COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT European Marine Observation and Data Network IMPACT ASSESSMENT  COM(2010) 461 SEC(2010) 999
Date: 2010-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: access to information, environmental protection, impact study, knowledge economy, management of resources, marine environment, maritime surveillance, resources of the sea, sustainable development

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 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

CHANGES INTRODUCED SINCE PREVIOUS VERSION ................................................................. 4 

2.1 
2.2 

2.3 

3.1 

3.2 
3.3 
3.4 

3.5 

3.6 

4.1 
4.2 
4.3 
4.4 

5.1 

5.2 

2.2.1 
2.2.2 
2.2.3 
2.2.4 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES .............................. 4 
IDENTIFICATION.................................................................................................................................... 4 
ORGANISATION AND TIMING................................................................................................................. 5 
preparation...................................................................................................................................... 5 
present status................................................................................................................................... 6 
next steps ......................................................................................................................................... 6 
scope of this impact assessment ...................................................................................................... 7 
CONSULTATION AND EXPERTISE........................................................................................................... 7 
2.3.1  Outside Expertise ............................................................................................................................ 7 
2.3.2 
Stakeholder Consultation ................................................................................................................ 8 
PROBLEM DEFINITION.......................................................................................................................... 9 
ISSUE .................................................................................................................................................... 9 
3.1.1  Need for coherent approach............................................................................................................ 9 
3.1.2 
Barriers to application of marine data............................................................................................ 9 
3.1.3  Competition ................................................................................................................................... 10 
3.1.4  Uncertainty.................................................................................................................................... 10 
PROPORTIONALITY – MAGNITUDE OF CURRENT EXPENDITURE........................................................... 11 
DRIVERS ............................................................................................................................................. 11 
WHO IS AFFECTED?............................................................................................................................. 12 
3.4.1 
Science .......................................................................................................................................... 13 
3.4.2  National and Local Authorities ..................................................................................................... 13 
Private Companies ........................................................................................................................ 14 
3.4.3 
BASELINE ........................................................................................................................................... 14 
3.5.1  Obligations.................................................................................................................................... 15 
Enabling Actions ........................................................................................................................... 15 
3.5.2 
3.5.3  Current data availability............................................................................................................... 19 
The future ...................................................................................................................................... 20 
3.5.4 
EU RIGHT TO ACT – TREATY BASIS ..................................................................................................... 21 
OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................................ 23 
GENERAL OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................................................ 23 
SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................... 23 
OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVE .................................................................................................................. 24 
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER EU POLICIES AND HORIZONTAL OBJECTIVES ........................................... 24 
POLICY OPTIONS................................................................................................................................... 25 
POSSIBLE OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................. 25 
5.1.1  What should the EU do?................................................................................................................ 25 
5.1.2  What is the most appropriate legal instrument? ........................................................................... 26 
5.1.3  How should this support be managed? ......................................................................................... 27 
DISCARDED OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................... 27 
5.2.1  What should the EU do?................................................................................................................ 27 
5.2.2  What is the most appropriate legal instrument? ........................................................................... 29 
5.2.3  How should this support be managed? ......................................................................................... 29 
ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................... 29 
PRIMARY IMPACTS.............................................................................................................................. 29 
6.1.1  Direct Operational Costs .............................................................................................................. 30 
6.1.2  Competition ................................................................................................................................... 30 
Reduced uncertainty...................................................................................................................... 32 
6.1.3 
Implementation costs..................................................................................................................... 33 
6.1.4 
DERIVED IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................. 36 
Economic Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 36 

6.2.1 

6.1 

6.2 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
7 

7.1 

Social Impacts ............................................................................................................................... 41 
6.2.2 
Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................. 41 
6.2.3 
6.2.4 
External Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 43 
COMPARING THE OPTIONS ............................................................................................................... 43 
WHAT SHOULD THE EU DO? ............................................................................................................... 43 
7.1.1 
Stakeholder opinion....................................................................................................................... 43 
7.1.2 
Impacts .......................................................................................................................................... 44 
7.1.3 
Economic impacts ......................................................................................................................... 45 
7.1.4 
Subsidiarity ................................................................................................................................... 46 
Proportionality.............................................................................................................................. 47 
7.1.5 
7.1.6  Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 47 
Interim Period 2011-2013............................................................................................................. 48 
7.1.7 
Afterwards ..................................................................................................................................... 49 
7.1.8 
WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LEGAL INSTRUMENT? .............................................................................. 49 
HOW SHOULD THIS SUPPORT BE MANAGED? ....................................................................................... 50 
Stakeholder Opinion...................................................................................................................... 51 
7.3.1 
Primary impacts ............................................................................................................................ 51 
7.3.2 
Implementation Costs.................................................................................................................... 51 
7.3.3 
7.3.4  Conclusion..................................................................................................................................... 52 
INCENTIVES ........................................................................................................................................ 53 
Privately-collected data ................................................................................................................ 53 
Publicly Collected data ................................................................................................................. 53 
8  MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................................... 54 
INDICATORS........................................................................................................................................ 54 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION......................................................................................................... 55 
ANNEX 1 GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... 56 

7.4.1 
7.4.2 

7.2 
7.3 

8.1 
8.2 

7.4 

ANNEX 2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ............................................................................................ 58 
PROCEDURE AND OUTCOME .............................................................................................................................. 58 
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 Collection Regulation ......................................................................................................................... 67 
Framework Programme Projects ................................................................................................................ 67 
Global Monitoring for Environment and Security....................................................................................... 68 
SEIS and WISE-marine................................................................................................................................ 69 
European Agencies...................................................................................................................................... 69 
Ur-EMODnet............................................................................................................................................... 69 
European Atlas of the Seas.......................................................................................................................... 71 
National Programmes ................................................................................................................................. 72 
Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 72 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

1  CHANGES INTRODUCED SINCE PREVIOUS VERSION 

The main changes introduced since the previous version are: 

The glossary has been shifted to annex 1. 

A summary of the stakeholder 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  the  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  been  expanded  to  provide  a  more  detailed 
estimate  of  the  opportunity  costs  of  the  present  fragmented  data  infrastructure  in 
Europe. 

Section  "3.5  Baseline"  showing  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  PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION 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 Network (EMODnet). The agenda planning 
reference  is  2009/MARE/003.  This  Network  was  announced  in  the  EU's  Maritime 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Policy  Blue  Book1  which  was  welcomed  by  the  European  Council  in  December 
2007.  While  this  impact  assessment  specifically  addresses  EMODnet  as  one  of  the 
actions  under  Maritime  Policy,  the  Communication  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  unequivocally  identify  the 
source of such funding. 

The report commits only the Commission's services 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  maritime  policy  was  a  strategic  objective  of  the 
Commission's 2005-2009 workplan2. 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  stakeholders  to  its  proposal,  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 availability of high quality data. The impact 
assessment is part of a process that started 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 observation issues has been meeting regularly 
since then. An expert group was set up, web-sites (both for outside stakeholders and 
for  Commission  services)  established,  preparatory  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 Impact 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  Impact  Assessment  Board  on  22  June  2009.  A 
revised version was sent on October 14 2009. 

1  
2  

3  

4  

5  

An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union Brussels, 10.10.2007 COM(2007) 575 final 
Strategic  Objectives  2005  –  2009  Europe  2010:  A  Partnership  for  European  Renewal  Prosperity, 
Solidarity and Security 26.1.2005 COM(2005) 12 final 
 Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and seas 7.6.2006  
COM(2006) 275 final 
Building  a  European  marine  knowledge  infrastructure:  Roadmap  for  a  European  Marine  Observation 
and Data Network, SEC (2009) 499 (final), 4 April 2009 
 European Environment Agency 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.2  present status 

Preparatory actions started in May 2009. This is the financing mechanism for setting 
up  a  prototype  ur-EMODnet.  Consortia  are  assembling  bathymetric,  geological, 
chemical  and  biological  data  for  a  limited  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 the 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 strategy, 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  knowledge  is  being  prepared  for  early 
2010 that will outline a set of common objectives for marine knowledge, show how 
the  different  initiatives  already  underway  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 vision 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 preparatory 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  current  estimates  (set  out  in  section  6.1.4 
"Implementation costs") indicate will be necessary. 

Inaction  till  2013  would  cause  the  initiative  to  lose  momentum  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 follow-up the preparatory 
actions and lay down the basis for a better decision.  

6  

7   

Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES):  we  care  for  a  safer  planet  Brussels, 
12.11.2008, COM(2008) 748 final 
Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)  COM/2008/0046 final  

EN 

6 

   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  consideration  for  2010  with  the  object  of 
establishing  a  programme  to  support  the  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  in  2011-2013. 
However other financial mechanisms may be considered.  

2.2.4  scope of this impact assessment 

This  is  an  appropriate  time  to  take  stock  of  what  has  been  done.  An  impact 
assessment  at  this  stage  allows  a  clarification  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 precisely 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  factor  in  making  it  hard  to  determine  the 
costs of remedial action. But an assessment at this stage of the policy development 
provides  a  concrete  and  transparent  baseline  for  further  discussion  that  can  be 
progressively  refined  as  more  information  becomes  available  through  ur-EMODnet 
and other means. 

The  assessment  therefore  should  justify  the  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  intermediate  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 provide 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  obtain  first  estimates  of  the  likely  cost  of 
setting  up  an  operational  capability  (see  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  

9  

10  

Half  of  a  €500,000  legal  study  that  also  covered  other  issues  and  a  study  on  economic  issues  for 
€250,000 
Legal Aspects of Marine Environmental Data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
final report, October 2008 
European  Commission  Marine  Data  Infrastructure  Framework  Service  Contract,  No.  FISH/2006/09  – 
Lot 2 Final report December 2009 

EN 

7 

   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  administrations  of  all  EU  coastal  states  and  more  than  100 
local authorities. Although there were various 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 Marine Observation and Data Expert Group 
and after gathering feedback from presentations at a number of gatherings of marine 
specialists, a roadmap was produced in April 2009 setting out broad principles and a 
timetable for moving ahead. 

Simultaneously a new public consultation was launched. 300 stakeholders replied in 
two months - 42% on behalf of their organisations, 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 research 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%  expressing  strong  needs.  These  results  are 
consistent  with  a  1999  analysis  by  EuroGOOS12  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 these principles. 70% strongly agreed and 
90% in total agreed with the first five principles - provide sustainable financing at an 
EU  level,  interoperability,  multi-use  of  data,  marginal  costing  and  statements  on 
ownership, accuracy and precision Agreement 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 should build on existing effort 
and that a decision-making process should be developed that is user-driven. 

The  consultation  met 
impact  assessment 
the  Commission's  standards 
consultations.  The  complete  outcome  is  reported  in  a  separate  document13  and 
summarised  in  annex  1.  Relevant  elements  are  inserted  wherever  appropriate 
throughout this report.  

for 

11   
12   

13  

COM(2006) 275 final 
Operational Oceanography Data Requirements Survey EuroGOOS Publication No. 12 February 1999, 
EG99.04 
Marine Data Infrastructure: public consultation. Commission Staff Working Document, 2009. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

3.1 

Issue 

3.1.1  Need for coherent approach 

It  is  now  well-known  that  the  rhythms  and  cycles  of  the  marine  world  influence 
human activity in a multitude of ways. For instance the abundance and diversity of 
marine life influences the provision of food; changes in seabed sediments influence 
coastal erosion and ocean circulation is a primary, if poorly-understood, influence on 
the terrestrial climate. Since the industrial 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 requirement, for operational purposes or to further 
scientific understanding.  

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  influence  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 jurisdictional waters are part of a dynamic global 
system  connected  by  shifting  winds,  seasonal  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  study14  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  biology  data  (excluding  fisheries),  four 
fisheries  data,  six  chemical  data  and  eight  human  activity  data.  There  was  similar 
fragmentation in other Member States. 

14  

15  

Legal Aspects of Marine Environmental Data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
final report, October 2008 
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 

9 

   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 – restrictions imposed on end-use; for instance "for 
research  purposes  only"  (4)  coherence  –  difficulty  combining  data  from  different 
sources (5) cost – beyond the budget of the user (6) quality – precision and accuracy 
unknown (7) quantity – spatial and temporal resolution not sufficient for the purpose.  

This is confirmed by the stakeholder survey 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  reported  that  these  barriers  constituted  an 
impediment  to  their  working  efficiency  with  significant  numbers  (about  40%) 
indicating that these were severe barriers. These barriers not only raise costs but also 
mean that data does not arrive in time to meet operational requirements. 

The only outlier is cost. Although most stakeholders from 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 cost16.  

Error! Objects cannot be created 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 use of marine data mean that 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 organisation that did. This reduces the number of bodies 
that are potentially able to deliver 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 public sector who themselves provide added-
value services from these data. 

3.1.4  Uncertainty 

The  lack  of  an  effective  marine  data  infrastructure  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  annual  cost  of  adaptation,  aggregated  at  EU  level  under 

16  
17  

18  

For data delivered over the internet, the marginal cost approaches zero 
Re-use  of  Public  Sector  Information  –  Review  of  Directive  2003/98/EC,  Brussels,  7.5.2009, 
COM(2009) 212 final, 
ECHAM is Max Planck Institute's climate model. B2 is an IPCC scenario The B2 scenarios are of an 
ecologically  friendly  but  divided  world  with  continuously  increasing  population  but  at  a  slower  rate 
than A2. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
‘optimal’ protection (costs versus benefits), between € 0.49 billion and € 0.85 billion 
by  2020.  Assuming  that  engineers  are  being  precautionary  in  assuming  the  50.8cm 
rise then a 25% reduction in uncertainty can reduce the annual costs 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  uncertainty.  This  is  discussed 
further in section 6.1.3 

3.2  Proportionality – Magnitude of current expenditure 

The  fragmented  nature  of  the  current  marine  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 assessment10 did come up with some estimates.  

There  are  relatively  few  earth  observation  satellites  that  are  used  for  ocean 
observation  so  calculating  their  annual  cost  including  construction,  launch  and 
operation is feasible. Dividing this cost for 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 calculate the rest. An estimate of €815 million for the EU as a 
whole was obtained by calculating the spending by  France, Netherlands, Spain and 
UK  and  scaling-up  using  GDP  as  a  weighting,.  The  figure  for  the  four  countries 
includes spending by bodies responsible for national defence, coastguards, fisheries, 
environmental standards and research but is certainly not exhaustive. Some reviewers 
of  the  report  indicated  that  it  had  neglected  some  spending  by  local  authorities 
responsible for ports or coastal protection. However the authors were unable to come 
up with figures for this spending. 

Private  companies  also  spend  considerable  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 mineral prospecting that 
cannot  be  made  publicly  available  but  it  also  includes  data  on  waves,  currents  and 
tides that could be more widely used.  

It is therefore safe to assert that EU Member 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 spending more: at least €3 billion per year. 
These costs illustrate the approximate scale of the activity. 

More details of these calculations are provided in annex 3 

3.3  Drivers 

By their nature marine data already fulfil 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 the public interest that marine data produced 
with public money be as widely used as possible. Unused data are a lost opportunity 
and still require expensive maintenance, storage, cataloguing etc. 

However whilst it is in an organisation's interest that everybody else facilitates access 
to data, it might not always be perceived as being in its own interest to make its own 

EN 

11 

   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 competitive advantage through preferential access 
to the data when delivering products derived from these data. These products could 
be assessments, forecasts, charts, maps or scientific papers. This is described by the 
UK's Office of Fair Trading19 

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  particular  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 organisations 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  the  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  Atmospheric  Administration,  NOAA,  have 
constructed  a  business  case20  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 the cost of using ocean data to generate 
products  and  services.  This  does  not  include  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 
survey13 from the research community pointed out: 

(…)  American  data  policy  is  light  years  better  than  EU  policies.  While 
"Europe" is sending one satellite after the other into the orbit their data 
is  mainly  validated  with  in-situ  data  in  American  waters.  The  ratio  of 
satellite  papers  dedicated  to  American  or  European  waters  is  at  least 
10:1. Reason: EU in-situ data policies. 

Consultants  working  on  offshore  renewable  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  the  current  fragmentation  adds  25%  to  the 
cost of processing data in Europe. 

19  
20  

The commercial use of public information (CUPI), December 2006, OFT861 
The  Business  Case  for  Improving  NOAA’s  Management  and  Integration  of  Ocean  and  Coastal  Data, 
Zdenka Willis, Director, NOAA IOOS Program January 2009 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  current  situation  reduces  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  all  those  who  use 
marine data - scientists, local authorities 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 provides economic benefits through better 
forecasting  of  the  terrestrial  climate  and  a  more  sustainable  exploitation  of  marine 
resources.  A  2006  project21  estimated  public  marine  research  spending  in  Belgium, 
France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Portugal,  Spain  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  another  €100  million.  This  does  not  include 
all  marine  research  activities.  For  instance  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  science  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 fragmented 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 journals 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  coastal  erosion  or  to 
manage  natural  resources.  The  cost  of  assessing  impact  of  new  activities  is  largely 
borne by the private sector although public oversight is required. Protecting against 
coastal  erosion  is  estimated  at  €700  million  per  year 24.  Managing  natural  resources 
has  historically  largely  been  about  fisheries  although  the  setting  up  of  marine 
protected  areas  and  the  Marine  Framework  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  and  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.  The  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  greater  area,  are  under 

21  

22  
23  

24 

25  

MarinERA Publication N°1 A Preliminary Description of MarinERA Member State Marine Research 
Funding Programmes and Implementation Procedures (2006) 
Fisheries Management Costs: Concepts and Studies, Paul Wallis and Ola Flaaten, OECD, 1997 
European  Strategy  on  Marine  Research  Infrastructure  Report  compiled  for  the  European  Strategy 
Forum  on  Research  Infrastructure  by  the  Ad  Hoc  Working  Group  on  Marine  Research  Infrastructure 
April 2003 
The  economics  of  climate  change  adaptation  in  EU  coastal  areas,  Summary  report  ISBN  978-92-79-
12065-7, May 2009 
Fisheries Management Costs: Concepts and Studies, Paul Wallis and Ola Flaaten, OECD, 1997 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
separate management. A reasonable estimate for 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 marine management are associated with data 
processing. Only in the Netherlands were these 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  again  take  the  25%  for  opportunity  costs  of 
fragmentation we arrive at an annual cost in the region of €56 million. 

This  does  not  include  the  cost  of  dealing  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 efficiently 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 largely project related. They are gathered 
for  a  particular  application  and  then  remain  embedded  in  reports,  design  reports  or 
impact  assessments.  They  are  not  generally  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 they would be willing to share other data 
– particularly those above the sea-floor. Furthermore some of these 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 companies' 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 deficiencies 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  sharing  of  scientific  data  and  of  more 
coordinated  monitoring  of  the  planet.  And  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  roadmap4.  In  this  section  we 
summarise the findings and explain how EMODnet 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 collect, assemble or grant access to data and 
enabling measures are those where the EU provides some support . 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
3.5.1  Obligations 

The EU's  primary  tools  for  promoting  better discovery of data, freer  access to  data 
and fewer restrictions on use 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  parties  under  the  same 
conditions. 

These  oblige  Member  States  to  adopt  appropriate  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 Public Sector Information Directive30 found that 
re-users  in  the  geographical  and  meteorological  sectors  complained  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 and the use/re-use of marine environmental 
data, rather that those rules have a limited 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 States 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  allow  access  for  scientific  advice,  research 

26 
27 
28 
29 

30  

31  

Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community. 
2003/4/EC 
2003/98/EC 
Legal aspects of marine environmental data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
Final Report – October 2008 
Re-use  of  Public  Sector  Information  –  Review  of  Directive  2003/98/EC,  Brussels,  7.5.2009, 
COM(2009) 212 final, 
Council regulation N° 199/2008/EC 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  public  debate  and  to  grant  the  Commission  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 Security (GMES) which provides support 
to marine data infrastructure in two ways – first it contributes towards the funding 
of satellites to monitor the marine environment 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  towards  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  SEIS33,  a  collaborative 
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. 
WISE-marine is the marine component of SEIS. 

initiative  of 

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 Agency does act as a hub for distribution 
of  vessel  traffic  information  which,  provided  that  suitable  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  Framework  Strategy  Directive,  marine  spatial 
planning  and  marine  protected  areas,  Member  States  are  beginning  to  develop 
information systems for the assembly, curation and distribution of marine data.  

These are all useful contributions but can only provide part of the solution: the Data 
Collection  Framework  only  deals  with  fisheries  data;  GMES  only  targets  services 
where data from satellites plays a substantial role; SEIS and WISE marine are limited 
to  data  that  must  be  reported  in  the  framework  of  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive; limited duration research projects designed to promote innovation are the 

32  
33  

 http://myocean.oceanobs.com/ 
Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) COM(2008) 46 final Brussels, 1 February 
2008 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
wrong  vehicle  for  supporting  long-term  observation;  European  Agencies  only  hold 
limited  amounts  of  data  and  national  archives  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  being  constructed  under  preparatory  action 
funding. Those from budgetary year 2008 are being 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  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. 

Table 1 shows how EU initiatives target the 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 rather 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 
Bathymetry 
Geology 
Physics 
fisheries (including 
fisheries economy) 
Chemistry 
Biology 
human activity (other 
than fisheries) 
coastal and maritime 
economy (except 
fisheries) 

collection 

GMES (space) 

assembling 
ur-EMODnet 
ur-EMODnet 
GMES (except near coast)   GMES 

Application 
WISE  marine 

Data Collection Regulation 

JRC 

ur-EMODnet 
ur-EMODnet 

Eurostat 

ICES 

WISE-Marine 
WISE Marine 

WISE Marine 

In  order  to  avoid  making  wrong  choices  and  in  order  to  fit  within  the  budget 
allocation  for  the  preparatory  actions,  ur-EMODnet  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 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
hydrocarbons for the chemical lot and examples of phytoplankton, zooplankton, 
angiosperms  ,  macro-algae,  invertebrate  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.  However  producing  seamless  high 
resolution map layers over a whole sea basin is difficult because: 

a.  processing the data from the raw data 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 material for scientists, public authorities 
and  private  bodies  with  the  data  they  need  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 individual sea-basins. Some 
of  the  data  will  be  provided  by  ur-EMODnet.  A  first  version  will  be  published  in 

EN 

18 

   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  easier  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 collected 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  the  data  in  the  first  place.  The 
current preparatory actions will produce a grid covering 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  organisations  exists  to  produce  this 
finer-resolution layer but it is currently largely unavailable because 
of licensing restrictions and ignorance as to who holds the data. A 
first inventory of surveys is being set-up as part of ur-EMODnet. 

Geology 

Physics 

Generally each country only has 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  maps  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. 

Information  on  physical  properties  near  the  coast  is  not  amenable 
to satellite observation and so is not part of GMES. The SEPRISE 
project34  achieved  some  success  in  assembling  measurements  in 
near-real-time  from  fixed  stations  and  buoys  of  sea  surface 
temperature,  significant  wave  height,  salinity,  sea  level,  and 
currents  but  this  project  has  ended.  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 challenges are to understand whether 
the  monitoring  density  is  sufficient  to  ascertain  the  quality  and 
precision of measurements and answer questions on environmental 

34  

Sustained,  Efficient  Production  of  Required  Information  Services,  Specific  Support  Action,  Sixth 
Framework Programme 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Biology 

Fisheries 

Human 
Activity 

status  –  some  of  which  have  been  made  many  years  ago.  Some 
Member  States  are  protective  of  interpretations  of  chemical  data 
because  of  possible 
compliance  with 
implications 
environmental regulations.   

for 

Monitoring  the  abundance  and  diversity  of  species  requires  long 
time-series  and  the  incorporation  of  data  collected  by  many 
different methods. The approach being 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  rapidly  thereafter.  The  reason  for 
this  is  unknown.  It  is  still  a  challenge  to  convert  the  raw 
observations into time and space dependent species abundance. 

The  Data  Collection  Framework  has  established  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 data (other than fisheries) includes parameters such 
as  gravel  extraction  activity,  shipping  lanes  and  aquaculture 
characteristics.  These  data  are  essential  for  spatial  planning  or 
the  Marine  Strategy 
estimating  environmental  pressure  for 
Framework  Directive.  There  are  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  infrastructure  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, temperature 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  and  model-derived  circulation  patterns  in 
Europe's  seas  and  oceans.  However  without  a  solid  infrastructure  for  non-space 
measurements,  the  programme  could  fail  to  meet  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  available,  users  need  measurements  to 
calibrate them and in order to assess their accuracy. 

EN 

20 

   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  monitoring  network  and  allow  sea-basin-scale 
pictures  to  be  developed.  It  will  be  difficult  to  make  progress  on  WISE  marine 
without further development of the biological and chemical layers of ur-EMODnet.  

However the task should not be underestimated. Assessing the biological 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  sampled,  short-lived  or  migrating  marine 
populations  will  take  a  sustained  effort.  Ur-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  from  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-EMODnet  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 and 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 networking. 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  action  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  industrial potential of policies of innovation, research 
and  technological  development”.  Serving  the  Community  and  Member  States’ 
industry is one of the specific objectives of EMODnet. The recent proposal for a 
GMES  Regulation35  is  based  on  Article  157(1),  for  industrial  competitiveness 
even  though  a  secondary  objective  is  to  "give  access  to  accurate  data  and 
information  in  the  field  of  environment  and  security  under  Community 
control(…) tailored to the needs 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 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.  Article  175  of  the  EC  Treaty  serves  as  legal  basis  for  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  Article  251  EC  Treaty  and  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 contribution 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  scientific  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 citizens of the Union, economic operators 
and regional and local communities to derive full benefit from the setting-up of 
an  area  without  internal  frontiers,  the  Community  shall  contribute  to  the 
establishment  and  development  of  trans-European  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 basis40. 

Measures can have a dual legal basis. However, the threshold for deeming a measure 
to have a dual legal basis is quite high. The fact that a certain measure will produce 
benefits to a Community objective is not sufficient to establish the relevance of that 

36   
37  

38   
39   

40  

See EMODNET Roadmap, p. 39. 
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 
See EMODNET Roadmap, p. 40. 
Article 171 of the EC Treaty provides that “the Community may set up joint undertakings or any other 
structure necessary for the efficient execution of Community research, technological development and 
demonstration programmes”. With regard to ERIC’s, see also above. 
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  between  Member  States  (cf.  Council  Decision  n° 
96/715/EC of 9 December 1996 on inter-administration telematic networks 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 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
objective as a legal basis41. Nevertheless, it is settled case-law that when a measure 
simultaneously  pursues  a  number  of  objectives  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 exercise is to underpin EU policies that preserve, protect 
and  improve  the  quality  of  the  environment,  pursue  the  prudent  and  rational 
utilisation  of  natural  resources,  strengthen  the  scientific  and  technological  bases  of 
Community  industry,  support  the  common  transport  policy,  progressively  establish 
an area of freedom, security and justice, increase fisheries productivity 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  they  appear  in  the  treaties.  The  general 
objective of this initiative thus highlights its cross-cutting nature. 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  decision-making  at  all  levels.  Coastal 
protection,  impact  assessments,  maritime  spatial  planning,  maritime 
surveillance,  licensing  and  fisheries  management  are  all  heavily 
dependent  on  marine  knowledge.  Efficient  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  coherent  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  
43  

See Case C-178/03 Commission v Parliament and Council [2003], paragraphs 41-43 and 57. 
(consolidated text) Official Journal C 321E of 29 December 2006 

EN 

23 

   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 geographical location, 
time of measurement, ownership, precision and accuracy. 

2.  a  set  of  complete  interoperable  layers  for  European  sea  basins,  showing  where 
data  is  being  collected,  where  the  gaps  are  and  providing  seamless  quality-
checked data layers (gridded or polygons) for unrestricted public access. 

3.  a user-driven process that determines priorities for the collection and assembly of 
marine data and that directs support to those activities that 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 competition 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 the 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  implemented  through  one 
policy  alone.  This  is  clearly  reflected  in  the  general  objective  which  draws  upon 
various Treaty articles. A better 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  jointly  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-EMODnet were specifically 

44  

Brussels, 14.2.2007 COM(2007) 56 final 

EN 

24 

   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  encourage  the  growth  of  an  innovative  value-added  sector 
tailoring  the  data  for  specific  applications  including  assimilation  into  computer 
models and forecasts. 

They  are  consistent  with  the  sustainable  development  strategy.  A  better  data 
infrastructure  will  allow  a  more  precise  assessment  of  the  impact  of  proposed 
developments  on  the  marine  environment  and  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 expression - 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  plans  that  might  affect  their  well-being  and 
livelihood. 

5  POLICY 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 the 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  potential  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-  automatically  through  permanently  moored  or 
mobile  instruments  or  through  samples  collected  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 

25 

   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, coastal erosion, fish population, 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  added  value  products  without  assembling  and 
processing  the  data  that  make  up  these  indicators.  We  therefore  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 
information 
technology  allows  the  data  to  be  distributed  in  a  network  but  accessed  through 
one  gateway.  Guaranteeing  safe  archiving  for  posterity  is  also  included  within 
this option.  

imply  a  central  database.  Modern 

2.  COLLECTION  -  the  same  as  option  1  but  in  addition  supporting  observation 
systems and the collection of data – automatically 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  environmental  quality,  coastal  erosion,  fish 
population or tsunami risk. 

These are the three basic options for EU support. Options 2 and 3 are not mutually 
exclusive. Neither, either or both could be considered for action. 

5.1.2  What is the most appropriate legal instrument? 

Presently  the  European  Union  requires  Member  States  to  collect  certain  data  under 
various  regimes.  Fisheries  data  is  collected  through  a  Council  Regulation;  some 
environmental data are collected through Council Directives. In addition some of the 
information can be used for other purposes than 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  should  constitute  a  clear  architecture.  They 
should be assessed in particular in terms of the administrative burden. 

EN 

26 

   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 intention to set up a colossal undertaking that 
takes  on  the  burden  of  collecting,  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  collected  and  how  it  should  be  assembled  and  a  secretariat  to 
administer  the  process.  The  decision-making  could  be  by  Committee  but  the 
secretariat requires a small group of staff whose full-time job is to prepare meetings, 
managing contracts with the disciplinary assembly groups and sea-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 through 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 mentioned 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-basin or set of sea-
basins.  These  thematic  assembly  groups  would  be  the  principal  nodes  of  the 
Network  and  would  themselves  communicate  with  the  secondary  nodes  of  the 
Network – national institutes 

3.  develop a new entity that would act in the same way as the previous option. This 
might  fulfil  the  requirements  for  a  European  Research  Infrastructure45  or  a 
European Grouping for Territorial Cooperation46 or require a new status. 

4.  charge  an  organisation  through  a  competitive  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 procurement 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 created from editing field codes. 

Figure  2  Opinion  from  stakeholders  as  to  which  phases  of  data  process  chain  the  EU  should  be 
involved in. 

45  

46  

European  Research  Infrastructure  Consortium  (ERIC),  Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  723/2009  of  25 
June 2009 
 Regulation  (EC)  No  1082/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  July  2006  on  a 
European grouping of territorial cooperation (EGTC) 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
More than 95% of those consulted 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 not have a role but rather because it is 
out of scope of this particular 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 will be on behalf of public authorities – local, national or 
European  -  who  require  the  data  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  against  cost.  This  is 
not  to  say  that  these  authorities  would  not  benefit  from  EMODnet.  By  providing 
better access to the data on which the warnings 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  from  EMODnet  is  the 
WISE-marine information system which is being specifically constructed to meet the 
regulatory requirements of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive37. 

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  production  and  dissemination  of  integrated  EU-
approved  parameters might be justified. However at this moment the confidence in 
single predictions is not high enough to warrant 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 will be able to calibrate and validate their 
individual  models  more  easily,  progressively  reduce  the  uncertainties  and  converge 
on agreed solutions. 

Finally  we  argue  in  this  impact  assessment  that  competition  is  enhanced  if  the 
organisation that collects and manages the data 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 projects 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 accused of benefitting from a monopoly. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
5.2.2  What is the most appropriate legal instrument? 

Many observations have been made by national 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 national agencies conduct work to fulfil  EU 
objectives,  and  using  money  that  would  otherwise  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 policy, since large benefits will result. 

the 

Thus the most important decision to be taken therefore is the sharing of the burden 
between 
distinction 
Regulation/Directive/Recommendation.  The  analysis  will  combine  the  Council  and 
Commission  Recommendation  option,  given  that  the  decision  as  to  whether  this  is 
done by the Council or Commission is of a secondary nature. 

national 

hence 

level; 

and 

EU 

the 

5.2.3  How should this support be managed? 

A  priori  there  is  no  reason  to  discard  any  of  the  options  for  administering  the 
"Network" – carrying on as before, charging 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 objective 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 authorities, 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  effort  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  defining  these  parameters  but  will  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". Basically we would continue to struggle with 
high operational costs, limited competition and high uncertainty in the ocean's future 
behaviour. Local national data needs would be partially satisfied by national agencies 
as in the past. 

6.1  Primary impacts 

The  new  policy  for  marine  knowledge,  however  it  is  implemented,  will  have  four 
primary impacts – the first three positive 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 

29 

   EN 

 
2.  greater competition for the application of marine data 

3.  reduced uncertainty on the state and circulation of the oceans and coastal seas 

4.  implementation costs for setting up and operating a new infrastructure 

With careful attention to the design of the observing system at sea and the collection 
of  data,  the  same  system  can  provide  data  rapidly  for  commercial  and  short-term 
regulatory administration, as well as data types which are needed for climate change 
models and planetary models of biodiversity and sustainability.  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 ultimately be more important in 
the  long  run,  but  there  is  so  much  uncertainty  both  about  the  science,  and  the 
economic assumptions, that it is extremely difficult to quantify the benefit accurately. 
Both types of data and data processing are important. 

The  other  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts  are  a  result  of  these  four 
primary  impacts  and  the  magnitude  of  these  impacts  will  depend  on  the  particular 
options chosen. 

6.1.1  Direct Operational Costs 

Nearly all stakeholders – in research, public administration or industry - report that 
the current marine data infrastructure 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  processing  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  costs.  It  will  also  contribute  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 additional 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 better 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  Directive.  Article  11  indicates  that  "Monitoring 
programmes  shall  be  compatible  within  marine  regions  or  subregions".  The 
parameters for the chemical and biological themes were chosen specifically to meet 
the needs of this Directive. 

6.1.2  Competition 

Making  data  more  available  will  increase  competition  to  deliver  the  value  added 
products  derived  from  the  data.  Option  1,"assembling",  will  increase  competition 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
since those who collect data will no longer 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 entrepreneurs are given the opportunity 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. Assembling 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  sediments,  habitats  and  sea-floor 
topography  will  allow  those  searching  for  products  such  as  enzymes  or 
pharmaceuticals to target their exploration better. 

Tourism. An operator providing information on marine species distribution (eg. 
marine  mammals)  based  on  publicly  available  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  renewable  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 phases Ur-EMODnet will start to show where 
data  are  available  under  non-restrictive  conditions  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  

48  

Bill  Gates  –  The  Internet  Tidal  Wave.  Microsoft,  May  26,  1995.  Made  publicly  available  at  United 
States Department of Justice 
The neutrino and the whale. Nature Vol 462, 3 December 2009 

EN 

31 

   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  certainty  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 the framework of this 
assessment10. The study shows that whereas the London engineers consider a mean 
sea-level rise above 1 metre unlikely, the 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  uncertainty  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 from 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  save  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,  particularly  near  the  coast.  In  a  recent  book 
concerning uncertainty in environmental predictions50.  

Accurate  prediction  of  future  sea-level  change  is  clearly  impossible  but 
predicting  the  direction  and  the  general  magnitude  of  changes  in  the 
level  of  the  sea  is  within  the  realm  of  our  capabilities  (...)  The  logical 
next  step  should  be  to  turn  towards  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 all the possible scenarios, the worst and 
best  cases.  It  would  make  sense  to  spend  a  higher  proportion  of  effort 
and  money  to  gather  field  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 the 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  anything  but.  Emerging  projects  such  as 
Smart Buoys (time variability) and Ferry Box (space variability) are beginning to fill 
the gaps, but only beginning. 

49   

50  

Policy  Research  Corporation  Final  report  to  the  European  Commission  (2009)  “The  economics  of 
climate change adaptation in EU coastal areas” 
OH Pilky and L Pilkey-Jarvis, 2007 "Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict 
the Future", Columbia University Press, ISBN 978-0-231-13212-I 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option  2  "collection",  if  properly  targeted,  will  therefore  show  additional  benefits 
over and above option 1 "assembling".  

These  reductions  in  uncertainty  will  progressively  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 
budget

€975,000
€925,000
€700,000
€850,000
€3,450,000  

percentage of 
basins covered

40%
30%
25%
20%

bathymetry 
geology 
chemistry 
biology 
Total 

percentage of 
parameters 
covered 
50% 
100% 
20% 
5% 

Refinement of 
resolution needed

X10
X10
1
1

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 margins of uncertainty in these numbers. However we can 
make an approximation. We assume that the cost can be estimated by: 

1.  Assuming that 40% of the present cost is overhead 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  the  hydrographic  layers  and  that  we 
assemble a fuller range of chemical compounds and biological species.  

4.  Refining  the  resolution  for  the  hydrographic  layers  to  50  metres  and  for  the 
geological lot to 1:100,000. Although the amount of data increases quadratically 
with resolution, we assume that the cost increases linearly. 

5.  Assembling  fisheries  data  is  facilitated  by  work  done  already  under  the  Data 
Collection Framework on nomenclature standards and aggregation 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 require some thought in order to arrive 
at mutually compatible data across the Member States. Some work on assembling 

EN 

33 

   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  for  an  operational  EMODnet  with  complete 
coverage  of  European  sea-basins,  a  higher  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 
budget
€975,000
€925,000
€700,000
€850,000
€3,450,000  

percentage 
of basins 
covered
40%
30%
25%
20%

percentage 
of 
parameters 
covered
50%
100%
20%
5%

Refinement 
of 
resolution 
needed 
10 
10 
1 
1 

complete 
coverage 
€29,250,000
€18,500,000
€8,400,000
€51,000,000
€107,150,000
€2,000,000
€20,000,000

€4,000,000
€133,150,000

hydrography 
geology 
chemistry 
biology 
Sub-total 
fisheries 
physics 
Human 
activity 
Total 

We  then  arrive  at  a  figure  of  nearly  €133  million  to  set  up  the  complete 
infrastructure.  If we were to limit ourselves to completing the geographical coverage 
with the current resolution and parameters only, the amount required would be €10 
million.  If  we  increase  the  percentage  of  parameters  and  complete  geographical 
coverage  without  the  increase  in  resolution  the  total  amount  would  be  €60  million. 
This last figure is dominated by the biological 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 data. Quality control  would be additional to 
that implemented by those setting up the infrastructure 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 and biological data layers from monitoring 
programmes. This cost would rise as the coverage and resolution of the data layers 
increases.  Assuming  a  ten  year  programme51,  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 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table  4 First estimates of  annual  costs of a programme aiming  to  achieve  fully  operational  infrastructure  for 
assembling data  in 10 years. 

Implementation 
sea-basin  quality  control  and 
priority setting 
maintenance and updating 
secretariat 
Total 

First five 
years

€13,000,000

€2,000,000

€2,000,000
€1,000,000
€18,000,000

Thereafter

Second Five 
Years 

€13,000,000 

€2,000,000 

€2,000,000

€4,000,000 
€1,000,000 
€20,000,000 

€8,000,000
€1,000,000
€11,000,000

The present  impact assessment however suggests  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, investigating 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 annual 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  extent  by  a  reduction  in  funding  from  the 
Community's research budget for projects aiming to show the feasibility of a marine 
data infrastructure52. 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 million 53 per year over the Seventh Framework Programme to 
support space measurements through the GMES initiative.  

The cost of option 2 "collection" depend on the ambition.  

1.  The Euro-Argo consortium believe54 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  Atlantic  and  the  North  Sea  on  the  ecology 
and biogeography of plankton since 1931 and 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  
53  
54  
55  

SEADATANET etc 
It can be assumed that about 40% is for sea and ocean observation (DG ENTR private communication). 
 Presentation to Commission services 24 April 2009 
Phil  weaver,  National  Oceanography  Centre,  Southampton  "A  map  of  the  European  seabed" 
presentation at European Marine Observation Expert Group, 18 June 2009 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
4.  Establishing  a  European  Multidisciplinary  Seafloor  Observatory  for  long-term 
real-time monitoring of geosphere/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  cheaply  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. Later investment in further observations, as 
in option 2, can benefit from better information as to where further data can produce 
the most added value. 

6.2  Derived impacts 

We can then map out how these primary impacts 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 increase in choice for these services.  

Therefore  option  1  "assembling"  will  have  a  high  impact  on  functioning  of  the 
internal market. Option 2 "collection" will bring 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 appropriate market conditions 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  back  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  
57   
58  

Estimate from the Preparatory Phase project (EMSO), in collaboration with ESONET: 
Impact assessment Guidelines, 15 January 2009, SEC(2009) 92 
Reviewing Community innovation policy in a changing world Brussels, 2.9.2009 COM(2009) 442 final 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Option 2 "collection" will bring additional but unknown benefits.  

6.2.1.3  Operating costs and conduct of business/ 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  economies  of  scale  by  centralising  assembly 
and a reduced risk of free-riders behaviour. 

A study59 has estimated that the value of implementing an "integrated" (as opposed 
to  "fragmented")  ocean  observing  system  would  be  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars 
per year to the United States. The United States 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  exploit  the  resources  of  the  sea.  A  Price 
Waterhouse  Cooper  study60  suggests  that  an  expenditure  of  €70  million  on 
marine  mapping  in  Irish  waters  would  result  in  benefits  of  €415  million  to  the 
fisheries,  aquaculture,  biodiversity  (seaweed  was  used  as  a  proxy),  renewable 
energy, energy exploration and aggregate industries– a return of a factor of six. 

2.  Public  authorities  charged  with  coastal  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 forecasts would be very large indeed. It 
has  been  estimated61  that  the  benefits  of  modest  improvements  in  predicting  El 
Niño  would  be  of  the  order  of  $240  million  annually  for  the  US  agriculture 
industry which is similar in volume to that of the EU. Better marine observations 
are not a sufficient condition for more accurate seasonal forecasting but they are 
a necessary one. 

59   

60  
61  

Hauke  Kite-Powell;Charles  Colgan;  Rodney  Weiher  Estimating  the  Economic  Benefits  of  Regional 
Ocean Observing Systems Coastal Management, Volume 36, Issue 2 March 2008 , pages 125 - 145 
 Price Waterhouse Cooper, INFOMAR Marine Mapping Survey Options Appraisal Report June 2008 
Andrew  R.  Solow,  et  al.,  “The  Value  of  Improved  ENSO  Prediction  to  U.S.  Agriculture,”  Climate 
Change, Vol. 39, 1998, pp 47-60. 

EN 

37 

   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 the overall operating cost. 

6.2.1.4  Administrative burdens on business 

It  is  not  intended  that  there  should  be  any  new  obligations  on  business.  Any  new 
measures will be aimed at public bodies. 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 future behaviour of the sea. 

A good example is the construction of sea defences. Currently these have to take into 
account not only local conditions but also future global rises in sea-level. Since this 
is not known with any precision, engineers have to be conservative and often over-
dimension projects. This raises costs. 

Public  authorities  at  an  EU  and  national  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  service  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  plan  their  own  monitoring  activities  more 
effectively. 

Additional  costs  to  national  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  gives  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 - paying 100% of the costs of assembly (option 
1)  and  50%  of  the  costs  of  collection  (option  2)  -  would  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  access  to  national  databases.  However 
Member  States,  partly  as  a  result  of  the  INSPIRE  Directive  and  partly  as  good 
management practice, are doing this anyway. 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 

38 

   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  section  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 replacement of one operator by another that 
can deliver the same product cheaper or of better quality is not, of course, a loss to 
the economy as a whole. This position is consistent with other EU legislation. Access 
to raw data on comparable terms for all users of public data is the objective of the 
Public Information Directive28. Regulators in the United Kingdom and Sweden have 
pointed out that this is not always the case at present19. 

Therefore option 1  "assembling" has a  significant benefit for public authorities and 
option 2 "collection" could offer an even greater benefit. Costs would 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  ownership  and  this  ownership  should  be 
recognised when the data are used. The feedback will help in making a case for 
continuing monitoring. This recognition would be a positive impact for the data-
owner. 

2.  a  standardisation  of  intellectual  property  for  marine  data  at  a  European  level 
which would encourage the free movement of services in the internal market. 

3.  reduced control of how data is used. Owners of data submitted to the European 
Marine Observation and Data Network would 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 could 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 they are cited by other scientists. 

Option 2 "collection" would have no impacts 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 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.  Better access to marine data will stimulate innovation and research. In the same 
way  that  public  authorities  and  the  private  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 elsewhere 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  scientific  productivity  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 data is collected. 

6.2.1.8  Specific regions or sectors 

In the short-term it will largely be the coastal 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  energies,  sustainable  aquaculture  all  reach 
beyond the coast. 

This is valid for both options. 

6.2.1.9  Third countries and international relations 

There  are  a  number  of  international  initiatives  to  share  information  on  earth 
observation and monitoring in order to avoid 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  calls  for  action  by  the  2002  World  Summit  on 
Sustainable  Development  and  by  the  G8  (Group  of  Eight)  leading  industrialized 
countries.  Creating  a  better  marine  data  infrastructure  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 industries such as marine biotechnology. 

In  the  short  to  medium  term  these  benefits  would  derive  mainly  from  option  1 
"assembling".  

EN 

40 

   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  marine  data  infrastructure  to  create  jobs.  These  would 
largely be in the private sector. 

The greatest benefit would be from option 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 impetus 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 Protection Directive 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 administration, 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 level 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  environmental  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 efforts 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  uncertainty  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  regional  temperatures  and  precipitation  or  global 
sea-level  rise.  Without  this  regional  understanding  there  can  be  no  planning  of 
adaptation strategies. And since oceanic behaviour drives the local climate, there can 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
be no understanding of future regional climates without proper understanding of the 
oceans. 

Contributing to a better understanding of ocean circulation may be the single greatest 
contribution that the EU can make in helping Europe adapt to climate change. 

Option 1 "assembling" would contribute to this understanding. Option 2 "collection", 
will bring additional benefits 

6.2.3.2  Biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes 

Protection of marine biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes requires measures such 
as  fisheries  management  plans,  networks  of  marine  protected  areas  and 
environmental  impact  assessments.  Confidence  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 require 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 biodiversity, flora, fauna and landscapes. 

Option 1 "assembling" would help. 

However really we need more observations63. 

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 information 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 Spain 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  capacity64, 
which is the equivalent of about 20 nuclear 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  

64  

Rogers, A. et al. "Life at the edge: achieving prediction from environmental variability and biological 
variety.   In “Ocean Margin Systems”, Wefer, et al. (Eds.),  Springer Verlag, pp 387-404. 
UK Department of Energy and Climate Change, Offshore Energy SEA Environmental Report, January 
2009 

EN 

42 

   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 international partners. Hence co-operation with 
these partners can be sought. 

The  impact  of  ocean  acidification  or  sea-level  rise  will  largely  be  felt  in  the 
developing world. Acidification threatens those whose livelihoods depend on healthy 
coral reefs and it is generally accepted that the primary group threatened by sea-level 
rise  are  those  in  low-lying  islands  and  deltas.  Greater  certainty  in  these  impacts 
would help target development policies. 

Option  1  "assembling"  would  contribute  to  reducing  these  uncertainties.  Option  2 
"collection", would bring 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 three different phases in the observation process – collecting 
data, assembling and processing the data and applying the data. 

More than 90% of those consulted agreed that the EU had a role to in all phases of 
the  process  with  about  60%  strongly  agreeing.  This  was  a  universal  opinion;  there 
was no substantial difference between the views 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 observation 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 
to  be  completed  and  build.  Especially  near-real-time 
networks 
observation platforms with model support (data assimilation) need to be 
build and continuously operated. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
7.1.2 

Impacts 

A  quantitative  comparison  of  impacts  can  be  dangerous  because  numbers  can  be 
taken  out  of  context.  Nevertheless  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 integrated marine observation infrastructure20 and on our 
own  estimates  of  the  cost  of  using  marine  data  in  Europe  (section  "3.4  Who  is 
affected?")  we  can  estimate  that  a  reduction  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, "supporting more observations and monitoring" 
will have little additional impact. 

It is likewise hard to  estimate  the benefit  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 relying 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  infrastructure  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  forecasts  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  surveys  of  seas-beds,  then  the  Irish  study60 
suggests  that  the  resulting  reduction  in  uncertainty  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 

44 

   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 

Reduced uncertainty 

benefit 

Increased 
implementation costs 

Cost 

€60 million - 
€200 million 

€20 million 66 

€220 million 

€10million- 
€90million 

7.1.3  Economic impacts 

The  primary  impacts  translate  into  economic,  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 

Public Authorities 

Property Rights 

Innovation and research 

Specific regions or sectors 

Third countries and international 
relations 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

no 

+++ 

± 

+++ 

coastal 

++ 

+ 

+ 

no 

++ 

no 

+++ 

coastal 

++ 

66  

Assuming  a  10  year  programme  to  constuct  an  EMODNET  with  resolution  10  times  finer  than  the 
present ur-EMODNET. 

EN 

45 

   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 private sector 

mostly in public 
sector 

Individual, private and family life, 
personal data 

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 

Data protection 
should be 
considered in 
legislation 

+++ 

++ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+ 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+ 

7.1.4  Subsidiarity 

The  main  justification  for  action  at  an  EU  level  is  the  transnational  nature  of  the 
challenge.  Assembling  sea-basin  and  pan-European-sea  pictures  requires  a 
collaboration  across  borders  and  across  disciplines.  Experience  so  far  demonstrates 
that the collection and sharing of data across sectors and across Member States does 
not take place adequately, efficiently or rapidly. 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 replies to the consultation corroborate this 
thesis. 67% of those consulted strongly agreed 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  provides a strong justification 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  legally  obliged  to  collect  data  from  them. 
For  instance  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive67  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 

46 

   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  orbits  can  cover  the  whole  globe.  The 
advantages of a shared infrastructure are obvious. 

The  subsidiarity  case for option 2 is strongest 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 itself68". 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  satisfactorily  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  should  respect  well  established  national 
arrangements and legal systems. 

For both options the EU actions would add value 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 enable 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  principles  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  "assembling"  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  uncertainties  in  ocean  behaviour  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, "assembling", 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 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  proposal  then  is  to  adopt  a  two  phase  approach.  The  first  phase,  2011-2013, 
would  focus  only  on  assembling  data.  During  2011  there  would  be  an  interim 
evaluation of the results of the preparatory 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 current data infrastructure 
obtained  through  stakeholder  consultations,  the  first  six  months  of  the  preparatory 
action  projects  and  advice  from  the  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Expert  Group,  a 
number  of  actions  to  support  data  assembly  could  be  contemplated  in  the  period 
2011-2013. As marine knowledge increases, 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  geological  layer  in  ur-EMODnet  to  cover  all 

European sea-basins at a one to one million scale. 

4.  preparing  finer  resolution  gridded  bathymetry  data.  It  is  likely  that  the  current 
preparatory  actions  will  confirm  that  there  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 construction of these layers. These data were 
the  most  highly  sought-after  in  the  stakeholder  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  physical  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,  salinity,  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  –  both  directly  to  users  and  to  whatever 
prototype GMES marine core service is underway. Local authorities responsible 
for coastal protection have indicated the need 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 increasing 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 

48 

   EN 

 
9.  setting  up  one  or  more  prototype  sea-basin  checkpoint.  Up  to  now  "thematic 
assembly  groups"69  in  ur-EMODnet  have  assembled  data  of  one  class  –  eg 
biology,  or  chemistry.  The  aim  with  these  sea-basin  checkpoints  is  to  collect 
stakeholders  round  a  sea-basin  to  consider  all  the  data  available,  including  that 
which has been assembled through EU initiatives such as ur-EMODNET, GMES, 
the  Data  Collection  Framework,  to  assess  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 secretariat to prepare meetings, manage contracts with the 
disciplinary  assembly  groups  and  sea-basin  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, chemical and biological data layers
Creation of physical and human activity layers 
Creation of high resolution bathymetry layers 
Sea-basin checkpoints 
Secretariat 
Maintenance of existing layers 
total 

€2,000,000 
€1,500,000 
€2,300,000 
€700,000 
€500,000 
€500,000 
€7,500,000 

Table  7  gives  an  indicative  level  of  funding  that  would  be  required.  Undertaking 
these  actions  would  provide  a  better  basis  for  taking  a  decision  on  a  full-scale 
operational EMODnet. 

7.1.8  Afterwards 

Section "6.1.4 Implementation costs" provides a breakdown 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  sea-basin  level  once  a 
clearer  picture  of  what  is  already  being  collected  has  been  drawn.  However 
developing finer resolution sea-bottom maps and ensuring a high-quality baseline for 
monitoring climate change are expected 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  Communication  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 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
when  they  do  not  have  the  power  under  the  Treaty  to  adopt  binding  measures  or 
when they consider that it is not appropriate 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.  Furthermore  defining  the  appropriate  roles  for 
bodies  of  the  Network  will  require  the  definition  of  mandatory  roles.  So 
recommendations and opinions 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  so.  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  level,  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 binding, as to the result 
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to 
the national authorities the choice of form and methods.”  

.INSPIRE is a Directive and EMODnet 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 entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.” A 
regulation’s general application 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  imposed  through  Regulations  or  Directives. 
However,  in  the  case  of  enabling  measures  defining  expenditure  programmes  or 
independent  agencies  at  European  level  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 legislation 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  
71   
72  

73   
74  

 Case C-322/88 Grimaldi [1989] ECR 4407, paras 13, 16 and 18. 
Case C-6/68 Zuckerfabrik Watenstedt v Council [1968] E.C.R. 409, at 415. 
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  
The LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 
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 

50 

   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  idea.  Although  clearly 
this is a convincing majority, support for this principle was slightly less than for the 
other guiding principles. Support was stronger from national government bodies than 
from either the private sector 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 contenders for the role of secretariat.  

The  main  transnational  bodies  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  (section  6.1)  as  reduced  operational  costs  for 
public and private concerns, increased competition for value-added services, reduced 
uncertainty in the state of the oceans and increased implementation costs. 

These  impacts  are  compared  to  the  "carry  on  as  usual"  scenario  so,  by  definition, 
option 1, "carry on as usual" ,would have zero impact. 

Furthermore the three other options could, in theory, be implemented to achieve the 
same  impacts  in  terms  of  reducing  operational  costs,  increasing  competition  and 
reducing  uncertainty.  Therefore  the  economic,  social  and  environmental  benefits 
derived  from  these  primary  benefits  would  also  be  identical.  They  would  largely 
depend on the actual content of the new policy – 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 body – 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 tested. In the longer-=term a call for temder 
might be cheapest. 

EN 

51 

   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 authorities whereas the EMODnet infrastructure should serve the 
needs  of  industry  and  research  as  well.  In  any  case  the  Environment  Agency 
would be prime users of EMODnet, drawing on the more basic data to construct 
the  indicators  that  meet  their  needs.  Indeed  the  WISE-marine  tool  that  they  are 
constructing,  which  is  part  of  the  Shared  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 any of these taking on this role. However 
each  would  require  an  extension  of  their  present  scope  and  a  specific  governance 
structure  independent  from  that  currently  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  organisations  could  contribute.  Out  of  the  300 
replies,  less  than  three  nominated  one  of  these  four.  However  all  would  have  the 
administrative  experience 
the  possible  exception  of 
EUROGOOS75  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. 

job.  With 

to  do 

the 

Option  3  would  allow  a  specially  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 dedicated to improving Europe's  marine  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 

52 

   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 required at this point. 

7.4 

Incentives 

If it is to be fully successful 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 seamless 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 requires their assent and cooperation. We can 
distinguish between data collected through publicly and privately funded actions. 

7.4.1  Privately-collected data 

There is no intention to apply pressure, legal or moral, on private operators to deliver 
data  that  they  have  collected  with  their  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 actions, 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 able to do so at little cost to themselves. 
Other  than  being  seen  as  responsible  operators  in  the  marine  environment,  they 
would benefit from easy access to their own data 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 marine data providers in 200376 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  their  net  contribution  to  the 
public purse is zero.  

76  

Rayner  R.,  J.  Smallman,  G.  Cameron,  C.  Wallace,  Achieving  optimal  value  from  publicly  funded 
marine information resources A report prepared by the UK Marine Information Council Working Group 
on Data Access 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 8 UK public sector bodies Revenue from data sales for financial years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. 

Body  
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture 
(CEFAS)  
Department of Agriculture and Rural 
Development Northern Ireland (DARDNI)  
Environment Agency (EA)  
FisheriesResearch Service (FRS) 
UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) 
Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)  
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 
(SEPA)  
UK Hydrographic Office (UKHO)  
total 

Annual 
Revenue from 
data sales to 
private bodies 

0 

0 

Total Annual 
funding

£28,500,000

£5,000,000

0 
£3,000 
£18,000 
£28,000 

£649,500,000
£2,000,000
£15,000,000
£243,000,000

0 

£33,500,000

£47,000,000
£20,000 
£69,000  £1,023,500,00

This confirms that the loss of revenue from 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  have  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  MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

8.1 

Indicators 

Based  on  the  principles  that  the  indicators  should  be  quantitative  and  not  impose  a 
heavy burden for collection of data, the following indicators are proposed. 

Resource 
indicators 

Output 
indicators 

The resources used to run the 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 

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 

54 

   EN 

 
 
Impact 
indicators 

1.  to measure improvement in operational efficiency 

a.  (for 

industry)  number  of  private  companies 

downloading data through EMODnet 

b.  (for  public  administration)  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 contracts 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  based  on  marine  data  would  be  to  conduct 
surveys  of  companies.  However  this  would  be  expensive  to  do  thoroughly.  Data 
downloads  are  a  good  proxy.  Presumably  private  companies  would  not  download 
data unless it were useful to their business. 

The  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Expert  Group  will  continue  to  advise  the 
Commission on the effectiveness of EMODnet and highlight any shortcomings that 
need to be addressed. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 GLOSSARY 

COMP 

European Commission Directorate 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 development and dissemination of information 
concerning Europe’s environment 

EMODnet 

European Marine Observation and Data Network 

ENV  

ERFF 

ERIC 

ESA 

ESFRI 

European Commission Directorate General for the Environment 

UK Environment Research Funders Forum 

European  Research 
framework for) 

Infrastructure  Consortium 

(Community 

legal 

European Space Agency 

European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures: 

EUMETSAT 

The  European  Organisation  for  the  Exploitation  of  Meteorological 
Satellites 

EUROGOOS 

an Association of Agencies, founded in 1994, to further the development of 
Operational Oceanography in the European Sea areas and adjacent oceans 

GDP 

GEOSEAS 

GEOSS 

GMES 

ICES 

INFSO 

Gross  domestic  product,  a  basic  measure  of  a  country's  economic 
performance, 

Seventh  Framework  Programme  Infrastructures  project 
improve 
overview  and  access  to  marine  geological  and  geophysical  data  and  data-
products from ational geological surveys and research institutes in Europe 
by upgrading and interconnecting their present infrastructures. 

to 

Global  Earth  Observation  System  of  Systems  to  be  delivered  by  a 
voluntary partnership of governments and international organizations 

Global Monitoring for Environment and Security 

International Council for Exploration of the Sea 

European  Commission  Directorate  General  for  Information  Society  and 
Media 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
INSPIRE 

Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community 

JRC 

LIFE 

European Commission Joint Research Centre 

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 Observation and Data Expert Group 

MyOCEAN 

Seventh  Framework  Programme  project  forerunner  of  the  GMES  Marine 
Core  Service,  aiming  at  deploying  the  first  concerted  and  integrated  pan-
European capacity for Ocean Monitoring and Forecasting 

NOAA 

RTD. 

United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

European Commission Directorate General for Research 

SEADATANET  Sixth Framework Programme project aimed at developing a Pan-European 
infrastructure  for  managing,  indexing  and  providing  access  to  ocean  and 
marine data sets and data products 

SEIS 

SME 

SST 

Shared  Environmental  Information  System  -  a  collaborative  initiative  of 
the European Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA) 

Small and Medium Enterprise77 

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 

57 

   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  administrations  of  all  EU  coastal  states  and  more  than  100 
local authorities. Although there were various 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 Marine Observation and Data Expert Group 
and after gathering feedback from presentations at a number of gatherings of marine 
specialists, a roadmap was produced in April 2009 setting out broad principles and a 
timetable for moving ahead. 

Simultaneously a new public consultation was launched. 300 stakeholders replied in 
two months - 42% on behalf of their organisations, 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,  these  stakeholders  were  divided  onto  four 
groups – private companies, public authorities, 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 included 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 knowledge for marine management as primary 
applications for data. The authorities and private 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 the authorities, 40% saw informing the public 
and  managing  marine  resources  as  primary  objectives.  Nearly  30%  of  both  private 
bodies and public authorities were involved in ensuring safe navigation. 

78   

COM(2006) 275 final 

EN 

58 

   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 
behaviour of the planet 
coastal protection 
exploit resources 
inform the public 
marine management 
national defence 
new developments 
promote or support tourism 
regulatory requirement 
safe navigation 
teaching students 

private  authority 

research  other 

8 
39 
42 
8 
26 
0 
47 
0 
18 
32 
8 

18 
36 
15 
40 
46 
10 
33 
3 
26 
31 
4 

62 
23 
17 
29 
62 
1 
22 
1 
13 
4 
23 

35 
20 
15 
45 
65 
0 
18 
5 
28 
10 
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 EuroGOOS79 which provided a more 
detailed breakdown on the type of data required. For instance physics is broken down 
into  current  direction,  current  velocity,  sea  surface  temperature,  wave  direction 
spectrum etc. 

Error! Objects cannot be created 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 these principles. 70% strongly agreed and 
90% in total agreed with the first five principles: 

1.  provide sustainable financing 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-recovery pricing from public bodies. 

5.  accompany data with statements on ownership, accuracy and precision 

Agreement  on  the  other  three  was  also  strong  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 Survey EuroGOOS Publication No. 12 February 1999, 
EG99.04 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.  build on existing efforts  

8.  develop a decision-making process for priorities that is user-driven 

The  complete  outcome  of  this  stakeholder  consultation  is  reported  in  a  separate 
document80.  Relevant  elements  are  inserted  whenever  appropriate  throughout  this 
report.  

Error! Objects cannot be created 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  conferences  where  marine  issues  were 
discussed. 

2.  A document (the roadmap4) was provided outlining the issues. Approximately half 
those  consulted  had  read  the  document.  Half  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 attention 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.  Stakeholders  were  invited  to  reply  "do  not 
understand  the  question".  On  no  question  did  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 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 3 CURRENT SPENDING 

Space 

Table  10  Spending  on  space  measurements  of  seas  and  oceans.  These  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  surface  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. They were asked to assess what they 
spent on collecting, archiving and distributing data 

MS 

Institution 

Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
Spain 
France 
France 
France 

CEDEX 
CSIC UTM 
IRTA 
Puertos de Estado 
CEMMA 
Instituto de Ecología Litoral 
IEO 
Total 
SHOM 
INSU CNRS 
IRD 

Total 
Turnover (€) 

55.7 
n/a 
8.1 
n/a 
0.2 
0.6 
68 
76.9 
75 mil81 
n/a 
219 mil 

Total 
Expenditur
e  (€) 

2.78 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
0.02 
0.4 
21 
24.2 
24.8 mil82 
n/a 
6mil83 

Average 
Expenditur
e 
(€) 
- 
 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
7.14 
- 
 - 
 - 

% 
Expenditure  
to Turnover 

5 
n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
10 
67.7 
30.9 
28% 
33.1 
n/a 
2.7 

81  
82  

SHOM turnover + costs related to the use of the vessels 
fleet costs (€20 mil), satellite  data spends (80,000) and cost of database base project (€4.2 mil)  

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
France 
France 
France 
France 
France 
France 
France 

France 
France 
France 
France 

IPEV 
CNES 
CLS 
IFREMER 
E-SURFMAR  
CETMEF 
Institut  de  Physique  du  Globe  de 
Paris 
SOMLIT 
CNRS University de Perpignan 
Université de la Rochelle, CRMM 
Bureau Gravimetrique Int’l 

France 
Netherlands  Hydrographic 

Total 

Services,  Royal 

Navy 
Netherlands  NIOZ 
Netherlands 
Netherlands 
Netherlands 
Sweden 

Rijkswaterstaat 
Port of Rotterdam 
Total 
Swedish  Environment  Protection 
Agency 
SMHI 
Swedish  Maritime  Administration, 
Hydrographic Office 
Swedish Board of Fisheries 
Geological Survey, Sweden 
Sven  Loven  Centre  for  Marine 
Sciences 
Umea Marine Sciences 
Total 
Marine Scotland 
UKHO 
CEFAS 
Maritime & Coastguard Agency 
British Oceanography Data Centre 
British Atmospheric Data Centre 
Seafish 
Total 
TOTAL 

Sweden 
Sweden 

Sweden 
Sweden 
Sweden 

Sweden 
Sweden 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 
UK 

23 mil  
1423 mil  
24.54 mil  
230 mil 
0.82mil 
0.335 mil 
34 mil 

n/a 
0.3mil 
n/a 
0.15 mil  

2030.1 
5.3 mil 

20 mil 
3500 mil86 
450 mil 
3975 mil 
330.5 mil 

53.5 mil 
192.6 mil 

27.9 mil 
22.8 mil 
5.15 mil 

2.5 mil 
635 mil 
29.4 mil 
109 mil 
62.74 mil87 
130 mil88 
1.5 mil 
2.2 mil89 
8.8 mil 
343.6 mil 
3480.6mil 

20.7 mil 
15 mil 
n/a 
70 mil 
0.13 mil 
0.134 mil84 
7.69 mil  

1.3 mil 
n/a 
n/a 
0.1125 
mil85 
145.9 
5.3 mil 

 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
- 
 - 
 - 

 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 

14.6 
 - 

0.25mil 
26mil 
n/a 
31.6 mil* 
4 mil 

 - 
 - 
 - 
€10.5 mil* 
 - 

2.4 mil 
13.5 mil 

3.63 mil 
2.16 mil 
0.15 mil 

1 mil 
26.8 mil 
10.9 mil 
5.45 mil 
35.12 mil 
6 mil 
1.5 mil 
1.5 mil90 
3.3 mil 
63.7 mil 
289.4mil 

 - 
 - 

 - 
 - 
 - 

 - 
3.8 mil 
 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
 - 
9.1 mil 
57.9mil 

90 
1.1 
n/a 
30.4 
15.9 
40 
22.6 

n/a 
n/a 
n/a 
75 

7.2% 
100 

1.25 
0.75 
n/a 
0.8% 
1.2 

4.5 
7 

13 
9.5 
2.8 

50 
4.2% 
37 
5 
56 
4.6 
100 
68 
38 
18.5% 
8.3% 

These  figures  include  some  of  the  larger  European  institutions  but  even  in  those 
Member States covered by the study, there 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  
84  
85  
86  

88  

90  
91  
92  

€4.5 million spent on fleet  
Excluding salaries which are provided by participating public institutes 
Excluding salaries which are provided by participating public institutes 
http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/images/Annual%20report%20Rijkswaterstaat%202006_tcm174-134643.pdf 
87 http://www.cefas.co.uk/media/133189/cefas_ara_2008-9.pdf 
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/197-336_mca_ar_loresnav.pdf 
89 Turnover of organisation that hosts BADC 
This is all data, most of it is not marine data 
€42 million now, about €50 million then 
House  of  Commons  Science  and  Technology  Committee  "Investigating  the  Oceans"  Tenth  Report  of 
Session 2006–07, Volume I 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
However it is not clear, even in the report where this number is introduced93 what is 
included within "monitoring". –  defence expenditure, 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 

de 

IHM/Armada 
CEMMA 
Universidad 
Oviedo 
IRTA 
IEO  
Other vessels 
CSIC  

 SHOM 
 IRD 
 IPEV 
 INSU CNRS 
average others 
 IFREMER 

Rijkswaterstaat 
Hydrographic 
Services of the RN 
NIOZ 

Sven Loven Centre 
for Marine Science 
Geological Society 
Sweden 
 Swedish Coast 
Guard 
Maritime Authority, 
Hydrographic Office 
 SMHI 
Swedish Fisheries 
Board 

Marine Scotland 
CEFAS 
Maritime & 
Coastguard Agency 
UKHO/Royal Navy 

ES 

FR 

NL 

SE 

UK 

4 
1 

1 

1 
7 
3 
2 
19 
12 
2 
3 
12 
2 
7 
38 
25 

3 

2 
28 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

10 
2 
1 

3 

2 
6 

No. 
major 
vessels 
4 
1 

1 

1 
7 
3 
2 
19 
5 
2 
3 
4 
2 
7 
23 
10 

3 

2 
13 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

10 
2 
1 

3 

2 
6 

No. days 
at sea 

1,320 
30 

24 

150 
1,540 
267 
440 
3,771 
900 
504 
n/a 
1,227 
310 
1,477 
4,418 
2,220 

765 

440 
3,425 

175 

100 

220 

290 

78 

200 

1,063 
600 
250 

570 

250 
1,670 

No. 
minor 
vessels 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7 
0 
0 
8 
0 
0 
15 
15 

0 

0 
15 

3 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

No. sea 
days  

Ave. cost 
per day 

Annual 
spend 

0 
0 

0 

0 
0 
0 
0 
1,540 
0 
0 
1,695 
0 
0 
3,235 
3,300 

19,333 
1,666 

25,520,000 
50,000 

0 

1,233 
4,440 
9,300 
7,500 
9,739 
29,000 
8,762 
18,500 
1,102 
_ 
15,333 
8,212 
12,380 

0 

185,000 
5,860,360 
1,810,000 
3,300,000 
36,725,360 
26,250,000 
4,415,796 
8,640,000 
3,890,665 
990,000 
18,665,000 
62,851,461 
68,090,000 

0 

14,705 

11,250,000 

0 
3,300 

6,818 
12,623 

3,000,000 
82,340,000 

n/a 

4,937 

863,975 

0 

0 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

0 
0 
0 

0 

0 
0 

8,000 

800,000 

15,000 

3,300,000 

14,724 

4,269,960 

14,916 

1,163,448 

7,458 

1,491,600 

11,1843 
23,529 
10,000 

11,888,983 
6,000,000 
4,500,000 

10,000 

6,000,000 

20,000 
9281 

5,000,000 
15,500,000 

93  

J A Slater , A C Mole & R Waring  Strategic Analysis of UK Environmental Monitoring, Activity for 
ERFF, Final Report, October 2006,   

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
                                                 
Table 13 Fleet costs for private bodies 

MS 

Institution name 

Number of major 
vessels 

Netherlands  Fugro  
UK 
UK 
UK 

BMAPA 
Associated British Ports  
London  Gateway 
World)  
REPSOL 
Spain 
AZTI 
Spain 
Netherlands  Shell 
United 
Kingdom 
France 

TOTAL  

BP 

(DP 

6594 
0 
8 
0 

0 
several 
0 
0 

0 

Number 
of 
minor 
vessels 

0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
several 
0 
0 

0 

Ave. cost Per Day (Euro) 

25,00095 
13,700 
9,00096 
21,800 

45,00097 
4,50098 
- 
- 

75,000 99 

AVERAGE per day:        

27,714 

The  average  rental  cost  per  day  varies  greatly.  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 year100. 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 vessels. Nor does it include hydrographic surveys 
which are normally paid from the defence budget rather than the research budget. 

A paper101 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 spending far more of their national income, as 
a  proportion  of  GDP,  than  France  and  UK.  This  is  no  doubt  partly  due  to  under-
estimates  for  spending  in  France  and  UK.  For  instance  the  UK  figure  does  not 

94  
95  
96  
97  
98  
99  
100  

101  

55 vessels of their own plus charter time on 10 vessels, more or less 
25,000 is for standard multi-beam survey, does not include use of AUVs or ROVs 
Based on under 10m vessels < €5000 per day an d ocean-going vessels approx. €25,000 per day  
Costs vary between 20,000-70,000 euros. Mostly Mediterranean region. 
Costs vary between €3000-6000.  
Costs vary between €50,000– 100,000. Many su rveys carried out off shore mainland Africa. 
Data  source:  European  Ocean  Research  Fleets,  Position  Paper  10,  Marine  Board  -  ESF,  March  2007, 
Table 2  and Appendix 1", 
European  Strategy  on  Marine  Research  Infrastructure  Report  compiled  for  the  European  Strategy 
Forum  on  Research  Infrastructure  by  the  Ad  Hoc  Working  Group  on  Marine  Research  Infrastructure 
April 2003 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
include  spending  by  the  National  Environmental  Research  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  arrive  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  observing  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, Warrenton, Virginia March 10-15, 2002 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 4 ONGOING EU ACTIVITIES TO IMPROVE MARINE KNOWLEDGE  

This  is  not  the  first time that  such deficiencies 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  sharing  of  scientific  data  and  of  more 
coordinated  monitoring  of  the  planet.  And  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  roadmap4.  In  this  section  we 
summarise the findings and explain 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 use 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  provided  to  all  third  parties  under  the  same 
conditions. 

These  oblige  Member  States  to  adopt  appropriate  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 the 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  override  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 and the use/re-use of marine environmental 
data, rather that those rules have a limited impact on intellectual property rights and 
thus in their ability to facilitate data flows. 

103  
104  
105  
106  

Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community. 
2003/4/EC 
2003/98/EC 
Legal aspects of marine environmental data Framework Service Contract, No. FISH/2006/09 – LOT2, 
Final Report – October 2008 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
However  whilst  these  Directives  are  not  sufficient  to  facilitate  access,  they  are 
necessary.  For  instance  INSPIRE  sets  a  basic  framework  for  spatial  data  standards 
that will be completely adopted by ur-EMODnet 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 States to release data, a number of actions 
have  taken  place  to  facilitate  the  setting  up  of  a  marine  data  infrastructure.  These 
include the Data Collection Regulation for fisheries107, projects conducted under the 
EU's Framework Programmes for research, GMES, SEIS and WISE-marine. 

Data Collection Regulation 

The  Community  provides  €44  million  annually  for  the  collection  of  fisheries  data 
through  the  Data  Collection  Regulation.  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  computerised  databases  through  bilateral 
agreements.  

The  Commission's  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  has  been  responsible  for  collecting 
data  from  different  Member  States  in  order  to  support  assessments  of  particular 
stocks  or  particular  areas.  The  International  Council  for  Exploration  of  the  Sea 
(ICES) uses some of these data in assessing stocks or providing management advice. 

Although the Regulation is focused on fisheries it now includes a limited number of 
parameters  –  by-catch  etc  –  that  enable  an  estimation  of  fishing  pressure  on  the 
ecosystem. However a full estimate of the state of the ecosystem requires more data 
on  habitats  and  on  the  distribution  and  abundance  of  species  that  are  not 
commercially  fished.  Spawning  and  recruitmengt  depend  on  photosynthesis,  light 
energy,  photosynthetically  available 
(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. 

radiation 

It  is  planned  that  EMODnet  will  complement  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 standards 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 algorithms and software necessary to assemble 

107  

Council regulation N° 199/2008/EC 

EN 

67 

   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  mechanism  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  data  and  the  legal  requirement  to  comply 
with the general rules for EU research projects.  

1.  such  projects  are  of  finite  duration.  Continuations  are  not  automatic  and  depend 
on the overall priorities of the Community's research programme. Once the project 
stops,  partnerships  dissolve  and  structures  are  no  longer  maintained.  While 
preparatory  phase  projects  for  new  research  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  projects  towards  pre-defined  deliverables. 

Consortia are invited to submit proposals that meet broad objectives. 

Although  these  projects  contribute  substantially  to  the  knowledge  base  of  the  EU, 
they are too patchy and too limited in time to constitute a network.  

Global Monitoring for Environment and Security 

The Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) programme provides 
support  to  marine  data  infrastructure  in  two  ways  –  first  it  contributes  towards  the 
funding  of  satellites  to  monitor  the  marine  environment  and  secondly  it  supports  a 
"marine  core  service"  which  can  be  considered  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 for the global ocean and on a finer scale for 
the  Arctic  Ocean,  Atlantic  (North  West  Shelf  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 have to trade off speed for accuracy. 

This will be done on a prototype basis through the MyOcean108 project which started 
in 2009 and is funded to the tune of €33 million through the Framework Programme 
(and  hence  suffers  from  the  difficulties  outlined  in  section  2).  However  from  2014 
onwards  it  is  possible  that  some  provision  will  be  made  in  the  EU  budget  for  an 
operational service. 

The  marine  core  service  is  primarily  concerned  with  physical  data  –  temperature, 
salinity,  current  etc  -  so  at  the  outset,  in  order  to  avoid  overlaps,  ur-EMODnet 
focuses on other parameters – bathymetry, 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 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
models  of  MyOcean  -  especially  the  Argo  floats109.  EMODnet  might  contribute  to 
the  observation  system  (see  6.1.4.2).  The  near-coastal  tidal  regions  are  not  covered 
by the marine core service so the collection or assembly of physical measurements of 
these areas might come within the scope of EMODnet. 

Further  opportunities  for  identifying  synergies  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, mostly centralised systems for reporting are 
progressively replaced by systems based on access, sharing and interoperability.  

WISE-marine is the marine environmental component of SEIS intended to fulfil the 
requirements of  implementation of  the reporting 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  indicators.  The  ur-EMODnet  biological  and 
chemical components being constructed under preparatory actions have been chosen 
specifically  to  facilitate  the  construction  of  environmental  indicators  for  WISE-
marine.  

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  Agency  does  act  as  a  hub  for  distribution  of  vessel  traffic 
information  which,  provided 
that  suitable  safeguards  regarding  commercial 
confidentiality  were  observed,  might,  in  an  appropriate  aggregated  form,  be 
disseminated more widely. 

Ur-EMODnet 

Ur-EMODnet  is  a  prototype  EMODnet  being  constructed  under  preparatory  action 
funding. According to the Financial Regulation: 

The preparatory actions are to follow 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  
110  

small, drifting oceanic robotic probes deployed worldwide 
Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS) COM(2008) 46 final Brussels, 1 February 
2008 

EN 

69 

   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  from  budgetary  year  2008  are  being  implemented  by  five 
consortia. Each consortium is responsible for 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-EMODnet  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  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. 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,  invertebrate  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  possible  to  process  high  resolution  data  into 
lower resolution data but not the other way round. However producing seamless 
high resolution map layers over a whole sea basin is difficult because: 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
a.  processing the data from the raw data 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 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  aquaculture  characteristics.  These  data 
are essential for spatial planning or estimating environmental pressure for the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive. However the preparatory action budget 
could not stretch to assembling these data. 

d.  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.  The  results  can  then  either  feed  into 
existing structures or allow for the development of a separate structure. 

European Atlas of the Seas 

Whilst EMODnet is aimed at providing the material for scientists, public authorities 
and  private  bodies  with  the  data  they  need  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 individual sea-basins. Some 
of  the  data  will  be  provided  by  ur-EMODnet.  A  first  version  will  be  published  in 
January  2010  and  subsequently  refined.  The  nature  of  the  Atlas,  and  its  inherent 

EN 

71 

   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  spatial  planning  and  marine  protected  areas, 
the  UK  are  beginning  to  put  their  marine  data  in  order  through  the  Marine 
Environmental  Data  and  Information  Network  (MEDIN)  which  involves  about  30 
partners and is costing the agencies responsible for data distribution about €1 million 
per year. Ifremer, on behalf of the French oceanographic community, are delivering 
unified  access  to  distributed  data  through  initiatives  such  as  Coriolis  (for  physical 
data), Quadrige (for coastal environmental 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  migrating  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 

assembling 

Application 

bathymetry 

geology 

physics 

fisheries (including 
fisheries economy) 

Chemistry 

biology 

human activity (other 
than fisheries) 

coastal and maritime 
economy (except 
fisheries) 

ur-EMODnet 

WISE  marine 

ur-EMODnet 

GMES (space) 

GMES (except near coast)   GMES 

Data Collection Regulation 

JRC 

ICES 

ur-EMODnet 

WISE-Marine 

ur-EMODnet 

WISE Marine 

WISE Marine 

Eurostat 

Classifying  in  a  simple  manner  the  knowledge  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 the gaps are is useful for 
providing  an  overview  as  a  departure  point  for  further  discussion.  Table  14  shows 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
how EU initiatives target the different phases of data processing for each of the main 
types of data defined in the EMODnet roadmap. 

EU  research  projects  cover  a  number  of  these  topics  but  are  not  included  here 
because they are not supposed to be permanent structures but rather should develop 
expertise and provide tools. 

GMES  is  an  exception.  The  GMES  umbrella  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  they  should  be  continued  as  an 
operational service. For this reason they are included 

EN 

73 

   EN