................................................... ......... 19  
3.5.4 The future ..................................................................................................................... ................. 20  
3.6 EU RIGHT TO ACT – TREATY BASIS ..................................................................................................... 21  
4 OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................... ....................... 23  
4.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 23  
4.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 23  
4.3 OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................. 24  
4.4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER EU POLICIES AND HORIZONTAL OBJECTIVES ........................................... 24  
5 POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................................. .................. 25  
5.1 POSSIBLE OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 25  
5.1.1 What should the EU  do?......................................................................................................... ....... 25  
5.1.2 What is the most appropri ate legal inst rument? ........................................................................... 26  
5.1.3 How should this sup port be managed? ......................................................................................... 27  
5.2 DISCARDED OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 27  
5.2.1 What should the EU  do?......................................................................................................... ....... 27  
5.2.2 What is the most appropri ate legal inst rument? ........................................................................... 29  
5.2.3 How should this sup port be managed? ......................................................................................... 29  
6 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS............................................................................................................ ........... 29  
6.1 PRIMARY IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 9 
6.1.1 Direct Opera tional Co sts ....................................................................................................... ....... 30  
6.1.2 Compe tition.................................................................................................................... ............... 30  
6.1.3 Reduced un certain ty............................................................................................................ .......... 32  
6.1.4 Implementatio n costs........................................................................................................... .......... 33  
6.2 DERIVED IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................. 3 6 
6.2.1 Economic Impacts ............................................................................................................... .......... 36  
 
EN 3   EN 6.2.2 Social Impacts ................................................................................................................. .............. 41  
6.2.3 Environmenta l Impacts .......................................................................................................... ....... 41  
6.2.4 External Impac ts ............................................................................................................... ............ 43  
7 COMPARING THE OPTIONS .......................................................................................................... ..... 43  
7.1 WHAT SHOULD THE EU DO? ............................................................................................................... 43  
7.1.1 Stakeholde r opini on............................................................................................................ ........... 43  
7.1.2 Impacts........................................................................................................................ .................. 44  
7.1.3 Economic impacts ............................................................................................................... .......... 45  
7.1.4 Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................... ................ 46  
7.1.5 Proporti onality................................................................................................................ .............. 47  
7.1.6 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ................ 47  
7.1.7 Interim Peri od 2011- 2013....................................................................................................... ...... 48  
7.1.8 Afterwards..................................................................................................................... ................ 49  
7.2 WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL INSTRUMENT ? .............................................................................. 49  
7.3 HOW SHOULD THIS SUPPORT BE MANAGED ? ....................................................................................... 50  
7.3.1 Stakeholder Opinion............................................................................................................ .......... 51  
7.3.2 Primary impacts ................................................................................................................ ............ 51  
7.3.3 Implementatio n Costs........................................................................................................... ......... 51  
7.3.4 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ................ 52  
7.4 INCENTIVES ............................................................................................................................... ......... 53  
7.4.1 Privately-colle cted data ....................................................................................................... ......... 53  
7.4.2 Publicly Coll ected data ........................................................................................................ ......... 53  
8 MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 54  
8.1 INDICATORS ............................................................................................................................... ......... 54  
8.2 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ......................................................................................................... 55  
ANNEX 1 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................... ....................... 56  
ANNEX 2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ............................................................................................ 58  
PROCEDURE AND OUTCOME .............................................................................................................................. 5 8 
COMMISSION MINIMUM STANDARDS ................................................................................................................ 60  
ANNEX 3 CURRENT SPENDING ....................................................................................................... ............ 61  
SPACE ............................................................................................................................... ................................ 61  
COSTS OF INDIVIDUAL ORGANISATIONS ............................................................................................................ 61  
SCALING UP ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 64  
ANNEX 4 ONGOING EU ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE MARINE KNOWLEDGE.................................. 66  
OBLIGATIONS ............................................................................................................................... ..................... 66  
ENABLING ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................... ........... 67  
Data Collecti on Regulation..................................................................................................... .................... 67  
Framework Programme Projects ................................................................................................... ............. 67  
Global Monitoring for En vironment an d Security................................................................................. ...... 68  
SEIS and WI SE-marine........................................................................................................... ..................... 69  
European Agencies.............................................................................................................. ........................ 69  
Ur-EMODnet..................................................................................................................... .......................... 69  
European Atlas of the Seas..................................................................................................... ..................... 71  
National Pr ogrammes ............................................................................................................ ..................... 72  
Summary........................................................................................................................ .............................. 72  
 
EN 4   EN IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
1 CHANGES INTRODUCED SINCE PREVIOUS VERSION  
The main changes introduced si nce the previous version are: 
The glossary has been shifted to annex 1. A summary of the stakeholde r consultation was shortened considerably. More details 
on the stakeholders who participated and the compliance with consultation guidelines 
have been moved to annex 2. A separate document provides a complete analysis of 
the replies. 
Section "3.2 Proportionality – Magnitude of current expenditure" has been updated to 
reflect better estimates of th e current level of spending on marine data in the EU. 
Some detailed tables have been shifted to annex 3. 
Section "3.4 Who is affected?" has b een expanded to provide a more detailed 
estimate of the opportunity costs of the pres ent fragmented data infrastructure in 
Europe. 
Section "3.5 Baseline" show ing the current actions underway has been shortened 
with the longer description retained as annex 4. However subsection "3.5.3 Current 
data availability" has been added. It aims  to show the current data availability, 
highlighting gaps and deficiencies for the different types of data – bathymetric, 
physical, chemical etc 
Section "6.1.2 competition" provides some examples of innovative services that 
could develop. 
Table 5 in section "7.1.3 Economic impacts" has been updated in the light of the 
completion of a study on the costs of marine data. 
Section "7.1.7 Interim Period 2011-2013" has been added. It now provides more 
information on the actions planned the period 2011-2013 
And section "7.1.8 Afterwards" tentatively suggests priorities for the operational 
period starting in 2013. 
2 P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTA TION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1 Identification 
This impact assessment is led by DG-MARE. It is contributing to  the setting up of a 
European Marine Observation and Data Ne twork (EMODnet). The agenda planning 
reference is 2009/MARE/003. This Network was announced in the EU's Maritime 
 
EN 5   EN Policy Blue Book1 which was welcomed by the European Council in December 
2007. While this impact assessment specifica lly addresses EMODnet as one of the 
actions under Maritime Policy, the Communi cation to be presented in March 2010 
will embed EMODnet in the wider Commission efforts to gather data relevant for 
maritime affairs. This assessment further establishes the need and legitimacy of funding such an activity at an EU level.  But it does not une quivocally identify the 
source of such funding. 
The report commits only the Commission's se rvices involved in its preparation and 
does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the Commission. 
2.2 Organisation and timing 
2.2.1 preparation 
The formulation of an integrated maritim e policy was a strategic objective of the 
Commission's 2005-2009 workplan
2. Improving maritime knowledge has been a key 
aim of this policy from the outset. 
Accordingly the Commission proposed a new European Marine Observation and 
Data Network (EMODnet) in its maritime policy Green Paper3. Following an 
overwhelmingly positive response from stak eholders to its pr oposal, the European 
Commission, in its EU's Maritime Policy Blue Book1, adopted in October 2007 and 
welcomed by the European Council in  December 2007, undertook to take steps 
towards EMODnet in order to improve avai lability of high quality data. The impact 
assessment is part of a process that starte d immediately after the adoption of the Blue 
Book on maritime policy in October 2007. A subgroup of the maritime policy inter-
service group specialising in data and obs ervation issues has b een meeting regularly 
since then. An expert group was set up, web- sites (both for outside  stakeholders and 
for Commission services) established, pr eparatory actions launched to assess 
feasibility and studies prepared to  explore legal and economic issues. 
Following the publication of the roadmap for EMODnet4 the inter-service subgroup 
was strengthened. It now acts as the Imp act Assessment Steering Group and includes 
COMP, ENV, EEA5, JRC, INFSO, MARE (including representatives from both 
maritime policy and fisheries) and RTD. The first meeting was 31 March 2009. It held meetings 31 March 2009, 8 May 2009, 29 May, 2009 and 11 September 2009. 
A first assessment was sent to the Im pact Assessment Board on 22 June 2009. A 
revised version was sent on October 14 2009. 
                                                
 
1  An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union Brussels, 10.10.2007 COM(2007) 575 final 
2  Strategic Objectives 2005 – 2009 Europe 2010: A Partnership for European Renewal Prosperity, 
Solidarity and Security 26.1.2005 COM(2005) 12 final 
3   Towards a future Maritime Polic y for the Union: A European vision  for the oceans and seas 7.6.2006  
COM(2006) 275 final 
4  Building a European marine knowledge infrastructure: Roadmap for a European Marine Observation 
and Data Network, SEC (2009) 499 (final), 4 April 2009 
5   European Environment Agency 
 
EN 6   EN 2.2.2 present status 
Preparatory actions started in May 2009. Th is is the financing mechanism for setting 
up a prototype ur-EMODnet. Consortia ar e assembling bathymetric, geological, 
chemical and biological data for a lim ited number of sea-basins and making them 
available through the internet. Users will be able to see the distribution of marine 
data around the seas-basin, understand where th e gaps are, enjoy free use of data and 
report back their experiences. The budget is €3,450,000. A second call for tender was issued in 2009 for €1,200,000 and a further one of a similar magnitude will be 
launched in 2010. The first results are expected mid-2010. Lessons learned in 
operating and using the ur-EMODnet will be taken into account in setting up the 
subsequent operational EMODnet. Ur-EMODnet  is described more fully in section 
"3.5 Baseline".  
2.2.3 next steps  
During the process of defining EMODnet, a number of stakeholders have indicated 
that whilst they agree with the aims of  EMODnet, they would like to understand how 
it is positioned within an overall EU st rategy, encompassing also ongoing efforts to 
improve access to fisheries data, to build an infrastructure for global monitoring for 
environment and security (GMES)
6 and to develop a shared environmental 
information system7 
Accordingly a Communication on marine know ledge is being prepared for early 
2010 that will outline a se t of common objectives for marine knowledge, show how 
the different initiatives already underw ay are contributing to those objectives, 
demonstrate how they fit together, point out  where the remaining gaps are, set out a 
vision for the future and provide  a timetable for moving ahead. 
Whilst the Communication will set out a visi on for the architecture of an operational 
EMODnet, it will not include a decision as  to its final ambition, scope and shape. 
This decision will be taken in 2012 or  2013 once more evidence has been 
accumulated through the prototype ur-EMODnet. 
However the current ur-EMODnet being set up under the preparator y actions will not 
in itself provide sufficient information for a rational decision to be made in 2012 or 
2013. The sample is too small. The number of  parameters and sea-basins covered are 
fewer than would be needed to satisfy the needs of the marine and maritime community. The resolution is too coarse. It would be too great a jump and too risky a 
venture to move straight from the preparatory-action-based ur-EMODnet to a full-
blown EMODnet of the scale that curr ent estimates (set out in section 6.1.4 
"Implementation costs") indicate will be necessary. 
Inaction till 2013 would cause th e initiative to lose mome ntum and not allow it to 
react to evolving developments in the marine and maritime world. It is therefore intended that a set of intermediate actions  be launched to follo w-up the preparatory 
actions and lay down the basis for a better decision.  
                                                
 
6  Global Monitoring for Environment and Security  (GMES): we care for a safer planet Brussels, 
12.11.2008, COM(2008) 748 final 
7   Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)  COM/2008/0046 final  
 
EN 7   EN Separate Commission proposals in the form of  new or modified Regulations, with or 
without a financial component, will build  on the assessment in this document and 
follow the marine knowledge Communication. This could be within the framework of a new Regulation that is under cons ideration for 2010 with the object of 
establishing a programme to support the Integrated Maritime Policy in 2011-2013. 
However other financial mechan isms may be considered.  
2.2.4 scope of this impact assessment 
This is an appropriate time to take st ock of what has been done. An impact 
assessment at this stage allows a clarif ication of the options  for the operational-
EMODnet and will therefore drive the actions  that need to be taken in the period 
leading up to the operational phase.  
The assessment, however, cannot identify pr ecisely the implementation costs of the 
full operational EMODnet. The fragmentation of  data that prompted the development 
of EMODnet in the first place is a major f actor in making it hard to determine the 
costs of remedial action. But an assessmen t at this stage of the policy development 
provides a concrete and transparent baseli ne for further discussion that can be 
progressively refined as more informa tion becomes available through ur-EMODnet 
and other means. 
The assessment therefore should justify th e continuing intermediate efforts by the 
Commission to develop EMODnet after the expiry of the integrated maritime policy action plan in October 2009 by showing the need for action and providing a first 
assessment of the options in terms of costs and benefits for the long-term 
development of EMODnet post-2014. Any inte rmediate steps involving a financial 
component will be accompanied by an additional ex-ante evaluation. 
2.3 Consultation and Expertise 
2.3.1 Outside Expertise 
An independent Marine Observation and Data Expert Group (MODEG) met 7 times 
up to the end of 2009 to provi de input and feedback to the Commission's plans. In 
mid-2009 preparatory actions for a total of €3,450,000 began to assess the technical 
options for setting up a network and to obtai n first estimates of the likely cost of 
setting up an operational capability (s ee section 2.2.2). Two studies have been 
launched for a total of €500,000
8. The first, completed in 2008, clarified legal 
barriers to marine data access and re-use9. The second10 mapped out what Member 
States are spending on their current marine data infrastructures, determined the 
opportunity cost of its fragmented nature and assessed legal options for EU action. 
                                                 
8  Half of a €500,000 legal study that also covered other issues and a study on economic issues for 
€250,000 
9  Legal Aspects of Marine Environmental Data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
final report, October 2008 
10  European Commission Marine Data Infrastructure Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – 
Lot 2 Final report December 2009 
 
EN 8   EN 2.3.2 Stakeholder Consultation 
The ambition to set up a Marine Observation and Data Network was first aired in 
public through the Green Paper on maritime policy11. 487 stakeholders replied 
including the national admini strations of all EU coastal states and more than 100 
local authorities. Although there were vari ous suggestions as to  how such a network 
should be constructed, opinion was overwhelming that such an initiative was needed. The Commission therefore included a proposal to  take further steps in its Blue Book 
on maritime policy in October 2007. 
Following further consultation with the Mari ne Observation and Data Expert Group 
and after gathering feedback from presentati ons at a number of gatherings of marine 
specialists, a roadmap was produced in Apri l 2009 setting out broad principles and a 
timetable for moving ahead. 
Simultaneously a new public consultation wa s launched. 300 stake holders replied in 
two months - 42% on behalf of their orga nisations, 46% from a personal viewpoint 
but based on their working experience and 12% from a general concern about the sea 
(12%). The sample included representative sub-samples from private companies, public authorities, the resear ch community and "others". 
Nearly all stakeholders need more than one  class of data. Each class of data was 
useful to at least 60% of stakeholders. 90% of stakeholders required physical and 
bathymetric data with more than 60% e xpressing strong needs. These results are 
consistent with a 1999  analysis by EuroGOOS
12 which provided a more detailed 
breakdown on the type of data required. 
The roadmap identified 8 principles for a sustainable marine data infrastructure. 
Stakeholders were asked their opinion on th ese principles. 70% strongly agreed and 
90% in total agreed with the first five prin ciples - provide sustai nable financing at an 
EU level, interoperability, multi-use of data, marginal costing and statements on 
ownership, accuracy and precision Agreemen t on the other three was also strong but 
somewhat lower. Approximately 40% strongly agreed and 80% in total agreed that data should be processed at a sea-basin level, that it s hould build on existing effort 
and that a decision-making process shoul d be developed that is user-driven. 
The consultation met the Commission's standards for impact assessment 
consultations. The complete outcome is reported in a separate document
13 and 
summarised in annex 1. Relevant elements  are inserted wherever appropriate 
throughout this report.  
                                                 
11   COM(2006) 275 final 
12   Operational Oceanography Data Requirements Su rvey EuroGOOS Publicati on No. 12 February 1999, 
EG99.04 
13  Marine Data Infrastructure: public consultation. Commission Staff Working Document, 2009. 
 
EN 9   EN 3 PROBLEM DEFINITION  
3.1 Issue 
3.1.1 Need for coherent approach 
It is now well-known that the rhythms a nd cycles of the marine world influence 
human activity in a multitude of ways. For instance the abundance and diversity of marine life influences the pr ovision of food; ch anges in seabed sediments influence 
coastal erosion and ocean circulation is a primary, if poorly-understood, influence on 
the terrestrial climate. Since the industri al revolution humans have, in return, begun 
to exert an increasing influence on the marine world. But the magnitude of future changes in oceanic systems, their impact  on human activity and the feedbacks on the 
ocean from these changes in human behaviour cannot be forecast without understanding the way the system works now and how it worked in the past. 
Understanding these interactions requires knowledge and observational data which is 
continuously updated to monitor change. 
At present most marine data collection is  focused on meeting the needs of a single 
purpose - as part of a regulatory requiremen t, for operational purposes or to further 
scientific unde rstanding.  
However using marine data – to assess the state of the ocean, to plan new 
infrastructure or to analyse its impact on the ecosystem – cannot rely on data from 
one source collected for a single purpose.  Atmospheric processes influence ocean 
currents which influence the diversity and distribution of marine organisms which 
influences fishing practices which influe nce ecosystem health. Therefore applying 
marine data inevitably requires assembling data collected from a variety of sources 
into a seamless picture. 
Since each country's territorial or jurisdic tional waters are part of a dynamic global 
system connected by shifting winds, s easonal currents and migrating species, 
analysing the processes that govern the present state and future behaviour of these 
waters cannot rely exclusively on data collected within that country's own 
jurisdiction. Cooperation across borders is needed to plan the observation system and 
to manage data and data products. 
3.1.2 Barriers to application of marine data 
Assembling a coherent picture is hard work. A recent study
14 confirmed the large 
number of organisations holding and owning marine data. For France15 five 
organisations were identified as owning hydrographical data, eleven geological data, 
ten physical oceanography data, eight biol ogy data (excluding fisheries), four 
fisheries data, six chemical data and ei ght human activity data. There was similar 
fragmentation in other Member States. 
                                                 
14  Legal Aspects of Marine Environmental Data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
final report, October 2008 
15  France is used as an example because the sample of data was checked by a member of the MODEG and 
can be considered more reliable than the other data collected within the study. The number quoted is a 
minimum. There may be other data that was not discovered during the study. 
 
EN 10   EN From the user's point of view, there are at  least seven major barriers to obtaining the 
data required (1) discovery – not being able to find them (2) access – not having 
permission to access them (3) use – restricti ons imposed on end-use; for instance "for 
research purposes only" (4) coherence – di fficulty combining data from different 
sources (5) cost – beyond the budget of the user (6) quality – precision and accuracy 
unknown (7) quantity – spatial and temporal re solution not sufficient for the purpose.  
This is confirmed by the stakeholder surv ey showing that an overwhelming number 
of users in the public and private sector  are unsatisfied with the status quo (see 
Figure 1). Nearly all stakeholders repor ted that these barriers constituted an 
impediment to their working efficien cy with significant numbers (about 40%) 
indicating that these were se vere barriers. These barriers not only raise co sts but also 
mean that data does not arrive in ti me to meet operational requirements. 
The only outlier is co st. Although most stakeholders fr om the private sector and the 
research community felt that the cost of data  was a barrier to their effectiveness, the 
survey indicates that this was not the major issue for public authorities. This may be because they already obtain the data free of  charge. 90% of stakeholders thought that 
data collected with public funding should be  should be available at marginal cost
16.  
Error! Objects cannot be crea ted from editing field codes.  
Figure 1 dissatisfaction of stakeholders of marine data with the status quo. They were asked to assess 
how the 7 barriers affected their work. 
3.1.3 Competition 
These barriers to access and us e of marine data mean th at a public or private body 
cannot deliver a product or service that is based on data, for instance an assessment 
of fish stocks in a particular area, unless it has itself collected the data or enjoys a 
strong relationship with the or ganisation that did. This reduces the number of bodies 
that are potentially able to de liver the product or service. A 2009 review of the Public 
Sector Information Directive17 found that re-users in the geographical and 
meteorological sectors complained of high prices, restrictive licensing conditions and 
discrimination from data holders in the pub lic sector who themselves provide added-
value services from these data. 
3.1.4 Uncertainty 
The lack of an effective marine data in frastructure compounds uncertainty in the 
ocean's future behaviour.  
Sea-level rise is a good example. Under the ECHAM B218 socio-economic scenario, 
projecting sea-level-rise  between 22.6 cm and 50.8 cm by 2100, Richards and 
Nicholls estimate the annua l cost of adaptation, aggr egated at EU level under 
                                                 
16  For data delivered over the internet , the marginal cost approaches zero 
17  Re-use of Public Sector Information – Review of Directive 2003/98/EC, Brussels, 7.5.2009, 
COM(2009) 212 final, 
18  ECHAM is Max Planck Institute's climate model. B2 is an IPCC scen ario The B2 scenarios are of an 
ecologically friendly but divided world with continuously increasing population but at a slower rate 
than A2. 
 
EN 11   EN ‘optimal’ protection (costs versus benef its), between € 0.49 billion and € 0.85 billion 
by 2020. Assuming that engineers are bei ng precautionary in assuming the 50.8cm 
rise then a 25% reduction in uncertainty can reduce the annual co sts of adaptation by 
€100 million per year. Clearly these calculatio ns include many assumptions but they 
do provide an indication of the benefit of reducing uncer tainty. This is discussed 
further in section 6.1.3 
3.2 Proportionality – Magnitude of current expenditure 
The fragmented nature of the current mari ne monitoring infrastructure that was 
described in section 2 makes it hard to determine the current observation effort and 
to quantify the time and effort spent processing the data. However the study undertaken as part of this impact assessment
10 did come up with some estimates.  
There are relatively few earth observati on satellites that are used for ocean 
observation so calculating their annual cost includi ng construction, launch and 
operation is feasible. Dividing this cost fo r each satellite between land and ocean is 
trickier but the European Space Agency reckons that Europe currently spends 
€415 million annually with an error of  ±25% in monitoring the oceans. 
It is much harder to calc ulate the rest. An estimate of  €815 million for the EU as a 
whole was obtained by calculating the spe nding by France, Neth erlands, Spain and 
UK and scaling-up using GDP as a weighti ng,. The figure for the four countries 
includes spending by bodies responsible for na tional defence, coastguards, fisheries, 
environmental standards and research but is  certainly not exhaustive. Some reviewers 
of the report indicated that it had negl ected some spending by local authorities 
responsible for ports or coas tal protection. However the auth ors were unable to come 
up with figures for this spending. 
Private companies also spend considerab le amounts. The study highlighted one 
Dutch company specialising in marine data with an annual spend on data of €1.5 billion. Much of this is specialised ge ological data for mine ral prospecting that 
cannot be made publicly available but it al so includes data on waves, currents and 
tides that could be more widely used.  
It is therefore safe to assert that EU Memb er States are currently spending more than 
€1 billion a year in public money collecting,  archiving and distributing marine data 
and that European private companies are sp ending more: at least €3 billion per year. 
These costs illustrate the approximate scale of the activity. 
More details of these calcula tions are provided in annex 3 
3.3 Drivers 
By their nature marine data already fu lfil one necessary condition of a public good - 
consumption by one individual does not  reduce availability of the good for 
consumption by others. It is therefore in th e public interest that marine data produced 
with public money be as widely used as po ssible. Unused data are a lost opportunity 
and still require expensive mainte nance, storage, cataloguing etc. 
However whilst it is in an organisation's in terest that everybody el se facilitat es access 
to data, it might not always be perceived as  being in its own inte rest to make its own 
 
EN 12   EN data available. This may be because it can earn an income from the data but, more 
often, it is because it can derive a comp etitive advantage through preferential access 
to the data when delivering products deri ved from these data. These products could 
be assessments, forecasts, charts, maps or scientific papers. This is described by the UK's Office of Fair Trading
19 
The integration of [both] unrefined  and refined information operations 
within a Public Sector Information Holder also mean they have an incentive to favour their own refined information operations over their business customers that purchase unrefined information to develop their own refined information products. 
In other cases organisations have no part icular objection to making their data 
available but, at the same time, they have  no particular incentive or mechanism to do 
so. What is required is an infrastructure to process available data on a sea-area or 
sea-basin scale. Individual organi sations cannot do this on their own. 
Thus the main drivers are incentives that  favour the retention of data within 
organisations and a lack of incentives for them to release them. 
3.4 Who is affected? 
The total cost of delivering data is much larger than just the cost of collection and 
distribution - it includes th e opportunity costs that come  with an uncoordinated 
approach to data management. As part of their planning to improve matters the 
United States National Oceanic and At mospheric Administration, NOAA, have 
constructed a business case
20 for improving the ocean observing system. The 
interviews conducted in developing this  case led them to believe that these 
opportunity costs represent at least 25% of th e cost of using ocean data to generate 
products and services. This does not incl ude the lost opportunities of those who, 
faced with an impenetrable data infrastructure, have simply not chosen to develop new services. 
There are no such figures available for Europe  but it is universally accepted that data 
is easier to access in the United States than  here. One respondent to the stakeholder 
survey
13 from the research community pointed out: 
(…) American data policy is light yea rs better than EU policies. While 
"Europe" is sending one sate llite after the other into the orbit their data 
is mainly validated with in-situ da ta in American waters. The ratio of 
satellite papers dedicated to Americ an or European waters is at least 
10:1. Reason: EU in-situ data policies. 
Consultants working on offshore renewabl e resources uses bathymetry data for 
European waters obtained free of charge in the United States10. It is therefore a very 
conservative assumption to suggest that th e current fragmentation adds 25% to the 
cost of processing data in Europe. 
                                                 
19  The commercial use of public info rmation (CUPI), December 2006, OFT861 
20  The Business Case for Improving NOAA’s Management and Integration of Ocean and Coastal Data, 
Zdenka Willis, Director, NOAA IOOS Program January 2009 
 
EN 13   EN The current situation reduces the efficiency  and effectiveness of all those who use 
marine data - scientists, local au thorities and the private sector. 
3.4.1 Science 
Scientists need a better data  infrastructure to increase knowledge of ocean circulation 
and marine ecosystems. Better knowledge pr ovides economic bene fits through better 
forecasting of the terrestrial climate and a more sustaina ble exploitation of marine 
resources. A 2006 project21 estimated public marine research spending in Belgium, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, Sp ain and UK as an average 0.0000055% of 
GDP which scaled up to the 22 coastal EU states comes to €650 million annually. The EU Framework Programme funds anot her €100 million. This does not include 
all marine research activities. For instan ce in some countries fisheries research, 
which was estimated in 1997 as €192 million
22 for the EU, is funded separately. A 
paper23 from the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) 
suggests that 50% of the marine scienc e budget is spent on infrastructure and 
collecting data. One can assume that the rest, €400-500 million a year, is spent analysing that data. If the opportunity cost to  scientists of a fragm ented infrastructure 
is 25% of this, then it is €100 million per ye ar. In other words if scientists had access 
to better data then one can expect scientific output indicators such as articles in high 
quality peer-reviewed journa ls to increase correspondingly. 
3.4.2 National and Local Authorities 
National and local authorities require a better data infrastructure to assess the impact 
of proposed changes in human activities, to  protect against coas tal erosion or to 
manage natural resources. The cost of asse ssing impact of new activities is largely 
borne by the private sector although public oversight is require d. Protecting against 
coastal erosion is estimated at €700 million per year
24. Managing natural resources 
has historically largely been about fish eries although the set ting up of marine 
protected areas and the Marine Framewor k Strategy Directive have widened the 
scope. An OECD study25 reckoned that the EU was spending €400 million on 
fisheries management and enforcement in 1997. This does not include the research 
element. Since it is often local authorities who are responsible for environmental measures, it is hard to assemble the data necessary to determine a total EU cost. Two counties in Sweden, Västra Götaland a nd Norbotten, together spend €2.5 million
10 
per year, which is between 10 and 20% of their budget, on processing marine data in order to fulfil their regulatory duties. Th e advent of marine spatial planning is 
creating new responsibilities at a national level. The UK is setting up a Marine 
Management Organisation with 40 new posts  (estimated at €6 million) to manage 
planning and licensing. Scottish waters , which cover a great er area, are under 
                                                
 
21  MarinERA Publication N°1 A Preliminary Descrip tion of MarinERA Member State Marine Research 
Funding Programmes and Implementation Procedures (2006) 
22  Fisheries Management Costs: Concepts and Studies, Paul Wallis and Ola Flaaten, OECD, 1997 
23  European Strategy on Marine Research Infrastr ucture Report compiled for the European Strategy 
Forum on Research Infrastructure by  the Ad Hoc Working Group on Ma rine Research Infrastructure 
April 2003 
24 The economics of climate change adaptation in EU coastal areas, Summary report ISBN 978-92-79-
12065-7, May 2009 
25  Fisheries Management Costs: Concepts and Studies, Paul Wallis and Ola Flaaten, OECD, 1997 
 
EN 14   EN separate management. A reasonable estimate fo r the total cost of marine management 
to authorities is €1.5 billion. 
The study carried out as part  of the impact assessment10 suggests that 15% of the 
costs of these authorities responsible for ma rine management are associated with data 
processing. Only in the Netherlands were thes e authorities able to obtain most of the 
data that they required from third parties.  In the UK, France and Sweden most data 
was either collected by the organisation itself or had to be thoroughly processed 
before they could be usable. If we ag ain take the 25% for opportunity costs of 
fragmentation we arrive at an a nnual cost in the region of €56 million. 
This does not include the cost of deali ng with uncertainty which is covered in 
sections 3.1.4 and 6.1.3 
3.4.3 Private Companies 
Industry requires marine data to exploit resources more e fficiently and to assess the 
environmental impact of their activities. The study10 determined that marine data was 
required for oil and gas activities, gravel  extraction, renewable energy, pipeline-
laying and port maintenance. Many companies contracted out this work to specialist 
local companies. One Europe-based company specialising in marine data spends 
more than €1.5 billion annually on collecti ng and managing marine data for other 
companies. Data for private companies is la rgely project related.  They are gathered 
for a particular application and then remain embedded in  reports, design reports or 
impact assessments. They are not genera lly re-used. A reasonable estimate for the 
total annual spending by Europe-based private companies is €3 billion. 
Although perhaps 80% of these data are commercially valuable and cannot be 
distributed, many companies indicated that th ey would be willing to share other data 
– particularly those above the sea-floor. Fu rthermore some of th ese data may already 
have been collected by public organisations  but be difficult to access and use for 
reasons outlined in 3.1.2. We therefore estimate the co mpanies' opportunity costs of 
fragmentation as 25% of the 20% - ie €150 million per year. 
3.5 Baseline 
This is not the first time that such defici encies have been identified. The European 
marine data infrastructure issue is part of  a wider debate on the potential gains of 
wider access to public information, of better sh aring of scientific data and of more 
coordinated monitoring of the planet. A nd the EU has already begun a number of 
initiatives aiming to alleviate barriers that prevent progress on these issues. These have already been described in the EMODnet roadmap
4. In this section we 
summarise the findings and explain how EMODn et fits in with these other actions. A 
fuller account is provided in annex 4. 
These actions include both obligations and enabling measures. The distinction 
between the two is not always clear-cut but  in general obligations are those where 
EU legislation obliges Member States to coll ect, assemble or grant access to data and 
enabling measures are those wher e the EU provides some support . 
 
EN 15   EN 3.5.1 Obligations 
The EU's primary tools for promoting better discovery of data, freer access to data 
and fewer restrictions on us e of data-use conditions are 
1. the INSPIRE Directive26 which obliges Member States to adopt measures for the 
sharing of data sets and services  between its public  authorities,  
2. the Environmental Information Directive27 which requires them to release the 
data when asked and  
3. the Public Sector Information Directive28 which facilitates the re-use of public 
data buy by insisting that  it is provided to all third part ies under the same 
conditions. 
These oblige Member States to adopt appropr iate measures in order to achieve the 
desired objectives. A study29 clarified why these measures were not sufficient to 
remove the barriers to the use of marine  data described in section 2.2.2. Broadly 
speaking the study concluded that Member States have correctly implemented the 
legislation at national level. However they  do not necessarily apply to those bodies 
not exercising public authority that hold much  marine data - for instance scientific 
and academic institutions - and they do not override intellectual property rights. They 
do not deal with near-real time observations , historic archives of data or cost-
recovery charging. A review of the P ublic Sector Information Directive30 found that 
re-users in the geographical and meteorol ogical sectors complain ed of high prices, 
restrictive licensing conditions and discrimination. 
In other words there is not a problem of non-implementation of existing international 
and European rules in terms of access to a nd the use/re-use of marine environmental 
data, rather that those rules have a limite d impact on intellectual property rights and 
thus in their ability to facilitate data flows. 
3.5.2 Enabling Actions 
As well as the actions obliging Member Stat es to release data, a number of actions 
have taken place to facilitate the setting up of a marine data infrastructure. These 
include: 
1.  the Data Collection Framework31 through which the Community provides €44 
million annually for the collection of fisheries data. Its latest revision31 has 
reduced the restrictions on access and use of data. It now obliges national authorities holding fisheries data to allo w access for scientific advice, research 
                                                
 
26 Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community. 
27 2003/4/EC 
28 2003/98/EC 
29 Legal aspects of marine environmental data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
Final Report – October 2008 
30  Re-use of Public Sector Information – Review of Directive 2003/98/EC, Brussels, 7.5.2009, 
COM(2009) 212 final, 
31  Council regulation N° 199/2008/EC 
 
EN 16   EN and public debate and to grant the Co mmission access to national computerised 
databases through bilateral agreements.  
2. Framework Programme Projects. A number of projects partly financed by the 
EU's Framework Programme for research  have gone some way towards meeting 
the objectives of EMODnet. Each of them aims to provide better access to 
particular types of marine  data held by Member States by setting up catalogues, 
defining standards and developing the algorithms and software necessary to 
assemble data. 
3. Global Monitoring for Environment and S ecurity (GMES) which provides support 
to marine data infrastructure in two wa ys – first it contributes towards the funding 
of satellites to monitor the marine envi ronment and secondly it supports a "marine 
core service" which can be considered as the forerunner to an ocean forecasting 
system. This is done on a prototype basis through the MyOcean32 project which 
started in 2009 and is funded to the tune of €33 million through the Framework Programme. However from 2014 onwards it is possible that some provision will 
be made in the EU budget for an operational service. 
4. Member States have the obligation to wards the Commission and the European 
Environment Agency under Article.19 of the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive to in respect of data and information resulting from the initial assessments and from the monitoring programmes. The Shared Environmental Information System SEIS
33, a collaborative initia tive of the European 
Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA), is an approach aiming to modernise and simplify the collec tion, exchange and use of the data and 
information required for the design and implementation of e nvironmental policy. 
WISE-marine is the marine component of SEIS. 
5. European Agencies. The mandates of the European Maritime Safety Agency and 
the Community Fisheries Control Agency  are more about the enforcement of 
maritime or fisheries rules than the provision of data for setting up these rules. However the European Maritime Safety Ag ency does act as a hub for distribution 
of vessel traffic informati on which, provided that su itable safeguards regarding 
commercial confidentiality were observed, might, in an appropriate aggregated form, be disseminated more widely. 
6. National Programmes. Member States have also been active. Driven by 
obligations from the Marine Framewor k Strategy Directive, marine spatial 
planning and marine protected areas, Me mber States are be ginning to develop 
information systems for the assembly, cura tion and distribution of marine data.  
These are all useful contributions but can onl y provide part of the solution: the Data 
Collection Framework only deals with fish eries data; GMES only targets services 
where data from satellites plays a substant ial role; SEIS and WISE marine are limited 
to data that must be reported in the fr amework of the Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive; limited duration research projec ts designed to promote innovation are the 
                                                
 
32   http://myocean .oceanobs.com/ 
33  Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) COM(2008) 46 final Brussels, 1 February 
2008 
 
EN 17   EN wrong vehicle for supporting long-term obser vation; European Agencies only hold 
limited amounts of data and national ar chives on their own cannot provide the 
seamless cross-border sea-basin-scale data layers that are required. 
EMODnet was specially conceived as a solution to overcome these shortcomings. A 
prototype version, ur-EMODnet, is bei ng constructed under preparatory action 
funding. Those from budgetary year 2008 are be ing implemented by five consortia. 
Each consortium is responsible for one data  theme and aim to develop map layers of 
two basic types. 
1. showing who is collecting data and where it is being collected For instance for 
bathymetry the map layer will show th e position and characteristics of surveys 
which generally follow the track of a ship. 
2. assembling these data into seamless map-layers with public access. For 
bathymetry the map layers will show a regular grid indicati ng a water depth at 
each point of the grid together with an estimate of precision. 
Table 1 shows how EU initiatives target th e different phases of data processing for 
each of the main types of data defined in the EMODnet roadmap and the different phases of data processing described in section 5.1.1. EU research projects cover a 
number of these topics but are not included here because they are not supposed to be 
permanent structures but rath er should be vehicles for the development of expertise 
and the provision of new methods and tools. 
Table 1 How EU initiatives contribute to marine data infrastructure Research projects and national initiatives 
are not included. Neither are "obligations' such as INSPIRE. The table only covers "enabling measure" financed in part by the EU budget. 
Parameter collection a ssembling Application 
Bathymetry  ur-EMODnet WISE  marine 
Geology  ur-EMODnet  
Physics GMES (space) GMES (except near coast)  GMES 
fisheries (including 
fisheries economy) Data Collection Regulation JRC ICES 
Chemistry  ur-EMODnet WISE-Marine 
Biology  ur-EMODnet WISE Marine 
human activity (other 
than fisheries)   WISE Marine 
coastal and maritime 
economy (except 
fisheries)  Eurostat  
In order to avoid making wrong choices and in order to fit within the budget 
allocation for the preparatory actions, ur-E MODnet is being constructed with more 
modest ambitions than would be  necessary for a full EMODnet:  
1. Geographical scope. Each category of data is only being assembled over a limited 
number of sea-basins. All are being assembled in the North Sea which is being 
taken as a reference and each category of data is also collected over one or more 
other basins. 
2. Range of parameters collected within each  theme. The aim has been to assemble 
representative parameters rather than the complete set - examples of synthetic compounds, heavy metals, radionuclides, fertilisers, organic material and 
 
EN 18   EN hydrocarbons for the chemical lot and examples of phytoplankton, zooplankton, 
angiosperms , macro-algae, invertebrate bottom fauna, bird communities, sea mammals., reptiles for th e biological layers. 
3. Resolution. High resolution da ta is best, since it r ecords the maximum possible 
number of measured points per unit area or  per unit of time. It is possible to 
process high resolution data into lower resolution data by smoothing or 
averaging, but not the other way r ound. However producing seamless high 
resolution map layers over a whol e sea basin is difficult because: 
a. processing the data from the raw da ta is much more time-consuming. 
b. data owners are more reluctant to allow public access to high 
resolution data than for lower resolution data 
c. in some parts of the sea-basin, the raw data needed to produce the 
seamless map may be at too low a resolution 
For this reasons some of the ur-EMODnet  seamless layers are being produced at 
a relatively low resolution. The bathymetry  map layer will be delivered on a grid 
one quarter of a minute of longitude and latitude and the geological map at a one 
to one million scale. These are still at a higher resolution than anything that has 
been available on a sea-basin scale up to  now but for many applications, higher 
resolution data will be required. 
4. Certain data themes are not considered; in  particular physical data, fisheries data 
and human activity data. 
a. fisheries data is dealt with under the Data Collection Regulation for 
fisheries. It is intended that ur-EMODnet and the Data Collection 
Regulation become progressively aligned.  
b. Physical data - currents, tides, waves, temperature, density etc - is 
dealt with by the GMES initiative.  There are gaps but it was judged 
appropriate to wait till these gaps became clearer before embarking on 
an action to deliver physical data. 
c. Socio-economic data on coastal communities and the maritime 
economy – employment, profits, age-structure etc. Eurostat are working on improving the quality and comparability of those available at a European level. 
Despite these limitations, it is expected that  the ur-EMODnet being constructed will 
not only provide indications of how a future EMODnet will operate but will also provide data that are in themselves useful.  
Whilst EMODnet is aimed at providing the ma terial for scientists, public authorities 
and private bodies with the data they n eed to provide value added products and 
services, the European Atlas of the Seas has a wider set of target users. It aims to 
increase public awareness of the sea, clarify the spatial dimension of EU policies with an impact on the sea and develop the identities of individua l sea-basins. Some 
of the data will be provided by ur-EMODn et. A first version will be published in 
 
EN 19   EN January 2010 and subsequently refined. The nature of the Atlas, and its inherent 
limitations, can never provide the level of  detail required for the purposes of 
EMODnet. 
3.5.3 Current data availability 
Due to the fragmented nature of Europe's data, and to the relative immaturity of the 
different initiatives aiming to make access eas ier for users, it is difficult to assess 
what the current state of Europe's data is and where the priorities lie for collecting more data. However some early qualitative indications are: 
Bathymetry  Though such data are colle cted by all Member States, many users 
have to obtain data through less restrictive pathways. Paradoxically 
it is easier in some cases to obtain the data from NATO, a transatlantic organisation for collective defence, than the national hydrographic offices that collected th e data in the first place. The 
current preparatory actions will pr oduce a grid cove ring the greater 
part of European waters at a scale of quarter of a minute 
(approximately 500 metres). Most marine applications require 
much finer resolution – between 50 and 100 metres. Raw data in 
the form of surveys by many organi sations exists to produce this 
finer-resolution layer but it is cu rrently largely unavailable because 
of licensing restrictions and ignor ance as to who holds the data. A 
first inventory of surveys is bei ng set-up as part of ur-EMODnet. 
Geology Generally each country only ha s one reference point for archiving 
and distributing geological data and this facilitates data assembly. 
The main difficulty is to develop agreed standards. Presently there are no sediment and strata ma ps covering whole sea-basins 
although a limited number are being constructed at a scale of one 
to one million for ur-EMODnet. Finer resolution maps will be more challenging technically. 
Physics Information on physical propertie s near the coast is not amenable 
to satellite observation and so is  not part of GMES. The SEPRISE 
project
34 achieved some success in assembling measurements in 
near-real-time from fixed statio ns and buoys of sea surface 
temperature, significant wave he ight, salinity, s ea level, and 
currents but this project has ende d. There is currently no way of 
obtaining an overview of these measurements in a sea-basin and the data is largely inaccessible. 
Chemistry Ongoing preparatory actions in  ur-EMODnet have identified which 
parameters are required for monitoring the marine Framework Strategy Directive. The main ch allenges are to understand whether 
the monitoring density is sufficient to ascertain the quality and precision of measurements and an swer questions on environmental 
                                                
 
34  Sustained, Efficient Production of Required Information Services, Specific Support Action, Sixth 
Framework Programme 
 
EN 20   EN status – some of which have been made many years ago. Some 
Member States are protective of in terpretations of chemical data 
because of possible implications for compliance with environmental regulations.   
Biology Monitoring the abundance and dive rsity of species requires long 
time-series and the incorporation of data collected by many different methods. The approach be ing taken in ur-EMODnet is to 
build on existing databases such as the Ocean Biogeographic Information System. An early finding  is that fewer observations are 
being aborbed into databases. The number of observations per year 
peaked in 1995 and descended ra pidly thereafter. The reason for 
this is unknown. It is  still a challenge to convert the raw 
observations into time and space dependent species abundance. 
Fisheries The Data Collection Fram ework has establis hed a collection 
strategy that meets the needs of  the Common Fisheries Policy but 
re-use of data assembled for a particular purpose requires the permission of all the individual bodies that provided the data. 
Human 
Activity Human activity data (other than fish eries) includes parameters such 
as gravel extraction activity, shipping lanes and aquaculture 
characteristics. These data are essential for spatial planning or 
estimating environmental pressu re for the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive. There ar e no ongoing efforts by public 
authorities to assemble such information on a sea-basin basis. 
3.5.4 The future 
Measures implementing the INSPIRE Directive will continue in the next years and 
will be essential in establishing a basic set of standards for spatial data. However as we have indicated, these standards on their own will not be enough. They are necessary but not sufficient. "Enabling" as well as "obligation" measures will be 
required. 
The fisheries data infrastruc ture will continue to improve as measures taken under 
the revised Data Collection Regulation start to take effect. However the stakeholder 
survey indicates that nearly all fisheries scientists require other parameters – to 
determine the impact of the water depth, turbidity, salinity, temp erature on spawning 
or the abundance of predators such as birds or marine mammals on mortality for 
instance. 
GMES will progressively become Europe 's reference source of information for 
satellite measurements of the ocean a nd model-derived circulation patterns in 
Europe's seas and oceans. However without a solid infrastructure for non-space measurements, the programme could fail to me et its potential. Furthermore, as we 
move closer to the coast, finer resolution information is required than can be provided from space. Even if models are av ailable, users need measurements to 
calibrate them and in orde r to assess their accuracy. 
 
EN 21   EN There are no ongoing efforts other than  EMODnet that aim to improve the 
availability of bathymetry data. The stakeholder survey showed that nearly all 
investigations into marine behaviour require data on the shape and texture of the sea 
bottom.  
WISE-marine will construct indicators for the environmental assessment of the 
marine environment largely from biological , chemical and human activity data. Ur-
EMODnet will contribute to this process in  a limited number of sea-basins. It will 
show gaps and duplications in the monito ring network and a llow sea-basin-scale 
pictures to be developed. It will be di fficult to make progress on WISE marine 
without further development of  the biological and chemical layers of ur-EMODnet.  
However the task should not be underestima ted. Assessing the biolog ical state of the 
ocean is undoubtedly more complex than determining its physical or chemical state. Developing meaningful ways of assembling fragmented, uneven data to describe the 
abundance and diversity of infrequently sa mpled, short-lived or migrating marine 
populations will take a sustained effort. U r-EMODnet brings together for the first 
time a number of separate initiatives with the aim of assessing the challenges for the 
whole spectrum of all significant taxa fr om phytoplankton through seagrasses to 
marine mammals. But it is just the beginning – analysing the challenges for three 
species per taxa in a limited number of  sea-basins. Ur-EM ODnet will need 
strengthening if this effort is to be effective. 
3.6 EU right to act – Treaty basis 
The EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy has, at  its present stage, no explicit Treaty legal 
basis, but at the same time covers many different policy areas where the Community 
received explicit powers to act (fisheries , environment, transport, research and 
technological development, enterprise a nd industry, etc.) and where the general and 
specific objectives of EMODnet coincide with those of the Treaty. The specific 
objectives of EMODnet are primarily aimed at supporting industry,  public authorities 
(and through them the environment) and research through netw orking. A number of 
Treaty bases are therefore applicable. 
1. Article 157 (1) of the EC  Treaty states that “ the Community and the Member 
States shall ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the 
Community’s industry exist ”. For that purpose, in accordance with a system of 
open and competitive markets, their act ion shall be aimed at inter alia 
“encouraging an environment favourable to initiative and to the development of 
undertakings throughout the Community ” (particularly SMEs) and “ fostering 
better exploitation of the indus trial potential of policie s of innovation, research 
and technological development ”. Serving the Community and Member States’ 
industry is one of the specific objective s of EMODnet. The recent proposal for a 
GMES Regulation
35 is based on Article 157(1), fo r industrial competitiveness 
even though a secondar y objective is to " give access to accurate data and 
information in the field of envir onment and security under Community 
control(…) tailored to the need s of a wide range of users ." 
                                                 
35  COM(2009) 223 final 2009/0070 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the 
Council on the European Earth observation programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011–2013) 
 
EN 22   EN 2. Article 175 of the EC Treaty serves as legal basis fo r most legal instruments 
relating to the Community’s policy on the environment. This Article grants the 
Council the power to decide, in certain instances in accordance with the co-
decision procedure in Ar ticle 251 EC Treaty an d following appropriate 
consultation, what action is required by the Community in order to achieve the 
objectives of the Community policy on the environment and to adopt the 
measures necessary for the implementation of the action programmes. EMODnet is explicitly seen as a thematic contribu tion to SEIS ("the legal implementation of 
which will provide regulatory powers relevant to EMODnet"
36), and it closely 
interacts with the Marine Strategy Framework Directive37 as it will serve as a 
"marine data warehouse" for the users of WISE-Marine38. Further, environmental 
policy and decision-making will clearly be able to benefit from EMODnet through improved quality of data, better knowledge of the marine environment, 
and of the impact of sustainable development policies.  
3. EMODnet is explicitly incorporated in  the Strategy for Marine and Maritime 
Research as a tool to support marine scie ntific research, and it is clear that the 
scientific research community will be able to benefit from EMODnet. 
Strengthening marine scientific research  is one of the specific objectives of 
EMODnet. Further, EMODnet will be able to build on existing initiatives under FP7 (such as SeaDataNet or other work on the establishment of e-infrastructures) 
and may benefit from joint undertakings  or other structures set up by the 
Community to implement its RTD policy in accordance with Article 171 of the 
EC Treaty
 39. 
4. Article 154 of the EC Treaty states that: “ to help achieve the objectives referred 
to in Articles 14 and 158 and to enable ci tizens of the Union,  economic operators 
and regional and local communities to deri ve full benefit from the setting-up of 
an area without internal frontiers, the Community shall contribute to the 
establishment and development of trans-E uropean networks in the areas of 
transport, telecommunications and energy infrastructures ”. There is direct 
precedent for the fact that, where the aim of the measure has been to ensure the interoperability of national networks  by means of operational measures of a 
technical nature, Article 156 of the EC Treaty was an appropriate legal basis
40. 
Measures can have a dual legal basis. Howe ver, the threshold for deeming a measure 
to have a dual legal basis is quite high. The fact that a cert ain measure will produce 
benefits to a Community objective is not sufficient to establish the relevance of that 
                                                 
36   See EMODNET Roadmap, p. 39. 
37  Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a 
framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive) Official Journal L 164 , 25/06/2008 P. 0019 - 0040 
38   See EMODNET Roadmap, p. 40. 
39   Article 171 of the EC Treaty provides that “the  Community may set up joint undertakings or any other 
structure necessary for the effici ent execution of Community research , technological development and 
demonstration programmes”. With regard to ERIC’s, see also above. 
40  This provision was used as a legal basis to set up EDICOM, the inter-administration telematic network 
for statistics relating to the trading of goods be tween Member States (cf. Council Decision n° 
96/715/EC of 9 December 1996 on in ter-administration telematic networ ks for statistics relating to the 
trading of goods between Member States, OJ L 327, 18 .12.1996, p. 34, previously Council Decision n° 
94/445/EC of 11 July 1994, as annulled by the ECJ by judgement of 26 March 1996 in Case C-271/94). 
 
EN 23   EN objective as a legal basis41. Nevertheless, it is settled case-law that when a measure 
simultaneously pursues a number of objectiv es or has several components that are 
indissolubly linked, without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other, 
such an act will have to  be founded on the various corresponding legal bases42. 
4 OBJECTIVES  
4.1 General Objectives 
The general objective of the ex ercise is to underpin EU po licies that preserve, protect 
and improve the quality of the environm ent, pursue the prudent and rational 
utilisation of natural resour ces, strengthen the scientific and technological bases of 
Community industry, support th e common transport policy, progressively establish 
an area of freedom, security  and justice, incr ease fisheries produc tivity and support 
an open market with free competition. 
These objectives are taken from those set out in the Treaty on European Union and 
the Treaty establishing the European Community43. They are not in order of 
importance but in reverse order to which th ey appear in the tr eaties. The general 
objective of this initiative thus  highlights its cross-cutting na ture. It integrates various 
sector policies. 
4.2 Specific Objectives 
We can distinguish three main aims: 
1. to reduce operational costs and delays  for those who use marine data and 
therefore: 
a) help private industry compete in the global economy  and meet the 
challenge of sustainability; 
b) improve the quality of public deci sion-making at all levels. Coastal 
protection, impact assessments, mar itime spatial planning, maritime 
surveillance, licensing and fisher ies management are all heavily 
dependent on marine knowledge. E fficient implementation of the 
Marine Framework Strategy Directive37 requires a working marine 
data infrastructure. 
c) strengthen marine scientific research; 
2. to increase competition amongst users of marine data by providing wider access 
to quality-checked, rapidly-available cohe rent marine data and hence stimulate 
the development of new innovative services; 
3. to reduce uncertainty in knowledge of the oceans and the seas and so provide a 
sounder basis for managing inevitable future changes. 
                                                 
41 C-42/97 Parliament v Council  [1999] ECR I-869, paragraph 62. 
42  See Case C-178/03 Commission v Parliament and Council  [2003], paragraphs 41-43 and 57. 
43  (consolidated text) Official Jo urnal C 321E of 29 December 2006 
 
EN 24   EN 4.3 Operational Objective 
The specific objectives could be achieved by setting up and maintaining at an EU 
level: 
1. a catalogue of European marine data collections with common formats and 
nomenclature complete with information including at least ge ographical location, 
time of measurement, owne rship, precision and accuracy. 
2. a set of complete interoperable layers for European sea basins, showing where 
data is being collected, where the ga ps are and providing seamless quality-
checked data layers (gridded or poly gons) for unrestricted public access. 
3. a user-driven process that determines prio rities for the collection and assembly of 
marine data and that directs support to those activities th at need to be carried out 
at an EU level in the most appropriate way. 
4.4 Consistency with other EU policies and horizontal objectives 
The objectives are consistent with other EU policies discussed in section 3.5.1 that 
have the broad aim of creating fair co mpetition and non-discrimination between all 
potential users of public  sector information.  
Marginal cost charging (rather than cost -recovery) by Member States is encouraged 
in the preamble to the Public Sector Information Directive28 
and Member States should encourage  public sector bodies to make 
documents available at charges that  do not exceed the marginal costs for 
reproducing and disseminating the documents 
They are consistent with the Commission's position on "scientific information in the 
digital age: access, dissemination and preservation"44 
Initiatives leading to wider access to and dissemination of scientific 
information are necessary, especially with regard to journal articles and 
research data produced on th e basis of public funding. 
They are consistent with other EU policies with a maritime dimension. The goal of 
the integrated maritime policy is to put into  effect measures that contribute to the 
effectiveness of separate EU policies but  that cannot be imp lemented through one 
policy alone. This is clearly reflected  in the general objective which draws upon 
various Treaty articles. A be tter marine infrastructure will provide the underpinning 
data to manage and monitor the progress of  the Common Fisheries Policy towards an 
ecosystem approach. 
Achieving the objectives will  help Member States join tly monitor the advance of 
their sea-basins towards good environmental status as  required by the Marine 
Strategy Framework Directive37. Indeed the parameters selected for the chemical and 
biological components of the preparatory actions for ur-E MODnet were specifically 
                                                 
44  Brussels, 14.2.2007 COM(2007) 56 final 
 
EN 25   EN chosen to assess how much information is already available to set up the indicators 
that will be required for the Directive. 
The objectives are consistent with the Lisbon  Agenda. It is expected that the freer 
availability of data will en courage the growth of an innovative value-added sector 
tailoring the data for specific applicati ons including assimila tion into computer 
models and forecasts. 
They are consistent with the sustaina ble development strategy. A better data 
infrastructure will allow a more precise  assessment of the impact of proposed 
developments on the marine environment a nd will facilitate the monitoring of the 
sustainable development strategy itself. 
They are consistent with the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. 
Particularly relevant is freedom of expressi on - to receive and impart information and 
ideas without interference by public authority. A better marine data infrastructure will provide concerned communities the means to independently assess the state of 
their local seas and the impact of plan s that might affect their well-being and 
livelihood. 
5 P
OLICY OPTIONS  
5.1 Possible Options 
Before starting any new initiative to improve the marine data infrastructure, the 
following questions should be answered.  
1. What activities should th e EU support, in particular financially?  
2. What is the most appropriate legal instrument? 
3. How should any support be managed? 
The aim is to look at the opportunity of EU  actions and its poten tial costs; not to 
define the potential source of financing. 
5.1.1 What should the EU do? 
Turning marine data into knowledge and information requires three broad steps: 
A. observation or collecting data- automa tically through permanently moored or 
mobile instruments or through samples co llected at sea and analysed in the 
laboratory. Observational data are usually stored by the data originator for their 
own use, or within specific programmes.  Data may be transferred to a Data 
Centre for permanent archive, sometimes at national level.  
B. assembling data from many sources so as to provide complete coherent, quality-
checked data over wider sea areas such as marine basins, with ability to select 
and compare or combine different data parameters over the same area. 
 
EN 26   EN C. applying the data to compute statistics, make forecasts, assimilate and process 
through models, predict extreme values, or provide environmental indicators,- for 
instance of water quality, co astal erosion, fish popul ation, or tsunami risk.. 
However it would be extremely hard to make a case for EU supporting data 
collection without knowing what is being collected already by national agencies 
where the gaps are and where the greatest user demand is. Neither would it be possible to develop indicators or adde d value products without assembling and 
processing the data that make up these i ndicators. We theref ore consider three 
options for action: 
1. ASSEMBLING the data to provide access to  coherent, quality-checked, securely-
maintained data over complete marine basins at marginal cost. The word 'assembling" should not imply a central database. Modern information technology allows the data to be dist ributed in a network but accessed through 
one gateway. Guaranteeing safe archiving for posterity is also included within 
this option.  
2. COLLECTION - the same as option 1 but  in addition sup porting observation 
systems and the collection of data – au tomatically through permanently moored 
or mobile instruments or through samples collected at sea and analysed in the 
laboratory. 
3. APPLICATION - the same as option 1 but also applying the data to provide 
indicators – for instance of envir onmental quality, coastal erosion, fish 
population or tsunami risk. 
These are the three basic op tions for EU support. Options 2 and 3 are not mutually 
exclusive. Neither, either or bot h could be considered for action. 
5.1.2 What is the most appropr iate legal instrument? 
Presently the European Union requires Memb er States to collect certain data under 
various regimes. Fisheries data is co llected through a Council Regulation; some 
environmental data are collected through Counc il Directives. In addition some of the 
information can be used for other purposes th an for the specific reason they are being 
collected while others cannot. The options are: 
1. A Council Regulation 
2. A Council Directive 
3. A Council Decision 
4. A Council Recommendation 
5. A Commission Recommendation 
These options can be combined, but shoul d constitute a clear architecture. They 
should be assessed in particular in  terms of the administrative burden. 
 
EN 27   EN 5.1.3 How should this support be managed? 
The word "Network" in the "European Marine Observation and Data Network" is 
deliberate. There has never been any inte ntion to set up a colossal undertaking that 
takes on the burden of collec ting, processing and applying  all of Europe's marine 
data. Rather the aim has been to bind Europe's institutions together into a sustainable framework for the benefit of themselves and those who use the data. However the 
system requires an efficient decision making process at an EU level to decide what 
data is going to be collect ed and how it should be asse mbled and a secretariat to 
administer the process. The decisi on-making could be by Committee but the 
secretariat requires a small gr oup of staff whose full-time j ob is to prepare meetings, 
managing contracts with the disciplinary assembly groups and se a-basin checkpoints, 
ensuring deadlines are met and prepare an annual report of activity. Options for the 
secretariat are: 
1. carry on as before. Continue to support the marine data infrastructure in specific 
areas such as fisheries or space and thr ough limited duration research projects or 
ah-hoc regulatory arrangements.  
2. charge an existing institution - Joint Research Centre, European Environment 
Agency, ICES or EuroGOOS have been me ntioned by stakeholders - to provide a 
secretariat that would prepare contracts for thematic assembly groups to manage 
a certain set of data – defined parameters  over a defined sea-ba sin or set of sea-
basins. These thematic assembly groups would be the principal nodes of the 
Network and would themselves communicat e with the secondary nodes of the 
Network – national institutes 
3. develop a new entity that w ould act in the same way as  the previous option. This 
might fulfil the requirements for a European Research Infrastructure
45 or a 
European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation46 or require a new status. 
4. charge an organisation through a compe titive call for the same tasks as the 
previous options. 
Here the four options are mutually exclusive. The manner in which the tasks are 
carried: i.e. grants to organisations or proc urement of services should be specified in 
the agreed work programme.  
5.2 Discarded options 
5.2.1 What should the EU do? 
Error! Objects cannot be crea ted from editing field codes.  
Figure 2 Opinion from stakeholders as to which phases of data process chain the EU should be 
involved in. 
                                                 
45  European Research In frastructure Consortium (ERIC), Counc il Regulation (EC) N° 723/2009 of 25 
June 2009 
46   Regulation (EC) No 1082/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on a 
European grouping of terr itorial cooperation (EGTC) 
 
EN 28   EN More than 95% of those cons ulted thought that the EU has a role to play in all the 
phases of turning data into knowledge – collecting, processing and applying – with 
some 60% "strongly" supporting such a role (Figure 2). However we have decided at 
this stage that the third phase - application of the data – is inappropriate for EMODnet. This is not because the EU does no t have a role but ra ther because it is 
out of scope of this pa rticular initiative.  
The European Marine Observation and Data  Network is part of the integrated 
maritime policy. The aim is to provide a basic infrastructure that benefits a variety of applications. Data archiving and provision in  response to requests has the nature of a 
public good. Processing the data into customer-related applications products should usually be a commercial and competitive business, where SMEs obtain data from the best sources, merge and process for specialist use, and market competitively 
Some of these applications w ill be on behalf of public authorities – local, national or 
European - who require the da ta for a particular purpose; to assess fish stocks, to 
forecast coastal erosion, to warn against tsunamis or to provide regional climate forecasts for instance. In these cases it is appropriate that the specific users of such data pay for the costs of the additional work to produce the required indicators or 
parameters. Thus, for instance, a civil protection budget ought to pay for tsunami 
warnings, with the appropriate authorities balancing precision agai nst cost. This is 
not to say that these authorities woul d not benefit from EMODnet. By providing 
better access to the data on which the warnin gs are built, EMODnet lowers their cost. 
And by allowing universal access to data, it increases the number of  providers able to 
deliver such a service. Increasing competition will drive down costs and improve the quality of service. 
Another example of an information system  that will benefit fr om EMODnet is the 
WISE-marine information system which is be ing specifically constructed to meet the 
regulatory requirements of the Mari ne Strategy Framework Directive
37. 
Climate change might be a special case. One could argue that forecasts of future sea-
level rise or ocean circulation are of such a wide benefit over all policies – transport, 
environment, energy – that the producti on and dissemination of integrated EU-
approved parameters might be justified. Ho wever at this moment the confidence in 
single predictions is not high enough to warra nt putting all our eggs into one basket. 
Here again competition drives progress. Confidence is increased by allowing different research teams to compare results of different methods. By facilitating access to quality-checked data, researchers wi ll be able to calibrate and validate their 
individual models more eas ily, progressively reduce the uncertainties and converge 
on agreed solutions. 
Finally we argue in this impact assessmen t that competition is enhanced if the 
organisation that collects and manages the da ta is not then automatically responsible 
for application of the data. Issues relevant to competition law could potentially arise if at a later stage specific EMODnet projec ts were classified as  economic activities. 
Consequently EMODnet would be classified  as an undertaking and competition law 
would apply It would not be appropriate if an initiative that aims to benefit 
competition could itself be accuse d of benefitting from a monopoly. 
 
EN 29   EN 5.2.2 What is the most appropr iate legal instrument? 
Many observations have been made by nationa l agencies in order to fulfil their own 
national policy objectives for national benefit. That is what their taxpayers expect.  
The question is, to what extent should na tional agencies conduct work to fulfil EU 
objectives, and using money that would othe rwise be used for short-term national 
purposes? This concern applies, even when it can be shown that it is in the national 
interest to comply with the EU po licy, since large benefits will result. 
Thus the most important decision to be ta ken therefore is the sharing of the burden 
between the EU and national le vel; hence the distinction 
Regulation/Directive/Recommendation. The an alysis will combine the Council and 
Commission Recommendation optio n, given that the decision as to whether this is 
done by the Council or Commission is of a secondary nature. 
5.2.3 How should this support be managed? 
A priori there is no reason to discard any of the optio ns for administering the 
"Network" – carrying on as before, chargi ng an existing institution with the job, or 
supporting a new entity. 
6 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS  
In this assessment we distinguish primary impacts and derived impacts. The primary 
impacts are a direct result of achieving our operational objec tive and improving the 
marine data infrastructure. The derived impacts follow from the primary impacts. For instance an increase in competition, which is  a primary impact, should result in better 
services and reduced cost to public au thorities, which are derived impacts. 
We shall aim to show the long-term impacts of an ideal marine spatial infrastructure. 
These long-term benefits justify the effo rt spent on investigating how such an 
infrastructure should be set up and what its cost will be. However ur-EMODnet will not only be useful in defi ning these parameters but w ill itself provide useful 
information to the marine community. These short-term benefits will be described separately. 
We examine first the options as to what should be done. The "do nothing" scenario is 
described in section "3.5.4 The future". Basi cally we would continue to struggle with 
high operational costs, limited competition a nd high uncertainty in the ocean's future 
behaviour. Local national data needs would be partially sa tisfied by national agencies 
as in the past. 
6.1 Primary impacts 
The new policy for marine knowledge, howev er it is implemented, will have four 
primary impacts – the first three positiv e and corresponding to the specific objective 
of the programme and the fourth negative. 
1. reduced operational costs and increased productivity for those who process and 
use marine data 
 
EN 30   EN 2. greater competition for the a pplication of marine data 
3. reduced uncertainty on the state and circ ulation of the oceans and coastal seas 
4. implementation costs for setting up a nd operating a new infrastructure 
With careful attention to the design of th e observing system at sea and the collection 
of data, the same system can provide data  rapidly for commercial and short-term 
regulatory administration, as we ll as data types which are needed for climate change 
models and planetary models of  biodiversity and sustainabil ity.  The first type of data 
and application provides a socio-economic benefit which pays off rapidly, with no 
uncertainty about discounting rates. The latter may ultima tely be more important in 
the long run, but there is so much uncer tainty both about the science, and the 
economic assumptions, that it is extremely di fficult to quantify the benefit accurately. 
Both types of data and data processing are important. 
The other economic, social and environmenta l impacts are a result of these four 
primary impacts and the magnitude of th ese impacts will depend on the particular 
options chosen. 
6.1.1 Direct Operational Costs 
Nearly all stakeholders – in  research, public administratio n or industry - report that 
the current marine data infras tructure is not fit for purpose.  It is therefore expected 
that any improvements will reduce their operational costs. 
Option 1, "assembling", would lower these operational costs by reducing the labour 
involved in discovering and accessing data and then proc essing them so that the 
different components are interoperable. In section "3.4 Who is affected?" we 
estimate that the savings would be €100 million annually for scientists, €56 million for public authorities and €150 million for private companies. In those cases where the cost of data is an issue, the adoption of  marginal cost rather than cost recovery 
will also reduce operational cost s. It will also contribut e to faster delivery. If a 
request for data can be met within a few days, it may be worth having. If it would 
take a few weeks, then the user may give up.  
Option 2 "collection" will bring additional benefits to those sectors using the 
information. It might reduce the need for a dditional observations to meet the required 
precision. 
These impacts are in the longer term. In  the short term the ur-EMODnet being 
constructed will allow a bette r knowledge of the coverage of the present observation 
network. This will be of particular use for Member States in meeting obligations to the Marine Framework Strategy Direct ive. Article 11 indicates that " Monitoring 
programmes shall be compatible with in marine regions or subregions ". The 
parameters for the chemical and biological th emes were chosen sp ecifically to meet 
the needs of this Directive. 
6.1.2 Competition 
Making data more available will increas e competition to deliver the value added 
products derived from the data. Option 1, "assembling", will increase competition 
 
EN 31   EN since those who collect data will no l onger occupy a favoured position in delivering 
these products. Moving from a monopoly to a competitive market in general 
improves quality and allows innovation to flourish. Experience suggests that 
innovation flourishes if entrep reneurs are given the opportuni ty to compete on a level 
playing-field.  
Thus better data will not only improve the efficiency of existing services but allow 
new services to develop. It is notoriously difficult to assess what these services will 
be. Nobody predicted the growth in text-messaging once cell-phone networks 
became established. Bill Gates was late in realising the significance of the internet47. 
Recently scientists searching for noise from incoming neutrinos in deep water 
discovered hitherto unknown activity of  sperm whales in the Mediterranean48. There 
are a number of areas where new services might be expected. These could be: 
1. business to government; 
Fisheries. Advice on stocks fished by several Member States is generally 
delivered by working groups made up of laboratories from these Member States – each bringing their own data. A ssembling the data together beforehand 
would allow other operators to test and develop new methods for assessing 
stocks and providing advice. 
2. or business to business;  
Bioprospecting. Greater knowledge of se diments, habitats and sea-floor 
topography will allow those searching for products such as enzymes or pharmaceuticals to target th eir exploration better. 
Tourism. An operator providing informati on on marine species distribution (eg. 
marine mammals) based on publicly availa ble sources could provide services 
to the tourist industry; 
Energy. Forecasting peak wave conditions based on historic data would allow 
the offshore industry – both oil and rene wable energy – to design structures 
with appropriate margins of safety to withstand these peak loads.  
These increases in competition will accrue as the coverage and resolution of 
EMODnet improves. Even in its initial pha ses Ur-EMODnet will start to show where 
data are available under non-restrictive cond itions and in these areas more private 
and public operators will find it  easier to enter the market for the development of 
added value products. 
Option 2 "collection" will not bring any significant competition benefits. 
                                                
 
47  Bill Gates – The Internet Tidal Wave. Microsoft, May 26, 1995. Made publicly available at United 
States Department of Justice 
48  The neutrino and the whale. Nature Vol 462, 3 December 2009 
 
EN 32   EN 6.1.3 Reduced uncertainty 
The oceans and seas have a strong influence on human activities as described in 
section 3.1.4 
A better measurement infrastructure will reduce uncertainty in the future behaviour 
of the oceans. This will allow more cer tainty by business and public authority in 
planning for the future.  
According to a recent analysis49 the three most vulnerable areas for sea-level rise in 
Europe in terms of potential economic damage are London, the Netherlands and Venice. The impact of uncertainty on costs has been studied in th e framework of this 
assessment
10. The study shows that whereas the London engineers consider a mean 
sea-level rise above 1 metre unlikely, th e Dutch consider a range of 0.7-1.3 metres. 
Possibly memories of the catastrophic 1953 flood cause more caution. In the London 
case considerations of uncer tainty have led engineers to reduce the target number 
(maximum water levels) from +4.2m to +2.7m and allowed the project team to 
discard the very expensive estuary barrage fr om the list of final options. This is an 
indication of uncertainty's role in cost. It is estimated that a further 25% reduction in uncertainty in sea-level rise would sa ve public authorities (see section "3.1.4 
Uncertainty") 
By allowing those who estimate marine processes better access  to data through 
option 1 "assembling", these uncertainties will be reduced. 
However more data is clearly needed, part icularly near the coast. In a recent book 
concerning uncertainty in environmental predictions
50.  
Accurate prediction of future sea-le vel change is clearly impossible but 
predicting the direction and the gene ral magnitude of changes in the 
level of the sea is within the realm of our capabilities (...) The logical 
next step should be to turn toward s a more data-rich, qualitive (sic) 
modelling and to seek answers of a more general nature, to seek likely trends for the future, to example a ll the possible scenarios, the worst and 
best cases. It would make sense to spend a higher proportion of effort 
and money to gather fiel d data to answer the many remaining basic 
questions about the future of the atmosphere and ocean. 
Biogeochemical sampling in the coastal seas  is well below optimum, and still very 
difficult. What has become apparent in th e last few decades is that many processes 
are much more "spiky" and variable than we used to think, with peaks and troughs 
both in time and space. Thus measurement schemes which we used to think were 
describing the "average" conditions are a nything but. Emerging projects such as 
Smart Buoys (time variability) and Ferry Box (space variability) are beginning to fill 
the gaps, but only beginning. 
                                                
 
49   Policy Research Corporation Final report to the European Commission (2009) “The economics of 
climate change adaptation in EU coastal areas” 
50  OH Pilky and L Pilkey-Jarvis, 2007 "Useless Arith metic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict 
the Future", Columbia University  Press, ISBN 978-0-231-13212-I 
 
EN 33   EN Option 2 "collection", if properly targeted, will therefore show additional benefits 
over and above option 1 "assembling".  
These reductions in uncertainty will pr ogressively increase as  EMODnet develops. 
The first phase, ur-EMODnet, will play a significant role because it will provide a 
better indication of what the uncertainty is at present. 
6.1.4 Implementation costs 
6.1.4.1  Option 1 Assembling 
The preparatory actions of ur-EMODnet  currently underway are summarized in 
Table 2 which shows how much is being spent by the Commission now and how far 
away from a fully-developed infrastructural system it is. 
Table 2 Current expenditure on  marine data infrastructure 
 Preparatory 
actions 2008 
budgetpercentage of 
basins coveredpercentage of 
parameters 
covered Refinement of 
resolution needed
bathymetry €975,000 40% 50% X10geology €925,000 30% 100% X10chemistry €700,000 25% 20% 1biology €850,000 20% 5% 1
Total €3,450,000    
We will use this as at basis to estimate the total cost of moving from the prototype 
ur-EMODnet to a more operational EMODnet. These actions have only recently started so there are wide ma rgins of uncertainty in these numbers. However we can 
make an approximation. We assume th at the cost can be estimated by: 
1. Assuming that 40% of the pr esent cost is ove rhead and methods development and 
60% is the assembly and processing of data. 
2. Extrapolating to full coverage of the 10 European sub-basins defined in the 
Marine Framework Strategy Directive and assuming that covering each sea-basin 
costs the same. 
3. Extrapolating to a full range of parameters. This assumes that we obtain 
roughness as well as water depth for th e hydrographic layers and that we 
assemble a fuller range of chemical  compounds and biological species.  
4. Refining the resolution for the hydrographi c layers to 50 metres and for the 
geological lot to 1:100,000. Although the amou nt of data increas es quadratically 
with resolution, we assume that  the cost increases linearly. 
5. Assembling fisheries data is facilita ted by work done already under the Data 
Collection Framework on nomenclature st andards and aggrega tion levels. Human 
activity is open-ended but we can assume that obtaining information on the main activities that have an impact on the marine environment – gravel extraction, 
petroleum exploration, aquaculture – will re quire some thought in order to arrive 
at mutually compatible data across the Member States. Some work on assembling 
 
EN 34   EN physical data has already been done within  EU research projects. Scaling these 
up for European coverage results in a figure of €10 million. 
Moving from the baseline in Table 2 to the fully operational system, our estimate for 
the completion of all the data layers fo r an operational EMODnet with complete 
coverage of European sea-basins, a hi gher resolution and a better coverage of 
parameters is summarised in Table 3 
Table 3 First Estimate of cost of setting up marine data infrastructure 
 Preparatory 
actions 2008 
budgetpercentage 
of basins 
coveredpercentage 
of 
parameters 
coveredRefinement 
of 
resolution 
needed complete 
coverage 
hydrography €975,000 40% 50% 10 €29,250,000
geology €925,000 30% 100% 10 €18,500,000chemistry €700,000 25% 20% 1 €8,400,000biology €850,000 20% 5% 1 €51,000,000Sub-total €3,450,000    €107,150,000fisheries     €2,000,000physics     €20,000,000Human activity    €4,000,000
Total    €133,150,000
We then arrive at a figure of near ly €133 million to set up the complete 
infrastructure.  If we were to limit ourselves to completing the geographical coverage with the current re solution and parameters only, th e amount required would be €10 
million. If we increase the percentage of  parameters and complete geographical 
coverage without the increas e in resolution the total amount would be €60 million. 
This last figure is dominated by the biol ogical component where the discussion of an 
ideal set of parameters  is least advanced. 
We have to add to this the cost of running a secretariat, quality control and priority 
setting and the cost of maintaining the da ta. Quality control w ould be additional to 
that implemented by those setting up the in frastructure and be implemented at a sea-
basin level. It would ensure compatibility  between the different thematic layers. 
Priority setting would also be implemented at the sea-basin level and include analysis 
of user feedback. Maintenance includes the addition of data from new surveys and the regular updating of physical, chemical a nd biological data laye rs from monitoring 
programmes. This cost would rise as the c overage and resolution of the data layers 
increases. Assuming a ten year programme
51, an annual sum of €18 million is 
required for the first five years, €20 m illion for the next five years and €11 million 
subsequently as indicated in Table 4. 
                                                 
51  This is assumed to start in 2011 and finish in 2020 in line with the Commission's "EU 2002"objectives . 
 
EN 35   EN Table 4 First estimates of annual costs of a programme aiming to achieve fully oper ational infrastructure for 
assembling data  in 10 years. 
 First five 
yearsSecond Five 
Years Thereafter
Implementation €13,000,000 €13,000,000 
sea-basin quality control and priority setting €2,000,000 €2,000,000 €2,000,000
maintenance and updating €2,000,000 €4,000,000 €8,000,000
secretariat €1,000,000 €1,000,000 €1,000,000Total €18,000,000 €20,000,000 €11,000,000
The present impact assessment however s uggests however that the programme will 
be preceded by a more modest extension of ur-EMODnet that will further clarify the 
steps involved in setting up the operational infrastructure. This extension will focus on completing coverage at a low resolution, in vestigating types of data that have not 
been assembled so far (physics and human activity) and maintaining the layers that 
have already been produced. The average a nnual cost for a three-year programme is 
estimated at €7,500,000. More details are pr ovided in section 7.1.7 "Interim Period 
2011-2013" 
These costs would be offset to some ex tent by a reduction in funding from the 
Community's research budget fo r projects aiming to show th e feasibility of a marine 
data infrastructure
52. The methods and technologies have now been validated and it is 
time to move towards an operational service. 
6.1.4.2  Option 2 Collecting 
The EU already spends about €45 million per year to support fisheries data collection 
and on average €110 million53 per year over the Sevent h Framework Programme to 
support space measurements thr ough the GMES initiative.  
The cost of option 2 "collection" depend on the ambition.  1. The Euro-Argo consortium believe
54 that €3 million per year from the EU would 
support the European component (€8 million per year) of a world wide in situ 
global ocean observing system, based on autonomous profiling floats.  
2. The Continuous Plankton Recorder Survey 's marine monitoring programme has 
been collecting data from the North A tlantic and the Nort h Sea on the ecology 
and biogeography of plankton since 1931 a nd costs about €1.8 million per year. 
3. It has been estimated55 that developing a complete multibeam sonar mapping of 
EU Member States' waters would cost about €100 million for the deep water and 
more than ten times that for the shallower continental shelf. And thus this effort 
distributed over 20 years would cost  approximately €50 million per year.  
                                                 
52  SEADATANET etc 
53  It can be assumed that about 40% is for sea an d ocean observation (DG EN TR private communication). 
54   Presentation to Commission services 24 April 2009 
55  Phil weaver, National Oceanography Centre, Southampton "A map of the European seabed" 
presentation at European Marine Observation Expert Group, 18 June 2009 
 
EN 36   EN 4. Establishing a European Multidisciplinary Seafloor Observatory for long-term 
real-time monitoring of geos phere/biosphere/hydrosphere  interactions based on 8 
sites would cost about €240 million with  operational costs of €32 million per 
year. Error margins on these costs are ±20%56. 
This list is not exhaustive. 
6.1.4.3  Comparing the Options 
Option 1 can be implemented relatively cheap ly at about 1.5% of  the current total 
cost of marine data collection in the EU. It will produce a multiplier effect on 
benefits from the observations collected. Late r investment in further observations, as 
in option 2, can benefit from better inform ation as to where further data can produce 
the most added value. 
6.2 Derived impacts 
We can then map out how these primary im pacts influence the economic, social and 
environmental impacts listed in the impact assessment guidelines57. 
6.2.1 Economic Impacts 
6.2.1.1  Functioning of internal market 
Greater competition for value-added services based on marine data will lead to 
improved movement of services and an in crease in choice for these services.  
Therefore option 1 "assembling" will have a high impact on functioning of the 
internal market. Option 2 "collection" will br ing additional benefit to targeted sectors 
(public and/or private). 
6.2.1.2  Competitiveness, trade and investment flows 
Innovation is mainly driven by entrepreneurs58. Experience suggests that the best 
way to promote innovation is to set up the a ppropriate market cond itions rather than 
trying to forecast and bet on winners. 
The reduced operational costs on firms relying on marine data will increase 
productivity and render them more competitive. It is difficult at this stage to estimate 
what new services will develop on the b ack of these newly available data but the 
example of the United States, where public  information and copyright laws are 
geared towards open access, suggests that a number of innovative added-value services will develop to fill market needs.  
Therefore option 1 "assembling" will have an impact on the competitiveness of those 
firms in proportion to the relative share of  that firm's costs that are devoted to 
processing of marine data. 
                                                
 
56  Estimate from the Preparatory Phase proj ect (EMSO), in collaboration with ESONET: 
57   Impact assessment Guidelines, 15 January 2009, SEC(2009) 92 
58  Reviewing Community innovation policy in a changing world Brussels, 2.9.2009 COM(2009) 442 final 
 
EN 37   EN Option 2 "collection" will bring additional but unknown benefits.  
6.2.1.3  Operating costs and conduct of busin ess/ small and medium enterprise 
The benefit to business will come first from the direct reduction of operating cost 
(primary impact 1) and secondly through the reduction in uncertainty on the state of 
the ocean (primary impact 3). 
Operating cost 
Operating costs will reduce for those businesses where marine data is an essential input; not necessarily because the direct costs of data purchase will change, but 
rather because less labour will be required for finding, assembling and processing the 
data quickly. In essence there will be ec onomies of scale by centralising assembly 
and a reduced risk of free-riders behaviour. 
A study
59 has estimated that the value of im plementing an "integrated" (as opposed 
to "fragmented") ocean observing system would be hundreds of millions of dollars 
per year to the United States. The United Stat es GDP is of a similar magnitude to that 
of the European Union. 
Reduction in Uncertainty 
A reduction in uncertainty will also have a direct impact.  
1. Firstly on those industries that explo it the resources of the sea. A Price 
Waterhouse Cooper study60 suggests that an expend iture of €70 million on 
marine mapping in Irish waters would result in benefits of €415 million to the 
fisheries, aquaculture, biodiversity (s eaweed was used as a proxy), renewable 
energy, energy exploration and aggregate indus tries– a return of a factor of six. 
2. Public authorities charged with co astal management will benefit from 
€100 million for a 25% reduction in sea-level rise uncertainty as described in section 5.2.1.5 
3. However even terrestrial industries would benefit. The benefits to the energy and 
agriculture industries of better seasonal fo recasts would be very large indeed. It 
has been estimated
61 that the benefits of modest  improvements in predicting El 
Niño would be of the order of $240 m illion annually for the US agriculture 
industry which is similar in volume to th at of the EU. Better marine observations 
are not a sufficient condition for more accurate seasonal forecasting but they are a necessary one. 
                                                
 
59   Hauke Kite-Powell;Charles Colgan; Rodney Weih er Estimating the Economic Benefits of Regional 
Ocean Observing Systems Coastal Management, Volu me 36, Issue 2 March 2008 , pages 125 - 145 
60   Price Waterhouse Cooper, INFOMAR Marine Mapping Survey Options Appraisal Report June 2008 
61  Andrew R. Solow, et al., “The Value of Impr oved ENSO Prediction to U.S. Agriculture,” Climate 
Change, Vol. 39, 1998, pp 47-60. 
 
EN 38   EN The two options 
Option 1 "assembling" will therefore have a high impact on the direct operating cost. 
More data collection "option 2" will have an additional impact on reducing the uncertainty and hence th e overall operating cost. 
6.2.1.4  Administrative burdens on business 
It is not intended that th ere should be any new oblig ations on business. Any new 
measures will be aimed at public bo dies. Neither option has an impact. 
6.2.1.5  Public Authorities 
Benefits 
Public authorities will be affected by all primary impacts. They will benefit from 
reduced operational costs, lower prices for services through increased competition 
and greater certainty in the fu ture behaviour of the sea. 
A good example is the construction of sea defe nces. Currently these have to take into 
account not only local conditions but also futu re global rises in sea-level. Since this 
is not known with any precision, engineers ha ve to be conservative and often over-
dimension projects. This raises costs. 
Public authorities at an EU and nati onal level would be responsible for the 
implementation costs of setting up and operating this infrastructure. 
Costs 
Given the foreseeable budget constraints, the fact that public services might have to 
deliver the same or better levels of serv ice with fewer resources must become a 
powerful engine for innovation58. With an operational EMODnet, those authorities 
that are currently engaged in monitoring activities will be able to see their own activity in a sea-basin perspective and pl an their own monitori ng activities more 
effectively. 
Additional costs to nationa l public authorities caused by EMODnet alone will be 
small. Up to now the preparatory actions  for EMODnet have been paid through 
procurements from the EU budget which give s the EU the rights to distribute the 
assembled data. The EU supports 50% of the costs of data collection in fisheries through grants. This mix of measures - payi ng 100% of the costs of assembly (option 
1) and 50% of the costs of collection (option 2) - woul d seem appropriate for an 
operational EMODnet. 
For option 1, "assembly", the main cost to authorities would then  be the process of 
adopting common standards and improving acc ess to national databases. However 
Member States, partly as a result of the INSPIRE Dir ective and partly as good 
management practice, are doing this anyw ay. EMODnet would not bring additional 
obligations.  
Should the data collection component of  option 2 be implemented through 50% 
grants then there would be costs to national authorities. But these would be 
 
EN 39   EN voluntary. Authorities that did not wish to apply for grants would not be compelled 
to do so.  
There may be some loss of income to  public bodies (not necessarily public 
authorities ) providing data for a fee (see sec tion 6.2.1.5). This will not be income 
from raw data; in section 7.4.2 we show that  this is negligible. However these bodies 
may lose out to other public or private concerns if they no  longer enjoy a monopoly 
in selling the added-value products. The repl acement of one operator by another that 
can deliver the same product cheaper or of be tter quality is not, of  course, a loss to 
the economy as a whole. This position is c onsistent with other EU legislation. Access 
to raw data on comparable terms for all users of public data is the objective of the Public Information Directive
28. Regulators in the United Kingdom and Sweden have 
pointed out that this is no t always the case at present19. 
Therefore option 1 "assembling" has a sign ificant benefit for public authorities and 
option 2 "collection" could offer an even gr eater benefit. Costs w ould be less then the 
benefits. 
6.2.1.6  Property Rights 
Property rights will be affected by option 1 in three ways.  
1. better acknowledgement of ownership of  marine data. All data should be 
accompanied by a description of their ow nership and this ownership should be 
recognised when the data are used. The f eedback will help in making a case for 
continuing monitoring. This recognition w ould be a positive impact for the data-
owner. 
2. a standardisation of intelle ctual property for marine da ta at a European level 
which would encourage the free movement of services in the internal market. 
3. reduced control of how data is used. Own ers of data submitted to the European 
Marine Observation and Data Network w ould retain ownership but would not be 
able to dictate how the data should be used62. From the point of view of the data 
owner this might be seen as a negative impact. 
A citation mechanism could help scientists who devote their career to collecting data 
at sea. Their contribution to research coul d then be assessed on the number of times 
their data is used. This would be analogous  to the way scientists' published articles 
are assessed by the number of times th ey are cited by other scientists. 
Option 2 "collection" would have no impact s over and above those already included 
in implementation option 1 "assembling" 
6.2.1.7  Innovation and research 
Reduced operational costs and greater competition will stimulate research.  
                                                 
62  Although they might stipulate that it must not be used for safety-critical tasks (eg bathymetry for safe 
navigation) in order to avoid liability  
 
EN 40   EN 1. Better access to marine data will stimulate innovation and research. In the same 
way that public authorities and the priv ate sector, the research community will 
improve productivity through reduced operating costs for finding and assembling data. Researchers will be able to put the data that they themselves collect in the context of data from elsewh ere and other disciplines.  
2. If a researcher has sole access to data there is less incentive to publish quickly. 
Competition may therefore speed up publication. 
In section "3.4.1 Science" we calculate an increase in sc ientific produ ctivity worth 
€100 million per year. I addition this will le ad to greater confidence in research 
findings and deeper insights in the functioning of the ocean. 
Option 1, "assembling", would therefore have  a significant impact on the quality of 
research.  
Option 2 "collection" would certainly have  an additional impact; the magnitude of 
this additional impact would depend on how much extra da ta is collected. 
6.2.1.8  Specific regions or sectors 
In the short-term it will largely be the coas tal region that benefit from this initiative. 
Many of the enterprises, public  authorities and research bodies that replied to the 
questionnaire are situated on the coast. 
In the longer term regions further inland will benefit. The influence of climate 
changes, biodiversity, marine renewable en ergies, sustainable a quaculture all reach 
beyond the coast. 
This is valid for both options. 
6.2.1.9  Third countries and in ternational relations 
There are a number of international init iatives to share information on earth 
observation and monitoring in order to avoi d duplication and create a more joined-up 
system. Notable amongst these is the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, 
or GEOSS, which is a response to cal ls for action by the 2002 World Summit on 
Sustainable Development and by the G8 (G roup of Eight) leading industrialized 
countries. Creating a better marine data in frastructure at a European level will 
contribute towards the aims of GEOSS. 
6.2.1.10  Macro-economic development 
The expected growth in the value-added sector discussed in 6.2.1.2, should promote 
employment and growth in the medium term. Furthermore a better marine data infrastructure can support emerging indus tries such as marine biotechnology. 
In the short to medium term these bene fits would derive mainly from option 1 
"assembling".  
 
EN 41   EN 6.2.2 Social Impacts 
6.2.2.1  Employment and labour markets 
For the reasons described in 6.2.1.2, 6.2.1.3 and 6.2.1.10, growth is expected in 
sectors that build on the ma rine data infrastructure to create jobs. These would 
largely be in the private sector. 
The greatest benefit would be from opti on 1 "assembling" although some additional 
benefit would derive from "option 2". More  effort on observation and data collection 
will increase employment in the private sector because this work tends to be 
subcontracted. It will also provide an im petus to the high technology sensor industry. 
6.2.2.2  Individual, private and family life, personal data 
Personal data may be an issue in two specific cases: 1. acknowledgments of data ownership might include the names of those 
responsible for collecting and processing data. This implementation  must meet 
the requirements of Data Pr otection Direc tive 95/46/EC 
2. some human activity data – such as fishing vessel positions – might be 
considered as personal data and cannot be published indiscriminately. In these cases the data should be aggregated such  that individuals cannot be identified. 
These impacts can be managed through careful framing of the legislation. 
6.2.2.3  Governance, participation, good administ ration, access to justice and ethics 
Better access to coherent marine data will improve participation in governance. This 
will be particularly the case at a local le vel when plans for coastal development are 
presented. Local communities will be able to independently assess impacts or 
challenge assertions. 
Access is taken care of with  option 1. Option 2 would not bring additional benefits. 
6.2.3 Environmental Impacts 
The proposal itself will not alter the envi ronmental impact of data collection and 
processing. It is not proposed  to change the number of research vessels. However it 
will have a large impact on the EU's effort s to mitigate and adapt to climate change 
and protect biodiversity. 
6.2.3.1  The climate 
As pointed out in section 6.2.1.3, reduced unc ertainty in climate change can help 
authorities plan their adaptation strategies more effectively. Whilst it is certain that 
average global temperatures are going to rise , there is no agreement at all as to what 
this is going to mean in terms of regi onal temperatures and precipitation or global 
sea-level rise. Without this regional unde rstanding there can be no planning of 
adaptation strategies. And sinc e oceanic behaviour drives the local climate, there can 
 
EN 42   EN be no understanding of future regional c limates without proper  understanding of the 
oceans. 
Contributing to a better understanding of o cean circulation may be the single greatest 
contribution that the EU can make in he lping Europe adapt to climate change. 
Option 1 "assembling" would contribute to this understanding. Op tion 2 "collection", 
will bring additional benefits 
6.2.3.2  Biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes 
Protection of marine biodivers ity, flora, fauna and landscapes requires measures such 
as fisheries management plans, netw orks of marine protected areas and 
environmental impact assessments. Conf idence in the effectiveness of these 
measures can only be guaranteed if the data  infrastructure on which they are based is 
sound. And since many of these measures requi re information from waters of more 
than one Member State this infrastructure requires cross-border interoperability. An 
effective European marine data infrastructure will therefore contribute towards effective planning to protect biodive rsity, flora, fauna and landscapes. 
Option 1 "assembling" would help. However really we need more observations
63. 
Direct scientific sampling of the seabed on the ocean margin covers at 
the most only a few tens of km2, depending on the type of technology 
used, and the density of coring of the seabed is inadequate in most regions to describe biological communities (…) The discrepancy between available scientific info rmation and the level of commercial exploitation 
presents a severe challenge to the development of environmental management plans. How do we plan the sustainable development of the 
European [Atlantic] margin from Spai n to Norway based on knowledge 
gained from an area the size  of a few football fields? 
Option 2 "collection" would certainly  increase the effectiveness of marine 
management. 
6.2.3.3  Renewable or non-renewable resources 
Difficulties in siting windfarms onshore due to  concerns from local residents about 
impacts on the landscapes is leading to increased attention to their deployment 
offshore. The UK is considering the implications of constructing 25GW capacity
64, 
which is the equivalent of about 20 nucle ar power stations, by 2020. A better marine 
data infrastructure will help site these farms most efficiently to maximise their 
effectiveness and minimise their environmental impact. 
                                                 
63  Rogers, A. et al. "Life at the edge: achieving pr ediction from environmental variability and biological 
variety.   In “ Ocean Margin Systems ”, Wefer, et al. (Eds.),  Springer Verlag, pp 387-404. 
64  UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, Offshore Energy SEA Environmental Report, January 
2009 
 
EN 43   EN If option 2, "collecting", included a more  detailed mapping of the sea-bed then 
additional benefits could accrue. 
6.2.4 External Impacts 
Since the information provided through EMODnet is publicly available. The 
economic, social and environmental impacts described above are equally relevant to 
the EU partners in accession countries, countries benefitting from the European 
Neighbourhood Policy and our wider internatio nal partners. Hence co-operation with 
these partners can be sought. 
The impact of ocean acidification or se a-level rise will largely be felt in the 
developing world. Acidifica tion threatens those whose liv elihoods depend on healthy 
coral reefs and it is generall y accepted that the primary group threatened by sea-level 
rise are those in low-lying islands and de ltas. Greater certainty in these impacts 
would help target development policies. 
Option 1 "assembling" would contribute to  reducing these uncertainties. Option 2 
"collection", would brin g additional benefits. 
7 COMPARING THE OPTIONS  
So far we have examined the impact of an improvement of the marine data 
infrastructure in general terms. In this section we aim to clarify how the different 
options would affect that impact. 
7.1 What should the EU do? 
7.1.1 Stakeholder opinion 
We have distinguished thr ee different phases in the obs ervation process – collecting 
data, assembling and processing th e data and applying the data. 
More than 90% of those consulted agreed th at the EU had a role to in all phases of 
the process with about 60% strongly agreei ng. This was a universal opinion; there 
was no substantial difference between the vi ews of the different stakeholder groups – 
industry, authorities and research (Figure 2). 
However some from the research community commented that the Commission's 
roadmap focused too much on assembling and processing existing data when it is 
already clear that the existing marine obser vation network is inadequate. For instance 
a researcher from a German public research commented: 
The main focus of the roadmap is on  existing data (availability, quality 
etc.). However, there is a strong need for new European observation networks to be completed and bu ild. Especially near-real-time 
observation platforms with model suppor t (data assimilation) need to be 
build and continuously operated. 
 
EN 44   EN 7.1.2 Impacts 
A quantitative comparison of impacts can be dangerous because numbers can be 
taken out of context. Nevert heless it can provide an indication of the relative 
magnitude of the costs and benefits and of the factors that have the most influence. 
Based on the United States estimate of the opportunity cost of relying on a 
fragmented rather than an integrat ed marine observation infrastructure20 and on our 
own estimates of the cost of using mari ne data in Europe (section "3.4 Who is 
affected?") we can estimate that a reducti on in operational costs for users is worth  
€300 million. Option 1 "supporting the processing and assembly of marine data" will 
have the greatest impact. Option 2, "suppor ting more observations and monitoring" 
will have little additional impact. 
It is likewise hard to estimate the benef it that increased competition will bring. An 
old but still valid study65 in 2000 on behalf of the European Commission's 
Directorate General for Information Society concluded that less restrictive practices 
in the United States explained the greater size (by at least a factor of six) and 
vibrancy of industries relyi ng on public sector information. Even taking a pessimistic 
assumption that the value of this sector  today is tiny – between €10 million and €30 
million annually, we arrive at a potential annual benefit of between €60 million and 
€200 million. Increased competition will follo w implementation of option 1. Option 
2 will have little additional impact. 
If we assume that a better monitoring infr astructure results in a 25% reduction in 
uncertainty in sea-level rise, then €100 m illion of direct savings in coastal defence 
infrastructure are likely. Better seasonal fo recasts and better fish stock assessments 
will also result in even greater savings but  more work is necessary to determine 
whether better data alone can deliver these benefits. We shall cautiously claim €20 million a year for these but the potential be nefits may turn out to be much larger. 
If option 2 includes more detailed surv eys of seas-beds, then the Irish study
60 
suggests that the resulting reduction in uncer tainty results in a six-fold payback on 
the investment. We shall be modest and assume a factor of two.  
The costs of option 1 depend on the target resolution and the timescale. The analysis 
of section 6.1.4 suggests an annual cost of €18 million for 10 years followed by €10 million thereafter. Option 2 would cost another €10 million for focused support to 
present monitoring programmes and €60 millio n per year for 20 years if a European 
sea-bed map were to be produced, 
                                                
 
65  Commercial exploitation of Europe's public sector information Pira International Ltd., University of 
East Anglia and KnowledgeView Ltd., 20 September 2000  
 
EN 45   EN Table 5 comparison of options for primary impact. The benefits will accrue once the full EMODnet has been 
implemented .During the development phase they will be smaller. All costs and benefits are expressed as annual 
figures 
IMPACT Cost or 
benefit Option 1 support 
data processing 
and assembly 
(annual) Option  2 support 
data collection 
(additional to option 
1) 
Reduced operational 
costs benefit €300  million  
Increased competition benefit €60 million - 
€200 million  
Reduced uncertainty benefit  €220 million 
Increased 
implementation costs Cost €20 million66 €10million- 
€90million 
7.1.3 Economic impacts 
The primary impacts translate into econom ic, social and environmental impacts as 
follows 
Table 6 comparison of options for economic, social and environmental impacts 
IMPACT option 1 support 
data processing 
and assembly option 2 support 
data collection 
(additional to 
benefits of option 1) 
ECONOMIC IMPACTS   
Functioning of internal market +++  
Competitiveness, trade and 
investment flows +++ + 
Operating costs and conduct of 
business/ small and medium enterprise +++ + 
Administrative burdens on business no no 
Public Authorities +++ ++ Property Rights ± no Innovation and research +++ +++ Specific regions or sectors coastal coastal Third countries and international 
relations ++ ++ 
                                                
 
66  Assuming a 10 year programme to constuct an EMODNET with resolution 10 times finer than the 
present ur-EMODNET. 
 
EN 46   EN IMPACT option 1 support 
data processing 
and assembly option 2 support 
data collection 
(additional to 
benefits of option 1) 
Macro-economic development ++ ++ 
SOCIAL IMPACTS   
Employment and labour markets in pr ivate sector mostly in public 
sector 
Individual, private and family life, 
personal data Data protection 
should be 
considered in 
legislation  
Governance, participation, good 
administration, access to justice and ethics +++ + 
Social impacts in third countries ++ ++ 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS   
The climate ++ +++ 
Biodiversity, flora, fauna and 
landscapes + +++ 
Renewable or non-renewable 
resources ++ + 
7.1.4 Subsidiarity 
The main justification for action at an EU level is the transnational nature of the 
challenge. Assembling sea-basin and pa n-European-sea pictures requires a 
collaboration across borders and across disc iplines. Experience so far demonstrates 
that the collection and shari ng of data across sectors an d across Member States does 
not take place adequately, efficiently or ra pidly. Unless the European Union takes or 
facilitates actions in this field it is unlikely to happen. The results from the discussions in the Expert Group and the repl ies to the consultati on corroborate this 
thesis. 67% of those consulted strongly ag reed that "without sustainable support from 
the EU it will be extremely difficult to build up a sustainable European 
infrastructure. Another 24% tended to  agree. Less than 3% disagreed. 
The transnational nature of the issue provi des a strong justificat ion for action at an 
EU level. This is clearly valid for option 1 "assembly".  
For option 2` "collecting data" the issue is more complex. Member States already 
collect much data and in some cases are le gally obliged to collect data from them. 
For instance the Marine Strategy Framework Directive
67 obliges Member States to 
"establish and implement coordinated monitoring programmes for the ongoing 
assessment of the environmental status of their marine waters ." Any EU support 
                                                 
67  Directive 2008/56/EC 
 
EN 47   EN should not discourage Member States from fulfilling their moral or legal obligations. 
However there are precedents: 
1. The EU already supports the collection of fisheries data. This is a unique 
example because the data is required to support management decisions and fisheries is an area where the EU has exclusive competence.  
2. The EU also supports monitoring from space. The needs of Member States are 
almost identical and the satellite or bits can cover the whole globe. The 
advantages of a shared infrastructure are obvious. 
The subsidiarity case for option 2 is stronge st when the additional monitoring is to 
take place outside Member States waters. However this is not a necessary condition. 
To misquote John Donne "No island is entire unto itself
68". Marine observations do 
not only benefit the State in whose waters the observations are made. 
7.1.5 Proportionality 
The principle of proportionality states  that any Community  action should not go 
beyond what is necessary to achieve satisf actorily the objectives which have been 
set. Community action should be as simple as possible and leave as much scope for 
national decision as possible, and s hould respect well established national 
arrangements and legal systems. 
For both options the EU actions would add va lue to what Member States are already 
doing with additional resources of between 1.5 and 8% of what Member States are 
spending already. These resources would enab le the Member States to achieve their 
objectives more effectively and are thus commensurate. 
The aim is that the initiative should build  on what Member States are already doing. 
Indeed this is one of the fundamental pr inciples of the roadmap and one that was 
largely accepted by the stakeholders in the consultation with a total of 85% agreeing 
and 50% strongly agreeing. 
7.1.6 Conclusion 
This analysis suggests that option 1 "asse mbling" would have a considerable and 
proportionate economic, environmental and social impact.  
Option 2 "collection" has the potential to deliver significant additional benefit, 
particularly in reducing un certainties in ocean behavi our with all the knock-on 
benefits that this brings. However more  work needs to be done in identifying 
precisely what extra observations need to be  made and how much they would cost. In 
some areas, for instance the EuroArgo floats (see section 6.1.4) a convincing case has been made that a relatively modest level of EU support (€3 million annually) 
would bring significant benefits for the whole EU. However in  other areas this 
analysis can only be made once option 1, "a ssembling", has been implemented. It is 
expected that some insights will be forthcoming as the preparatory actions begin to deliver results from 2010 onwards. 
                                                
 
68   John Donne, Meditations XVII, 1624 
 
EN 48   EN The proposal then is to adopt a two pha se approach. The first phase, 2011-2013, 
would focus only on assembling data. Du ring 2011 there would be an interim 
evaluation of the results of the preparator y actions and an ex-post evaluation in 2013. 
These results would feed into an impact assessment in 2013 that would clarify which 
options to pursue from then onwards – only assembly or assembly and collection. 
7.1.7 Interim Period 2011-2013 
Based on the knowledge of the current knowledge of the curre nt data infr astructure 
obtained through stakeholder consultations, th e first six months of the preparatory 
action projects and advice from the Mari ne Observation and Data Expert Group, a 
number of actions to support data assembly  could be contemplated in the period 
2011-2013. As marine knowledge in creases, some of these priorities might change, 
but provided adequate financial support is available, the following activities will be 
undertaken. 
3. completing the coverage of the geologica l layer in ur-EMODnet to cover all 
European sea-basins at a one to one million scale. 
4. preparing finer resolution gridded bathymet ry data. It is likely that the current 
preparatory actions will confirm that th ere are no technical obstacles to the 
production of finer resolution data layers . They will also show where there is 
enough available survey data for the constr uction of these layers. These data were 
the most highly sought-after in the stak eholder survey. The aim would be to 
produce gridded layers at 50 or 100 metres  resolution for at least one sea-basin. 
5. preparing layers for phys ical data. Now that the boundaries of the GMES 
initiative is becoming clearer, an action to  assemble data from  measuring stations 
and buoys on significant wave height, salinit y, sea level, and currents will be 
undertaken. This will be the first ur-EMODnet action where the aim will be to deliver near-real time information – bot h directly to users and to whatever 
prototype GMES marine core service is  underway. Local authorities responsible 
for coastal protection have indicated the n eed for long-time series and this will be 
taken care of as well. 
6. strengthening the biological and chemical  layers. It is premature to speculate 
whether this will be done through increasi ng the number of species dealt with or 
the number of sea-basins covered. Or both. A decision will be made in 2011 after the mid-term evaluation of  the existing projects. 
7. developing a thematic assembly group for human activity data – shipping lanes, 
pipelines, gravel extraction etc 
8. maintaining the metadata catalogues and data layers being established in ur-
EMODnet and setting up a process whereby new information can be incorporated into them 
 
EN 49   EN 9. setting up one or more prototype sea- basin checkpoint. Up to now "thematic 
assembly groups"69 in ur-EMODnet have assemb led data of one class – eg 
biology, or chemistry. The aim with thes e sea-basin checkpoints is to collect 
stakeholders round a sea-basin to consider all the data availabl e, including that 
which has been assembled through EU in itiatives such as ur-EMODNET, GMES, 
the Data Collection Framework, to asse ss whether the different efforts are 
interoperable, to analyse where the gaps are and to determine where the priorities 
are for further data collection and assembly. 
10. setting up a prototype secret ariat to prepare meetings, manage contracts with the 
disciplinary assembly groups and sea-ba sin checkpoints, ensuring deadlines are 
met and preparing an annual report of activity.  
Table 7 Average annual expenditure for setting up ur-EMODnet (3-year programme) 
Updating of  geological, chemi cal and biological data layers €2,000,000 
Creation of physical and human activity layers €1,500,000 
Creation of high resolution bathymetry layers €2,300,000 Sea-basin checkpoints €700,000 Secretariat €500,000 Maintenance of existing layers €500,000 total €7,500,000 
Table 7 gives an indicative level of funding that woul d be required. Undertaking 
these actions would provide a better ba sis for taking a decision on a full-scale 
operational EMODnet. 
7.1.8 Afterwards 
Section "6.1.4 Implementati on costs" provides a breakdow n of a 10-year programme 
to set up a properly integrated  marine data infrastructure. It is intended that the 
priorities for afterwards be identified by stakeholders at a se a-basin level once a 
clearer picture of what is already be ing collected has been drawn. However 
developing finer resolution sea-bottom maps and ensuring a high-quality baseline for monitoring climate change are expe cted to have some priority. 
7.2 What is the appropriate legal instrument? 
Article 249 of the EC Treaty defines the instruments which the institutions can 
deploy in order to carry out their tasks:  
“in order to carry out their task and in accordance with the provisions of 
this Treaty, the European Parliament  acting jointly with  the Council, the 
Council and the Commission shall make regulations and issue directives, take decisions, make recommendations or deliver opinions.” 
Article 249 of the EC Treaty states that “ recommendations and opinions shall have 
no binding force ”. These are “generally adopted by the institutions of the Community 
                                                
 
69  This term will be introduced in the Communicatio n on marine knowledge and refers to a consortium 
charged with assembling data and metadata of a certain type. Each ur-EMODNET preparatory action is 
a prototype thematic assembly group. 
 
EN 50   EN when they do not have the power under the Treaty to adopt binding measures or 
when they consider that it is not appropria te to adopt more mandatory rules” and can 
assist in interpreting legislation70. We have argued that the Community does have the 
power to adopt binding measures. Furthe rmore defining the appropriate roles for 
bodies of the Network will require the definition of mandatory roles. So 
recommendations and opini ons are not appropriate.  
The EMODnet objectives can be met in two ways – obliging the Member States to 
strengthen their data infrastructure or enabling them to do s o. As indicated in 
section 3.5.1 the EU has largely already gone as far as it can via obligatory elements 
to be implemented at Member State le vel, such as the INSPIRE Directive26 the 
Environmental Information Directive27and the Public Sector Information Directive28. 
Thus although any EMODnet legislation might include an element of obligation it is 
more likely to be an enabling measure.  
Article 249 of the EC Treaty states that “ a Directive shall be bi nding, as to the result 
to be achieved, upon each Member State to  which it is addressed, but shall leave to 
the national authorities the choi ce of form and methods.”  
.INSPIRE is a Directive and EMODne t standards will be built on INSPIRE 
Article 249 of the EC Treaty states that “ a regulation shall have general application ” 
and “ shall be binding in its entir ety and directly applicab le in all Member States .” A 
regulation’s general appli cation means that it is “ applicable to objectively determined 
situations and involves legal  consequences for categories  of persons viewed in a 
general and abstract manner ”71. 
Obligatory measures can either be impos ed through Regulations or Directives. 
However, in the case of enabling measur es defining expenditure programmes or 
independent agencies at European leve l a Regulation is more appropriate. A 
Regulation was chosen for the GMES proposal. EIONET72 and LIFE73 were 
implemented through Regulations. If this option is chosen, the Commission could 
modify an existing legislati on or propose new legislation. 
A Council Decision can also be used to provide a framework within which the 
Commission can work towards producing implementing measures For instance, a 
“Sui Generis ” decision was used for IDABC, as the Commission was to establish a 
rolling programme for the whole duration of  the Decision for the implementation of 
projects of common interest and horizontal measures74. 
7.3 How should this support be managed? 
We have identified four options: 
                                                 
70   Case C-322/88 Grimaldi  [1989] ECR 4407, paras 13, 16 and 18. 
71   Case C-6/68 Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt v Council [1968] E.C.R. 409, at 415. 
72  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European 
Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network  
73   The LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 
74  Decision 2004/387/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on interoperable 
delivery of pan-European eGovernment services to public administrations, businesses and citizens 
(IDABC), OJ L 181, 18.5.2004, p. 25. 
 
EN 51   EN 1. carry on as before 
2. charge an existing institution  
3. develop a new body 
4. charge an organisation through a competitive call  
7.3.1 Stakeholder Opinion 
About 80% of those consulted thought that EMODnet should be built on existing 
structures with just under 50% strongly supporting such an id ea. Although clearly 
this is a convincing majority, support for this principle was slightly less than for the other guiding principles. Support was str onger from national government bodies than 
from either the private sect or or research communities. 
The stakeholders were asked which existing structures might have a role in the new 
EMODnet. Mostly they named national bodies which could certainly have a role in 
collecting data on national scale or even  processing them on a sea-basin scale. 
However none of these are obvious contende rs for the role of  secretariat.  
The main transnational bodi es identified were the International Council for 
Exploration of the Sea in Copenhagen and EuroGOOS - four times each. The European Environment Agency was identified twice and JRC once.  
7.3.2 Primary impacts 
The primary impacts were defined (secti on 6.1) as reduced operational costs for 
public and private concerns, increased competition for value-added services, reduced uncertainty in the state of the ocean s and increased implementation costs. 
These impacts are compared to the "carry on  as usual" scenario  so, by definition, 
option 1, "carry on as usua l" ,would have zero impact. 
Furthermore the three other options could, in  theory, be implemented to achieve the 
same impacts in terms of reducing opera tional costs, increasing competition and 
reducing uncertainty. Therefore the economic , social and environmental benefits 
derived from these primary benefits woul d also be identical. They would largely 
depend on the actual content of the new po licy – collecting data or assembling and 
processing them as described in section 7.1. The difference would be  in the cost and 
effort required to implement the new infrastructure. 
7.3.3 Implementation Costs 
In the short term using an existing b ody – for instance ICES, EUROGOOS, JRC or 
EEA - would certainly be easier and cheaper than setting up a new body. The 
administrative procedures are tried and test ed. In the longer-=term a call for temder 
might be cheapest. 
 
EN 52   EN 7.3.4 Conclusion 
Option 1, carrying on as before, would not resolve the present difficulties with 
marine data described in section 3.1. 
Each of the four existing bodies suggested in option 2 would be capable of doing the 
job. ICES is not a European body but is an intergovernmental body whose members 
include States from outside the European  Economic Area (Canada and United States) 
and excludes many Member States (notably those from the Mediterranean and Black 
Sea).  
1. EUROGOOS is primarily concerned with  real-time operational monitoring of 
physical parameters whereas EMODnet aims to cover a much wider scope – sea-beds, biodiversity etc 
2. The European Environment Agency has an environmental mission aimed at the 
needs of public authoritie s whereas the EMODnet infras tructure should serve the 
needs of industry and research as well. In any case the Environment Agency would be prime users of EMODnet, drawi ng on the more basic data to construct 
the indicators that meet their needs. I ndeed the WISE-marine tool that they are 
constructing, which is part of the Sh ared Environmental Information System, 
aims to do just that. 
3. The Joint Research Centre has a mission to  support EU policy with research. It 
does not have the mandate for a long-term operational task. 
There are no obvious legal impediments to a ny of these taking on this role. However 
each would require an extension of thei r present scope and a specific governance 
structure independent from that curren tly applied for their respective work 
programmes. 
The stakeholder survey suggests that none of these organisations  has a mission that 
would automatically qualify it for hosting the secretariat. Stakeholders were specifically asked which existing organisa tions could contribute. Out of the 300 
replies, less than three no minated one of these four. However all would have the 
administrative experience to do the job. With the possible exception of EUROGOOS
75 they are accustomed to reporting, handling contracts and hosting 
committees. Hence one can conclude that enlarging the mandate of an existing organisation is an option to consider. 
Option 3 would allow a specia lly constructed consortium to do the work. It would 
take longer to set up and cost more in  the short term. However, creating a body 
whose mission is solely dedica ted to improving Europe's ma rine data infrastructure 
would provide focus, continuity and sustainability.  
Option 4, choosing the secretariat through a call for tender, might be the cheapest 
procedure but would require renewal through further calls for tender so potentially 
                                                
 
75  Although it has been suggested that this might be implemented jointly with the European Science 
Foundation's Marine Board 
 
EN 53   EN creating discontinuities and administrative  overhead. It should be noted that the 
existing organisations mentioned under point 2 could apply under the call. 
The decision should be taken on the grounds of cost effectiveness. In any case no 
decision is require d at this point. 
7.4 Incentives 
If it is to be fully successf ul two types of data should be available through EMODnet 
1. Seamless map-layers – for instance of gridded data 
2. The raw measurements in standard formats 
It is expected that the majority of users will be content with only the derived map 
layers but a significant number will also need to examine the raw measurements in 
order to check the quality and applicability of the data. Indeed any checks on data 
will also benefit thee data provider. 
The EU can insist that the derived seamle ss map layers be made publicly available 
because they were produced through EU action. The raw measurements, however, remain the intellectual property of the bodies  that either produced them or funded 
their production so disseminating them requi res their assent a nd cooperation. We can 
distinguish between data collected thr ough publicly and privately funded actions. 
7.4.1 Privately-collected data 
There is no intention to apply pressure, lega l or moral, on private operators to deliver 
data that they have collected with th eir own means. However a number may be 
willing to hand-over their data  for safe-keeping. At present there is no mechanism for 
them to do so but within the preparatory ac tions, an experimental database is being 
developed that can store and distribute hydrographical survey  data. In this way those 
bodies that wish to hand over data will be ab le to do so at little cost to themselves. 
Other than being seen as responsible opera tors in the marine environment, they 
would benefit from easy access to their own da ta and that of others without having to 
invest in the information technology themselves. 
7.4.2 Publicly Collected data 
The discouraging of cost recovery charging is  consistent with other EU initiatives in 
particular the Directive on the Re-use  of Public Information (section 4.4). 
A survey of the main mari ne data providers in 2003
76 showed that very little income 
was generated from the sales of data to private bodies – approximately £70,000 – compared to the total public funding of these bodies – more  than £1 billion (Table 8). 
Sales to public bodies are not included here because th eir net contribution to the 
public purse is zero.  
                                                
 
76  Rayner R., J. Smallman, G. Cameron, C. Wa llace, Achieving optimal va lue from publicly funded 
marine information resources A report prepared by the UK Marine Information Council Working Group 
on Data Access 
 
EN 54   EN Table 8 UK public sector bodies Revenue from data  sales for financial yea rs 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. 
Body  Annual 
Revenue from 
data sales to 
private bodies Total Annual 
funding
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture 
(CEFAS)  0 £28,500,000
Department of Agriculture and Rural 
Development Northern Ireland (DARDNI)  0 £5,000,000
Environment Agency (EA)  0 £649,500,000
FisheriesResearch Service (FRS) £3,000 £2,000,000UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) £18,000 £15,000,000Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)  £28,000 £243,000,000Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)  0 £33,500,000
UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO)  £20,000 £47,000,000
total £69,000 £1,023,500,00
This confirms that the loss of revenue fr om commercial sales of marine data would 
not in itself hurt these organisations. Any loss of sales to public bodies could be 
compensated by a realignment of the public funding from the data user to the data 
provider. 
Although greater competition resulting from a freer availability  of data may hurt 
some public bodies who no longer ha ve a monopoly on the production and 
dissemination of added-value products, there will be some compensation. Firstly these bodies will benefit from freer data policies from other operators producing marine data and secondly it is expected that the overall market for value-added 
products will increase. 
8 M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
8.1 Indicators 
Based on the principles that  the indicators should be qua ntitative and not impose a 
heavy burden for collection of data, th e following indicators are proposed. 
Resource 
indicators 
 The resources used to run th e Network broken down into: 
1. cost of Commission staff to  set-up and monitor Network 
2. cost of secretariat 
3. resources provided to assemble and process data 
Output 
indicators 1. number of parameters where complete picture of European 
observation effort is available 
2. number of parameters made available for downloading over 
complete sea-basins 
 
EN 55   EN Impact 
indicators 1. to measure improvement in operational efficiency 
a. (for industry) number of private companies 
downloading data through EMODnet 
b. (for public administra tion) number of public 
administrations downloading data from EMODnet 
c. (for science) number of papers on marine science 
published in "Nature" and "Science" led by European 
authors 
2. (to measure increased competition) average number of bidders 
for Commission service contra cts requiring marine data 
3. (to measure reduction in uncertainty) range of values for sea-
level rise in 50 years time used in assessment of UK and Netherlands sea-defence strategies. 
8.2 Monitoring and Evaluation 
Some of these indicators are indirect. The best way to measure operational efficiency 
or the number of start-up companies base d on marine data would be to conduct 
surveys of companies. However this w ould be expensive to do thoroughly. Data 
downloads are a good proxy. Presumably pr ivate companies would not download 
data unless it were useful to their business. 
The Marine Observation and Data Expe rt Group will continue to advise the 
Commission on the effectiveness of EMODnet  and highlight any shortcomings that 
need to be addressed. 
 
EN 56   EN ANNEX 1 GLOSSARY  
COMP European Commission Dir ectorate General for Competition 
ECHAM a Global Climate Model developed by the Max Planck Institute for 
Meteorology 
EEA European Environment Agency EIONET a partnership network of the European Environment Agency (EEA) and its 
member and cooperating countries supporting the collection and organisation of data and the developm ent and dissemination of information 
concerning Europe’s environment 
EMODnet European Marine Ob servation and Data Network 
ENV  European Commission Director ate General for the Environment 
ERFF UK Environment Research Funders Forum ERIC European Research Infrastruc ture Consortium (Community legal 
framework for) 
ESA European Space Agency ESFRI European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures: EUMETSAT The European Organisation fo r the Exploitation of Meteorological 
Satellites 
EUROGOOS an Association of Agencies, f ounded in 1994, to further the development of 
Operational Oceanography in the Eur opean Sea areas and adjacent oceans 
GDP Gross domestic product, a basic measure of a country's economic 
performance, 
GEOSEAS Seventh Framework Programme Infrastructures project to improve 
overview and access to marine geologi cal and geophysical data and data-
products from ational geological survey s and research inst itutes in Europe 
by upgrading and interconnecting th eir present infrastructures. 
GEOSS Global Earth Observation System  of Systems to be delivered by a 
voluntary partnership of governments and international organizations 
GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security ICES International Council fo r Exploration of the Sea 
INFSO European Commission Directorate General for Information Society and 
Media 
 
EN 57   EN INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community 
JRC European Commission Joint Research Centre LIFE The EU's financial instrument  supporting environmental and nature 
conservation projects  throughout the EU 
MARE  Directive General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries DG MODEG European Marine Observ ation and Data Expert Group 
MyOCEAN Seventh Framework Programme proj ect forerunner of the GMES Marine 
Core Service, aiming at deploying the first concerted and integrated pan-
European capacity for Ocean Monitoring and Forecasting 
NOAA United States National Oceanic a nd Atmospheric Admi nistration (NOAA) 
RTD. European Commission Dir ectorate General for Research 
SEADATANET Sixth Framework Programme proj ect aimed at developing a Pan-European 
infrastructure for managing, indexi ng and providing access to ocean and 
marine data sets and data products 
SEIS Shared Environmental Information System - a collaborative initiative of 
the European Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA) 
SME Small and Medium Enterprise
77 
SST Seas surface temperature 
Ur-EMODnet A prototype EMODnet WISE-Marine WISE-Marine is the marine environmental component of the Shared 
Environmental Information System 
                                                
 
77  See http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/enterprise_policy/sme_definition/sme_user_guide.pdf  for a complete 
definition 
 
EN 58   EN ANNEX 2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION  
Procedure and outcome 
The ambition to set up a Marine Observation and Data Network was first aired in 
public through the Green Paper on maritime policy78. 487 stakeholders replied 
including the national admini strations of all EU coastal states and more than 100 
local authorities. Although there were vari ous suggestions as to  how such a network 
should be constructed, opinion was overwhelming that such an initiative was needed. The Commission therefore included a proposal to  take further steps in its Blue Book 
on maritime policy in October 2007. 
Following further consultation with the Mari ne Observation and Data Expert Group 
and after gathering feedback from presentati ons at a number of gatherings of marine 
specialists, a roadmap was produced in Apri l 2009 setting out broad principles and a 
timetable for moving ahead. 
Simultaneously a new public consultation wa s launched. 300 stake holders replied in 
two months - 42% on behalf of their orga nisations, 46% from a personal viewpoint 
but based on their working experience and 12% from a general concern about the sea 
(12%).  
Based on their own self-classification, thes e stakeholders were divided onto four 
groups – private companies, public authoritie s, the research community and "others". 
These four groups were sufficiently large to provide statistical confidence in the 
results. The research community was the largest group. It include d public and private 
research organisations as well as universities. 60 of the public authorities were at a 
national level; 15 were at a regional or local level. 
Table 9 indicates the end-use of the data . 60% of researchers saw understanding the 
planet's behaviour and applying this know ledge for marine management as primary 
applications for data. The authorities and priv ate sector were more varied in their use. 
40% of the private sector used data to help them exploit resources, develop new 
infrastructure or protect coastlines. Of th e authorities, 40% saw informing the public 
and managing marine resources as primar y objectives. Nearly 30% of both private 
bodies and public authorities were in volved in ensuring safe navigation. 
                                                
 
78   COM(2006) 275 final 
 
EN 59   EN Table 9 Why do the stakeholders require marine data? They were allowed to choose up to three. The numbers 
indicate the percentage of the stakeholder group who chose a particular purpose 
reason private authority research other 
behaviour of the planet 8 18 62 35 
coastal protection 39 36 23 20 
exploit resources 42 15 17 15 
inform the public 8 40 29 45 
marine management 26 46 62 65 
national defence 0 10 1 0 
new developments 47 33 22 18 
promote or support tourism 0 3 1 5 
regulatory requirement 18 26 13 28 
safe navigation 32 31 4 10 
teaching students 8 4 23 8 
Those stakeholders who used marine data in the course of their daily work were 
asked which type of data they required. The data were classified according to the types defined in the Roadmap. 
Figure 3 confirms that nearly all stakeholders  need more than one class of data. Each 
class of data was useful to at least 60% of  stakeholders. 90% of stakeholders required 
physical and bathymetric data with more than 60% expressing strong needs. These 
results are consistent with a 1999 analysis by EuroGOOS
79 which provided a more 
detailed breakdown on the type of data re quired. For instance physics is broken down 
into current direction, current velocity, sea surface temperature, wave direction 
spectrum etc. 
Error! Objects cannot be crea ted from editing field codes.  
Figure 3 Usefulness of data (expressed as percentages of number replying to question). The numbers 
on the right are the total number replying to this question  
The roadmap identified 8 principles for a sustainable marine data infrastructure. 
Stakeholders were asked their opinion on th ese principles. 70% strongly agreed and 
90% in total agreed with the first five principles: 
1. provide sustainable financ ing at an EU level  
2. interoperability - develop standards across disciplines as well as within them  
3. multi-use collect data once and use it many times  
4. provide free- data - discourage cost-r ecovery pricing from public bodies. 
5. accompany data with statements on ownership, accuracy and precision 
Agreement on the other three was also st rong but somewhat lower. Approximately 
40% strongly agreed and 80% in total agreed with the following principles. 
6. process data at sea-basin level 
                                                 
79   Operational Oceanography Data Requirements Su rvey EuroGOOS Publicati on No. 12 February 1999, 
EG99.04 
 
EN 60   EN 7. build on existing efforts  
8. develop a decision-making process fo r priorities that is user-driven 
The complete outcome of this stakeholde r consultation is repor ted in a separate 
document80. Relevant elements are inserted whenever appropriate throughout this 
report.  
Error! Objects cannot be crea ted from editing field codes.  
Figure 4 opinion of those consulted on 8 principles for a better marine data infrastructure as 
identified in Roadmap 
Commission Minimum Standards 
Commission standards have been applied.  
1. Extensive brainstorming took place before  the consultation – not only with the 
Expert Group but also at numerous c onferences where marine issues were 
discussed. 
2. A document (the roadmap4) was provided outlining the issues. Approximately half 
those consulted had read the document. Ha lf of these had read the full 60-page 
document. The rest had read the 5-page executive summary only. 
3. The maritime policy web-site drew attenti on to the consultation. Mailing lists of 
stakeholders were informed. A number of interest groups published the 
information on their own newsletters. The number of replies from each coastal Member State is broadly in  line with their population. 
4. The questionnaire was clear. Stakeholde rs were invited to reply "do not 
understand the question". On no question di d more than 3% of those surveyed 
declare that this was the case. 
5. The minimum time of eight weeks for the consultation was respected. 
6. A statistical analysis of the consultation was posted on the Europa web-site the 
day after the consultation closed and all contributors were informed by e-mail. 
                                                
 
80  Marine data infrastructure 
 
EN 61   EN ANNEX 3 CURRENT SPENDING  
Space 
Table 10 Spending on space measur ements of seas and oceans. Th ese figures include development, 
launch and operation of satellites by the European Space Agency (ESA), European Organisation for 
the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) and national bodies. Each sensor can monitor both land and ocean. The costs were attributed to marine use depending on the use to which 
the data were put and only the marine component is included in this table. This attribution introduces 
an error margin of ±25%. Source European Space Agency. Private Communication 
Organisation measurements provided  2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ESA  SST, sea level, ocean colour, ocean 
currents, sea surf ace salinity, surface 
waves, oil pollution, sea ice, icebergs, coastal change, ocean surface winds  200 200 350 350 350 450 350 
Eumetsat  SST, sea ice concentration, ocean surface 
winds  36 30 30 30 30 30 
national  sea level  35 35 35 35 35 
 TOTAL 271 265 415 415 415 480 350
In 2009 approximately €415 million was spent on monitoring seas and oceans from 
space . 
Costs of individual organisations 
The study performed specifically for this  assessment found that in nearly all 
institutions, data handling is a horizontal activity  over all marine activities and it is 
therefore hard to ascertain  how much they are spending. Table 10 shows spending by 
organisations in Spain, France, Netherlands, Sweden and UK. 
Table 11Results of survey of major data -holders in selected Member States. Th ey were asked to assess what they 
spent on collecting, archiving and distributing data 
MS Institution Total 
Turnover (€) Total 
Expenditur
e  (€) Average 
Expenditur
e 
(€) % 
Expenditure  
to Turnover 
Spain CEDEX 55.7 2.78 - 5 
Spain CSIC UTM n/a n/a  - n/a 
Spain IRTA 8.1 n/a  - n/a Spain Puertos de Estado n/a n/a  - n/a 
Spain CEMMA 0.2 0.02  - 10 
Spain Instituto de Ecología Litoral 0.6 0.4  - 67.7 
Spain IEO 68 21  - 30.9 
Spain Total 76.9 24.2 7.14 28% 
France SHOM 75 mil
81 24.8 mil82 - 33.1 
France INSU CNRS n/a n/a  - n/a 
France IRD 219 mil 6mil83  - 2.7 
                                                 
81  SHOM turnover + costs related to the use of the vessels  
82  fleet costs (€20 mil), satellite data spends (80,000) and cost of database base project (€4.2 mil)  
 
EN 62   EN France IPEV 23 mil  20.7 mil  - 90 
France CNES 1423 mil  15 mil  - 1.1 
France CLS 24.54 mil  n/a  - n/a France IFREMER 230 mil 70 mil  - 30.4 
France E-SURFMAR  0.82mil 0.13 mil - 15.9 
France CETMEF 0.335 mil 0.134 mil
84  - 40 
France Institut de Physique du Globe de 
Paris 34 mil 7.69 mil   - 22.6 
France SOMLIT n/a 1.3 mil  - n/a 
France CNRS University de Perpignan 0.3mil n/a  - n/a 
France Université de la Rochelle, CRMM n/a n/a  - n/a 
France Bureau Gravimetrique Int’l 0.15 mil  0.1125 
mil85  - 75 
France Total 2030.1 145.9 14.6 7.2% 
Netherlands Hydrographic Services, Royal 
Navy 5.3 mil 5.3 mil  - 100 
Netherlands NIOZ 20 mil 0.25mil  - 1.25 
Netherlands Rijkswaterstaat 3500 mil86 26mil  - 0.75 
Netherlands Port of Rotterdam 450 mil n/a  - n/a 
Netherlands Total 3975 mil 31.6 mil* €10.5 mil* 0.8% 
Sweden Swedish Environment Protection 
Agency 330.5 mil 4 mil  - 1.2 
Sweden SMHI 53.5 mil 2.4 mil  - 4.5 
Sweden Swedish Maritime Administration, 
Hydrographic Office 192.6 mil 13.5 mil  - 7 
Sweden Swedish Board of Fisheries 27.9 mil 3.63 mil  - 13 
Sweden Geological Survey, Sweden 22.8 mil 2.16 mil  - 9.5 
Sweden Sven Loven Centre for Marine 
Sciences 5.15 mil 0.15 mil  - 2.8 
Sweden Umea Marine Sciences 2.5 mil 1 mil  - 50 
Sweden Total 635 mil 26.8 mil 3.8 mil 4.2% 
UK Marine Scotland 29.4 mil 10.9 mil  - 37 
UK UKHO 109 mil 5.45 mil  - 5 
UK CEFAS 62.74 mil87 35.12 mil  - 56 
UK Maritime & Coastguard Agency 130 mil88 6 mil  - 4.6 
UK British Oceanography Data Centre 1.5 mil 1.5 mil  - 100 
UK British Atmospheric Data Centre 2.2 mil89 1.5 mil90  - 68 
UK Seafish 8.8 mil 3.3 mil  - 38 
UK Total 343.6 mil 63.7 mil 9.1 mil 18.5% 
 TOTAL 3480.6mil 289.4mil 57.9mil 8.3% 
 
These figures include some of the larger European institutions but even in those 
Member States covered by the study, ther e are serious gaps. The UK's Environment 
Research Funders Forum (ERFF) estimates that the UK provides £36 million91 per 
year for marine monitoring92; about 7% of what is spent for terrestrial monitoring. 
                                                                                                                                                         
83  €4.5 million spent on fleet  
84  Excluding salaries which are provid ed by participating public institutes  
85  Excluding salaries which are provid ed by participating public institutes  
86  http://www.rijkswaterstaa t.nl/images/Annual%20report%20R ijkswaterstaat%202006_tcm174-134643.pdf  
87 http://www.cefas.co.uk/ media/133189/cefas_ara_2008-9.pdf  
88  http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c 4mca/197-336_mca_ar _loresnav.pdf  
89 Turnover of organisation that hosts BADC  
90  This is all data, most of it is not marine data  
91  €42 million now, about €50 million then 
92  House of Commons Science and Technology Committee "Investigating the Oceans" Tenth Report of 
Session 2006–07, Volume I 
 
EN 63   EN However it is not clear, even in th e report where this number is introduced93 what is 
included within "monitoring". –  defence e xpenditure, work back at the lab, DNA of 
marine species, commercial data gathering, shared overheads, concealed capital costs or sunk investments.  
Another way of estimating the effort spent on monitoring is to look at the cost of 
research and survey fleets (Table 12 and Table 13). 
Table 12 Fleet expenditure by public bodies 
MS Organisation Total no. 
vessels No. 
major 
vessels No. days 
at sea No. 
minor 
vessels No. sea 
days  Ave. cost 
per day Annual 
spend 
 IHM/Armada 4 4 1,320 0 0 19,333 25,520,000 
 CEMMA 1 1 30 0 0 1,666 50,000 
 Universidad de 
Oviedo 1 1 24 0 0 0 0 
 IRTA 1 1 150 0  1,233 185,000 
 IEO  7 7 1,540 0 0 4,440 5,860,360 
 Other vessels 3 3 267 0 0 9,300 1,810,000 
 CSIC  2 2 440 0 0 7,500 3,300,000 
ES   19 19 3,771 0 0 9,739 36,725,360 
  SHOM 12 5 900 7 1,540 29,000 26,250,000 
  IRD 2 2 504 0 0 8,762 4,415,796 
  IPEV 3 3 n/a 0 0 18,500 8,640,000 
  INSU CNRS 12 4 1,227 8 1,695 1,102 3,890,665 
 average others 2 2 310 0 0 _ 990,000 
  IFREMER 7 7 1,477 0 0 15,333 18,665,000 
FR   38 23 4,418 15 3,235 8,212 62,851,461 
 Rijkswaterstaat 25 10 2,220 15 3,300 12,380 68,090,000 
 Hydrographic 
Services of the RN 3 3 765 0 0 14,705 11,250,000 
 NIOZ 2 2 440 0 0 6,818 3,000,000 
NL   28 13 3,425 15 3,300 12,623 82,340,000 
 Sven Loven Centre 
for Marine Science 3 3 175 3 n/a 4,937 863,975 
 Geological Society 
Sweden 1 1 100 0 0 8,000 800,000 
  Swedish Coast 
Guard 1 1 220 0 0 15,000 3,300,000 
 Maritime Authority, 
Hydrographic Office 2 2 290 2 n/a 14,724 4,269,960 
  SMHI 2 2 78 1 n/a 14,916 1,163,448 
 Swedish Fisheries 
Board 1 1 200 1 n/a 7,458 1,491,600 
SE   10 10 1,063 0 0 11,1843 11,888,983 
 Marine Scotland 2 2 600 0 0 23,529 6,000,000 
 CEFAS 1 1 250 0 0 10,000 4,500,000 
 Maritime & 
Coastguard Agency 3 3 570 0 0 10,000 6,000,000 
 UKHO/Royal Navy 2 2 250 0 0 20,000 5,000,000 
UK   6 6 1,670 0 0 9281 15,500,000 
                                                 
93  J A Slater , A C Mole & R Waring  Strategic Anal ysis of UK Environmental Monitoring, Activity for 
ERFF, Final Report, October 2006,   
 
EN 64   EN Table 13 Fleet costs for private bodies 
MS Institution name Number of major 
vessels Number 
of 
minor 
vessels Ave. cost Per Day (Euro) 
Netherlands Fugro  6594 0 25,00095 
UK BMAPA 0 0 13,700 
UK Associated British Ports  8 0 9,00096 
UK London Gateway (DP 
World)  0 0 21,800 
Spain REPSOL 0 0 45,00097 
Spain AZTI several several 4,50098 
Netherlands Shell 0 0 - 
United 
Kingdom BP 0 0 - 
France TOTAL  0 0 75,000 99 
 AVERAGE per day:        
27,714   
The average rental cost per day varies gr eatly. It clearly depends on the size and 
nature of the vessel although the costs declared by private companies are, on the whole, higher – possibly because users in the public sector do not always pay the full costs. 
A study by the Marine Board estimated that EU researchers spent 8 713 total 
research fleet days per year
100. At an average cost of €20 000 per day this works out 
at a cost of €160 million per year for their institutions. However this probably does not represent the full cost of these vesse ls. Nor does it include hydrographic surveys 
which are normally paid from the defen ce budget rather than the research budget. 
A paper
101 from the European Strategy Forum for Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) 
suggests that that 50% of the marine science budget is spent on operating and 
replacing marine infrastructure including research vessels and associated marine 
equipment. They found it very difficult to obtain an overview of spending but 
concluded that in the period 2003-2013, 15 new large vessels will be added at a cost of €125 million per year. This does not include the smaller vessels.  
Scaling up 
Sweden and Netherlands appear to be spendi ng far more of their national income, as 
a proportion of GDP, than France and UK. This is no doubt pa rtly due to under-
estimates for spending in France and UK. For instance the UK figure does not 
                                                
 
94  55 vessels of their own plus char ter time on 10 vessels, more or less  
95  25,000 is for standard multi-beam survey, does not include use of AUVs or ROVs  
96  Based on under 10m vessels < €5000 per day an d ocean-going vessels approx. €25,000 per day  
97  Costs vary between 20,000-70,000 euros. Mostly Mediterranean region.  
98  Costs vary between €3000-6000.  
99  Costs vary between €50,000– 100,000. Many su rveys carried out off shore mainland Africa.  
100  Data source: European Ocean Re search Fleets, Position Paper 10, Marine Board - ESF, March 2007, 
Table 2  and Appendix 1", 
101  European Strategy on Marine Research Infrastr ucture Report compiled for the European Strategy 
Forum on Research Infrastructure by  the Ad Hoc Working Group on Ma rine Research Infrastructure 
April 2003 
 
EN 65   EN include spending by the Natio nal Environmental Resear ch Council which operates 
four large ships. There is  not enough data on Spain to  draw any conclusions. 
If we calculate the average spending per GDP for these four countries and scale up 
by the GDP of coastal EU states we arri ve at a lower limit for EU spending of 
€815 million. If space is included, then al lowing for currency fluctuations and 
uncertainties, this is about the same level as the $1 billion102 that the United States 
was spending annually on its ocean observi ng in 2002. A safe estimate for a 
minimum value for Europe's current public spending on sea and ocean monitoring would be €1 billion. 
                                                
 
102  Building consensus: toward an integrated and sustained ocean observing system Ocean.US Workshop 
Proceedings Airlie House, Warrent on, Virginia March 10-15, 2002 
 
EN 66   EN ANNEX 4 ONGOING EU ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE MARINE KNOWLEDGE  
This is not the first time that such defici encies have been identified. The European 
marine data infrastructure issue is part of  a wider debate on the potential gains of 
wider access to public information, of better sh aring of scientific data and of more 
coordinated monitoring of the planet. A nd the EU has already begun a number of 
initiatives aiming to alleviate barriers that prevent progress on these issues. These have already been described in the EMODnet roadmap
4. In this section we 
summarise the findings and e xplain how EMODnet fits in with these other actions. 
Obligations 
The EU's primary tools for promoting better discovery of data, freer access to data 
and fewer restrictions on us e of data-use conditions are 
1. the INSPIRE Directive103 which obliges Member States to adopt measures for the 
sharing of data sets and services  between its public  authorities,  
2. the Environmental Information Directive104 which requires them to release the 
data when asked and  
3. the Public Sector Information Directive105 which facilitates the re-use of public 
data buy by insisting that it is provi ded to all third parties under the same 
conditions. 
These oblige Member States to adopt appropr iate measures in order to achieve the 
desired objectives. A study106 clarified why these measures were not sufficient to 
remove the barriers to the use of marine  data described in section 2.2.2. Broadly 
speaking the study concluded that Member States have correctly implemented the 
legislation at national level. However th e rules for INSPIRE and the Environmental 
Information Directive only apply only to  bodies that exert public authority which 
excludes research centres and some other bodies unless they are handling data on 
behalf of a public authority. 
Even for public authorities, access and re -use of data is largely governed by 
intellectual property rights. Data held by public authorities have largely been 
obtained with intellectual rights attached and neither the INSPIRE Directive nor the 
Environmental Information Directive overri de these restrictions. None of these 
Directives forbid charging on a cost-recovery basis. 
In other words there is not a problem of non-implementation of existing international 
and European rules in terms of access to a nd the use/re-use of marine environmental 
data, rather that those rules have a limite d impact on intellectual property rights and 
thus in their ability to facilitate data flows. 
                                                 
103  Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure  for Spatial Information in the European Community. 
104  2003/4/EC 
105  2003/98/EC 
106  Legal aspects of marine environmental data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
Final Report – October 2008 
 
EN 67   EN However whilst these Directives are not su fficient to facilitate access, they are 
necessary. For instance INSPIRE sets a basi c framework for spatial data standards 
that will be completely adopted by ur-E MODnet and EMODnet. In return EMODnet 
will feed back proposals for INSPIRE standards that are specific to the marine world. 
This will help ensure that marine data  is compatible with terrestrial data. 
Enabling Actions 
As well as the actions obliging Member Stat es to release data, a number of actions 
have taken place to facilitate the setting up of a marine data infrastructure. These 
include the Data Collecti on Regulation for fisheries107, projects conducted under the 
EU's Framework Programmes for resear ch, GMES, SEIS and WISE-marine. 
Data Collection Regulation 
The Community provides €44 million annually for the collection of fisheries data 
through the Data Collection Re gulation. Its latest revision31 has reduced the 
restrictions on access and use of data. It now obliges national authorities holding 
fisheries data to allow access for scientific advice, research and public debate and to 
grant the Commission access to national co mputerised databases through bilateral 
agreements.  
The Commission's Joint Research Centre (J RC) has been respons ible for collecting 
data from different Member States in or der to support assessmen ts of particular 
stocks or particular areas. The Intern ational Council for Expl oration of the Sea 
(ICES) uses some of these data in assessi ng stocks or providing  management advice. 
Although the Regulation is focused on fisher ies it now includes a limited number of 
parameters – by-catch etc – that enable an  estimation of fishi ng pressure on the 
ecosystem. However a full estimate of the state of the ecosystem requires more data on habitats and on the distribution a nd abundance of speci es that are not 
commercially fished. Spawning and recru itmengt depend on photosynthesis, light 
energy, photosynthetically  available radiation (PAR), and phytoplankton 
productivity.  These in turn are related to  the water temperature, clarity, suspended 
sediments, and nutrients. The scope of this  Regulation is limited by its legal basis in 
article 37 of the Treaty of the European Communities to fisheries so it cannot be 
extended to cover these issues. 
It is planned that EMODnet will compleme nt the Regulation so that users will be 
able to integrate fisheries data with other data in a seamless way. This will be achieved through common standard s and quality control.  
Framework Programme Projects 
A number of projects partly financed  by the EU's Framework Programme for 
research such as SEADATANET and GEOSEAS have gone some way towards meeting the objectives of EMODnet. Each of  them aims to provide better access to 
particular types of marine data held by Member States by setting up catalogues, 
defining standards and developing the algorith ms and software necessary to assemble 
                                                
 
107  Council regulation N° 199/2008/EC 
 
EN 68   EN data. The partnerships developed within  these projects have led to a greater 
awareness of what is being done in other Member States. However: 
the research funding mechan ism is really designed to support innovation whereas 
what is needed is largely a routine cataloguing and data management. The work programmes of such projects are often a compromise between the universally 
acknowledged need to improve access to da ta and the legal requirement to comply 
with the general rules for EU research projects.  
1. such projects are of finite  duration. Continuations ar e not automatic and depend 
on the overall priorities of the Community's  research programme. Once the project 
stops, partnerships dissolve and stru ctures are no longer maintained. While 
preparatory phase projects for new resear ch infrastructures should lead to long-
term sustainability, there is no explicit or implicit intention for continued EU support. 
2. it can be difficult to steer research proj ects towards pre-defined deliverables. 
Consortia are invited to submit propos als that meet broad objectives. 
Although these projects contribu te substantially to the kno wledge base of the EU, 
they are too patchy and too limited in time to constitute a network.  
Global Monitoring for En vironment and Security 
The Global Monitoring for Environment a nd Security (GMES) programme provides 
support to marine data infrastructure in tw o ways – first it contributes towards the 
funding of satellites to monitor the mari ne environment and secondly it supports a 
"marine core service" which can be cons idered as the forerunner to an ocean 
forecasting system. This system will deliver  both data on the ocean surface from 
satellites and forecasts on a coarse scale fo r the global ocean and on a finer scale for 
the Arctic Ocean, Atlantic (North West Sh elf and Iberian coast), Baltic, Black Sea 
and Mediterranean. Obviously data in such projects are transmitted and managed in real-time.  In parallel with rapid real-time use, the same data are streamed towards an 
archive where they are cleaned up, polished, re-calibrated, and archived for future 
reference, climatology, etc.  For obvious  reasons, delayed mode data are more 
accurate than real-time data.  You ha ve to trade off speed for accuracy. 
This will be done on a prototype basis through the MyOcean
108 project which started 
in 2009 and is funded to the tune of €33 million through the Framework Programme 
(and hence suffers from the difficulties out lined in section 2). However from 2014 
onwards it is possible that some provisi on will be made in the EU budget for an 
operational service. 
The marine core service is primarily con cerned with physical data – temperature, 
salinity, current etc - so at the outset, in order to avoid overlaps, ur-EMODnet 
focuses on other parameters – bathymetr y, geology, chemistry and biology. But there 
are connections. Better bathymetry data from EMODnet will help physical monitoring in MyOcean. And, as the MyOcean project progresses, other gaps will be 
identified. Non-space-derived measurements  are needed to drive the circulation 
                                                
 
108   http://myocean .oceanobs.com/ 
 
EN 69   EN models of MyOcean - es pecially the Argo floats109. EMODnet might contribute to 
the observation system (see 6.1.4.2). The near-c oastal tidal regions  are not covered 
by the marine core service so the collection or assembly of physical measurements of 
these areas might come with in the scope of EMODnet. 
Further opportunities for identifying synerg ies between the two initiatives will be 
sought as the current projects mature. 
SEIS and WISE-marine 
The Shared Environmental Information System SEIS110, a collaborative initiative of 
the European Commission and the European  Environment Agency (EEA), is an 
approach aiming to modernise and simplify the collection, exchange and use of the 
data and information required for the design and implementation of environmental policy, according to which the current, mo stly centralised systems for reporting are 
progressively replaced by systems based on access, sharing and interoperability.  
WISE-marine is the marine environmental co mponent of SEIS intended to fulfil the 
requirements of implementation of the repor ting obligations of the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive 2008/56/EC. It will be  an extension of the current Water 
Information System for Europe (WISE) system which covers near coastal waters 
towards the marine environment. 
The EMODnet processing chains stops at  the assembly of data. WISE-marine 
processes these data to calculate indi cators. The ur-EMODnet biological and 
chemical components being constructed under preparatory actions have been chosen 
specifically to facilitate the constructi on of environmental indicators for WISE-
marine.  
European Agencies 
The mandates of the European Maritim e Safety Agency and the Community 
Fisheries Control Agency are more about the enforcement of maritime or fisheries 
rules than the provision of data for sett ing up these rules. However the European 
Maritime Safety Agency does act as a hub for distribution of vessel traffic 
information which, provided that suita ble safeguards regarding commercial 
confidentiality were observed, might, in  an appropriate aggregated form, be 
disseminated more widely. 
Ur-EMODnet 
Ur-EMODnet is a prototype EMODnet bei ng constructed under preparatory action 
funding. According to the Financial Regulation: 
The preparatory actions are to foll ow a coherent approach and may take 
various forms. The relevant commitment appropriations may be entered in the budget for not more than three successive financial years. 
                                                
 
109  small, drifting oceanic robo tic probes deployed worldwide 
110  Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) COM(2008) 46 final Brussels, 1 February 
2008 
 
EN 70   EN 
 
Figure 5 layers being developed for ur -EMODnet under the first year's preparatory actions. All data layers are 
covered in th North sea. The habitat map players are constructed from the other data layers and will indicate 
how easy it is to use the data coming from ur-EMODnet   
The preparatory actions fr om budgetary year 2008 are being implemented by five 
consortia. Each consortium is responsible fo r one data theme. Each one is aiming to 
develop map layers of two basic types: 
1. showing who is collecting data and where it is being collected For instance for 
bathymetry the map layer will show the position and characteristics of surveys which generally follow the track of a ship. 
2. assembling these data into seamless map-layers with public access. For 
bathymetry the map layers will show a regular grid indicating a water depth at each point of the grid together with an estimate of precision. 
In order to avoid making wrong choices and in order to fit within the budget 
allocation for the preparatory actions, ur-E MODnet is being constructed with more 
modest ambitions than a full EMODnet:  
1. Geographical scope. Each category of data  is only being assembled over a limited 
number of sea-basins. All are being asse mbled in the North Sea which is being 
taken as a reference and each category of data is also collected over one or more 
other basins. Figure 5 shows the geographical distribution of each parameter 
2. Range of parameters collected within each  theme. The aim has been to assemble 
representative parameters rather than the complete set - examples of synthetic compounds, heavy metals, radionuclides, fertilisers, organic material and 
hydrocarbons for the chemical lot and examples of phytoplankton, zooplankton, 
angiosperms , macro-algae, invertebra te bottom fauna, bird communities, sea 
mammals., reptiles for the biological layers. 
3. Resolution. High resolution data is best, since it records the maximum possible 
number of measured points per unit area or per unit of time. It is possible to 
process high resolution data into lower resolution data by smoothing or averaging, 
but not the other way round.”. It is possibl e to process high resolution data into 
lower resolution data but not the othe r way round. However producing seamless 
high resolution map layers over a whole sea basin is difficult because: 
 
EN 71   EN a. processing the data from the raw da ta is much more time-consuming. 
b. data owners are more reluctant to al low public access to high resolution data 
than for lower resolution data 
c. in some parts of the sea-basin, the raw data needed to produce the seamless 
map may be at too low a resolution 
For this reasons some of the ur-EMODnet  seamless layers are being produced at 
a relatively low resolution. The bathymetry  map layer will be delivered on a grid 
one quarter of a minute of longitude and latitude and the geological map at a one 
to one million scale. These are still at a higher resolution than anything that has 
been available on a sea-basin scale up to  now but for many applications, higher 
resolution data will be required. 
4. Certain data themes are not considered; in  particular physical data, fisheries data 
and human activity data. 
a. fisheries data is dealt with under the Data  Collection Regulation for fisheries. It 
is intended that ur-EMODnet and the Data Collection Regulation become progressively aligned.  
b. Physical data - currents, tides, waves, te mperature ,density etc - is dealt with by 
the GMES initiative. There are gaps as indicated in section 3 but it was judged 
appropriate to wait till these gaps became clearer before embarking on an 
action to deliver physical data. 
c. Human activity data (other than fisheries)  includes parameters such as gravel 
extraction activity, shipping lanes and aqu aculture characterist ics. These data 
are essential for spatial planning or es timating environmental pressure for the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive. However the prepar atory action budget 
could not stretch to assembling these data. 
d. Socio-economic data on coastal comm unities and the maritime economy – 
employment, profits, age-st ructure etc. Eurostat are working on improving the 
quality and comparability of those available at a European level. 
Despite these limitations, it is expected that  the ur-EMODnet being constructed will 
not only provide indications of how a future EMODnet will operate but will also provide data that are in themselves useful . The results can then either feed into 
existing structures or allow for the de velopment of a separate structure. 
European Atlas of the Seas 
Whilst EMODnet is aimed at providing the ma terial for scientists, public authorities 
and private bodies with the data they n eed to provide value added products and 
services, the European Atlas of the Seas has a wider set of target users. It aims to 
increase public awareness of the sea, clarify the spatial dimension of EU policies with an impact on the sea and develop the identities of individua l sea-basins. Some 
of the data will be provided by ur-EMODn et. A first version will be published in 
January 2010 and subsequently refined. The nature of the Atlas, and its inherent 
 
EN 72   EN limitations, can never provide the level of  detail required for the purposes of 
EMODnet. 
National Programmes 
Member States have also been active. Driven by obligations from the Marine 
Framework Strategy Directive, marine spa tial planning and marine  protected areas, 
the UK are beginning to put their marine data in order through the Marine Environmental Data and Information Netw ork (MEDIN) which involves about 30 
partners and is costing the agencies res ponsible for data distribution about €1 million 
per year. Ifremer, on behalf of the Fren ch oceanographic community, are delivering 
unified access to distributed data through initiati ves such as Coriol is (for physical 
data), Quadrige (for coastal environmenta l biological and chemical monitoring) and 
Biocean (for deep ocean biology). There are other initiatives in other Member States 
However Member States' actions in isolation are not enough. Each country's 
territorial or jurisdictional waters are part of a dynamic global system connected by shifting winds, seasonal currents and mi grating species. The intergovernmental 
structures lack the incentives for Member  States to establish a European wide 
EMODnet. 
Summary 
Table 14 How EU initiatives contribute to marine data infrastructure Research projects and national initiatives 
are not included. Neither are "obligations' such as INSPIRE. The table only covers "enabling measure" financed in part by the EU budget. 
Parameter collection a ssembling Application 
bathymetry  ur-EMODnet WISE  marine 
geology  ur-EMODnet  
physics GMES (space) GMES (e xcept near coast)  GMES 
fisheries (including 
fisheries economy) Data Collection Regulation JRC ICES 
Chemistry  ur-EMODnet WISE-Marine 
biology  ur-EMODnet WISE Marine human activity (other 
than fisheries)   WISE Marine 
coastal and maritime 
economy (except 
fisheries)  Eurostat  
Classifying in a simple manner the knowle dge needed to understand the complex 
marine world and listing the ongoing EU actions aimed at improving that knowledge inevitably leads to approximations and half-truths. Nevertheless a first-order 
overview of how the ongoing actions  fit together and where th e gaps are is useful for 
providing an overview as a departure point  for further discussion. Table 14 shows 
 
EN 73   EN how EU initiatives target the different phases of data pro cessing for each of the main 
types of data defined in the EMODnet roadmap. 
EU research projects cover a number of these topics but ar e not included here 
because they are not supposed to be perman ent structures but rather should develop 
expertise and provide tools. 
GMES is an exception. The GMES umbre lla covers the EU contribution to the 
satellite operation as well as the MyOcean  project Although both of these are funded 
from the research budget,  there is an intention that th ey should be continued as an 
operational service. For this  reason they are included