COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Interim Evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network Accompanying the document Green Paper Marine Knowledge 2020: from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting
Date: 2012-08-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU office or agency, access to information, disclosure of information, economic resources, energy research, innovation, reflation, resources of the sea, scientific research, sea, sea-bed

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 29.8.2012  
SWD(2012) 250 final 

Green Paper Marine Knowledge 2020: from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Interim Evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data  Network 

Accompanying the document 

Green Paper 

Marine Knowledge 2020: from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting 

{COM(2012) 473 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Interim Evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data  Network 

Accompanying the document 

Green Paper 

Marine Knowledge 2020: from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting 

Contents 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... i 

Rationale...................................................................................................................................... i 

European Marine Observation and Data Network ...................................................................... i 

What was delivered .................................................................................................................... ii 

Relevance ................................................................................................................................... ii 

Effectiveness and Efficiency...................................................................................................... ii 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

Purpose......................................................................................................................... 1 

Scope ............................................................................................................................ 1 

What Was Requested ................................................................................................... 2 

The portals.................................................................................................................... 2 

The projects.................................................................................................................. 3 

What was Delivered ..................................................................................................... 3 

Underlying technologies .............................................................................................. 4 

Composition of thematic assembly groups .................................................................. 5 

Metadata, Data and Data Products ............................................................................... 5 

Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 6 

Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Example ....................................................................................................................... 7 

Management................................................................................................................. 8 

Reports ......................................................................................................................... 8 

Payments ...................................................................................................................... 9 

Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 9 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
7.1. 

Specific contract to evaluate EMODnet....................................................................... 9 

7.1.1.  User-friendliness ........................................................................................................ 10 

7.1.2.  Reusability of data ..................................................................................................... 11 

7.1.3.  Data policy ................................................................................................................. 11 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

8. 

8.1. 

8.2. 

Mutual Awareness Meetings...................................................................................... 11 

Marine Observation and Data Expert Group ............................................................. 11 

Observations from Commission Services and EU Agencies ..................................... 12 

Efficiency ................................................................................................................... 12 

Implementation .......................................................................................................... 13 

Comparison with other initiatives .............................................................................. 13 

8.2.1.  Research Projects ....................................................................................................... 13 

8.2.2.  The Data Collection Framework................................................................................ 14 

8.2.3.  Global Monitoring for Environment and Security ..................................................... 14 

8.3. 

Administrative Costs.................................................................................................. 14 

9. 

Lessons Learned......................................................................................................... 15 

Annex 1 Organisations Involved in ur-EMODnet.................................................................... 17 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Rationale 

The oceans and seas that surround Europe offer new opportunities to meet the 
Europe  2020  goals1.  They  can  contribute  towards  the  clean  energy  we  need. 
They  can  deliver  the  protein  we  need  for  healthy  diets.  They  can  provide 
challenging and rewarding jobs. 

To realise this potential, we need to make it easier for companies to invest. We 
need  to  lower  costs,  reduce  risks  and  stimulate  innovation.  And  we  need  to 
ensure  that  this  expansion  of  the  blue  economy  is  sustainable.  The  resources 
are large but not infinite. 

This is where marine knowledge comes in. Potential investors in a new venture 
need to know whether the ocean floor is sand or rock. They need to know what 
the  ecosystem  is  like  in  order  to  assess  any  potential  impact.  They  need  to 
know the likelihood, frequency and severity of potentially damaging storms or 
tsunamis in order to gauge the risk. 

It  does  not  make  sense  for  future  investors  to  measure  all  these  parameters 
themselves if somebody has already done it. But it can be very difficult to find 
out who holds these data. It can take much time and effort to negotiate access 
to  them  and  it  can  be  a  nightmare  to  create  a  coherent  picture  of  a  particular 
area  out  of  observations  with  different  baselines,  different  units,  different 
resolution and different formats.  

European Marine Observation and Data Network 

The aim of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) is 
to  improve  access  to  marine  data  and  so  reduce  costs  to  users,  stimulate 
innovation and reduce uncertainty in our understanding of the behaviour of the 
seas and oceans.  

To test how this could be done a number of preparatory actions were started in 
the period 2008-2010. Consortia of marine data organisations, selected through 
calls for tender and implemented through procurement contracts, set up portals 
that provide access to marine data, metadata and data products for six themes 
for  whole  sea-basins.  53  different  organisations  participated  in  the  projects; 
largely public bodies responsible for managing marine data on a national scale 
but  supported  by  some  small  private  companies  with  expertise  in  managing 
distributed  data.  All  the  metadata  and  data  products  and  most  of  the  data  are 
made available to users free of charge and free of restriction of use. A total of 
€6,450,000 was committed.  

1  

A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth COM(2010) 2020  

EN 

i 

   EN 

 
                                                 
What was delivered 

This evaluation covers five portals – hydrography, geology, chemistry, biology 
and  habitats.  The  contract  for  one  of  the  portals,  physical  parameters,  only 
began at the tail-end of 2010 so no conclusions can be drawn yet. 

The  portals  provided  access  not  only  to  the  data  themselves  but  also  to  data 
products.  Thus,  rather  than  being  limited  to  information  at  a  discrete  set  of 
measurement points, users were able to obtain information on parameters such 
as  sediment  type,  water  depth  and  habitat  type  at  all  points  in  the  sea-basin. 
This  did  not  only  include  the  value  of  the  parameter  but  also  the  confidence 
level  (eg  ±  20%).  Users  can  live  with  uncertainty  in  measurements  but  they 
need to know what the uncertainty is. 

The work of the groups was closely monitored by services of the Commission, 
the  European  Environment  Agency  and  an  independent  Marine  Observation 
and  Data  Expert  Group.  The  effectiveness  of  the  portals  was  tested  by  a 
contractor. 

An impact assessment has shown that once the present fragmented marine data 
infrastructure is rationalised, those involved in marine and maritime activities 
will gain €300 million in competiveness and another €200 million a year will 
be generated through innovative new products and services.  

An  Expert  Group  monitored  the  projects  and  hosted  a  number  of  meetings 
where  public  authorities  and  the  marine  industry  expressed  their  needs  for 
data2. The offshore wind industry, cable laying companies and those in charge 
of  protecting  coastlines  against  erosion  have  all  expressed  strong  support  for 
the European Marine Observation and Data Network. 

Relevance 

Effectiveness and Efficiency 

The  portals  worked  as  expected.  They  allow  users  to  obtain  an  overview  of 
available  data  and  data  products  and  to  download  data  for  use.  They  were  fit 
for purpose although some were more intuitive than others to use. 

Data providers need to know what data is being used for, so some of the portals 
have  user  identification  procedures.  A  single  sign-in  procedure  for  all 
EMODnet portals, also allowing access to GMES, should be a goal for the next 
generation of EMODnet. 

There are some arguments in favour of merging the hydrography and geology 
groups. Although these are separate at a national level, this is partly for historic 
reasons and now both groups are using similar instruments and techniques for 
determining  seabed  properties.  However  this  merging  requires  some  further 
reflection  and  would  be  a  longer  term  aim  rather  than  an  immediate  priority. 

2  

All summaries of meetings and presentations made during them are accessible to everybody through the 
EU maritime forum https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/category/161 

EN 

ii 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  experts  and  most  users  believe  that  a  single  portal  for  all  parameters 
should  be  constructed  that  provides  access  to  all  the  metadata,  data  and  data 
products. 

The deliverables represent good value for money. Public bodies spend over one 
a half billion euro a year in collecting marine data. For a proportionally small 
outlay, many of these previously inaccessible data have become available. The 
cost  reflects  not  only  the  work  done  in  processing  the  data  to  common 
standards but also gaining the agreement of data providers to release data. 

EN 

iii 

   EN 

 
1. 

PURPOSE 

This report is an interim evaluation of preparatory actions carried out in the period 
2008-2010  with  the  aim  of  improving  access  to  marine  data.  It  was  produced  by 
Commission  services  incorporating  the  results  of  independent  evaluators  in  the 
framework of article 27(4) of the EU's Financial Regulation 3. 

2. 

 SCOPE 

Following  the  Commission's  2007  Blue  Paper  for  integrated  maritime  policy4,  the 
European Parliament proposed a budget for Preparatory Actions and Pilot Projects to 
assess the feasibility and desirability of future legislative proposals. Accordingly the 
EU budget incorporated a total of €14.7 milli on for preparatory actions over the three 
years 2008-2010 and €6 million for pilot projects over the two years 2008-2009.  

Of  this  budget,  €6,450,000  was  committed  to  projects  for  marine  knowledge,  the 
.long-term  objectives  of  which  were  clarified  in  the  Commission  Communication 
"Marine  Knowledge  2020"5  as  being  to:  reduce  costs  to  users  of  marine  data  for 
private  industry,  public  authorities  and  researchers;  stimulate  competition  and 
innovation;  and  reduce  uncertainty  in  the  behaviour  of  the  seas  and  oceans.  An 
impact  assessment6  quantified  the  benefits  that  would  accrue  from  achieving  these 
objectives and the costs of EU measures that would deliver these benefits. 

The preparatory action projects were intended to provide prototype components for a 
Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  (ur-EMODnet)  that  would  not  only  test  the 
underlying  concept  but  also  provide  concrete  products  that  would  be  useful  in 
themselves. None of the projects has yet been completed so a complete evaluation is 
not yet feasible. However, a number of them have already delivered tangible results 
and it is proposed to begin work on follow-ups under a new programme to support 
the further development of an Integrated Maritime Policy7. 

The overall aim of this evaluation is to evaluate the preparatory actions in order that 
any  follow-up  actions  take  account  of  the  lessons  learned.  The  evaluation  takes 
account  of:  relevance  (do  the  projects  have  contributed  towards  meeting  the 
objectives  set  out  in  "Marine  Knowledge  2020"?),  management  (were  deliverables 
timely?),  effectiveness  (what  worked  well  and  what  did  not?)  and  efficiency  (were 
the actions implemented in the most cost-effective way?), 

3  
4  
5  
6  
7  

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/library/documents/implement_control/fin_rules/syn_pub_rf_modex_en.pdf 
COM(2007) 575 final 
COM(2010) 461 final 
SEC(2010) 998 
COM(2010)494 final 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3. 

WHAT WAS REQUESTED 

3.1. 

The portals 

"Marine  Knowledge  2020"  identified  "thematic  assembly  groups"  as  key 
elements  of  a  future  operational  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data 
Network. Each thematic assembly group is a consortium of organisations that 
assemble  fragmented  marine  data  and  make  them  available  through  a  single 
portal. Altogether 53 different organisations took part (see annex 1). 

The aim is not to construct a giant database; the data themselves may remain in 
separate archives but they should be accessible through a single entry point or 
"portal". Each type of data requires a separate approach so six different portals 
have been set up: 

(1) 

hydrography – bathymetry (water depth), coastlines, underwater features 

(wrecks etc) 

(2) geology – sediments, strata, coastal erosion, geological hazards 

(3) physics – temperature, waves, currents, sea-level, light penetration 

(4) chemistry – concentrations of chemicals in water, sediments and biota 

(5) biology – abundance of living species 

(6) physical  habitats  –  habitat  classification  based  on  physical  parameters 

(water depth, light penetration, sediments etc) 

The  preparatory  action  funding  was  not  sufficient  to  cover  data  from  all 
European seas with these portals so each one covers a subset of the sea-basins. 
Each  one  includes  the  North  Sea  and  at  least  two  other  basins.  All  European 
the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive8,  except 
seas  subject 
Macaronesia9,  are  included  in  at  least  one  portal.  The  portals  should  provide 
access to: 

to 

(1)  data – raw observations or measurements 

(2) metadata  –  information  about  the  data  such  as  location  and  time  of 

measurement, units, precision) 

(3) data products – products derived from the data; normally by interpolation 
in space and time. Data products include digital terrain models on regular 
grids  or  geological  maps.  The  predicted  habitat  maps  are  also  a  product, 
developed  through  integration  of  other  data  sets.  Thus  users  can  obtain 
estimates of parameter values between measurement points. 

8  
9  

2008/56/EC of  of 17 June 2008 
Macaronesia  consists  of  five  archipelagos,:  Azores  (Portugal),  Canary  Islands  (Spain),  Cape  Verde 
(Cape  Verde),  Madeira,  including  Porto  Santo  Island  and  the  Desertas  Islands  (Portugal),  Savage 
Islands (Portugal), administratively part of the Madeira Autonomous Region 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2. 

The projects 

Each thematic assessment group was set-up following an open call for tender.  

Thematic 
group 

bids 

Main 
contractor 10

Start 

Coverage 

hydrography 

3 

MARIS b.v, 
Netherlands 

29/05/2009 

hydrography   2 

MARIS bv, 
Netherlands 

08/06/2010 

North Sea, Celtic Seas, the 
Western Mediterranean, 
the Ionian Sea and the 
Central Mediterranean; 
Eastern Mediterranean, 
Black Sea, Iberian Atlantic 
and Biscay 

geology 

physics 

chemistry 

biology 

physical 
habitats  

2 

1 

2 

3 

NERC BGS, 
UK 

16/07/2009 

North Sea, Baltic and 
Celtic Seas 

ETT, Italy 

17/12/2010  All European seas 

OGS, Italy 

04/06/2009 

North Sea, Black Sea and 
selected parts of 
Mediterranean 

VLIZ, 
Belgium 

15/05/2009 

North Sea, Bay of Biscay 
and the Iberian Coast  

2 

JNCC, UK 

18/02/2009 

North Sea, Celtic Seas, 
Baltic and Western 
Mediterranean 

Each project lasts for 3 years with intermediate reports at the 12 and 18 month 
stage. The portals should be operational after 24 months when a "final" report 
is delivered. The last (third) year is devoted to maintenance of the portal. This 
means that portals are now operational for all thematic groups except that for 
physics for which the project only started in December 2010. 

4. 

WHAT WAS DELIVERED 

The specifications for the calls for tender were almost identical and not designed to 
favour any particular technology. However there were some constraints: 

(1) 

the  data,  metadata  and  data  products  should  respect  European  standards.  The 
main framework for these standards is the INSPIRE Directive11. This is a two-
way  process.  Standards  generally  exist  for  the  higher  level  standards  that  are 
common  to  all  data  (longitude,  latitude,  time)  but  more  specialised  data  (e.g. 
concentration  of  caesium  137  found  in  the  flesh  of  a  common  mussel) 

10  

11  

A  complete  list  of  main  contractors  is  given  in  appendix  1.  this  does  not  include  subcontractors  of 
whom there are many. 
Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
generally  are  not.  It  is  a  task  of  the  thematic  assembly  group  to  define  a 
standard and to ensure its acceptance. 

(2)  metadata  and  data  products  should  be  free  of  charge  and  free  for  use  for 
whatever purpose. Where possible this should also be true for data as well but 
this was not always possible due to licence restrictions by the data owners. 

4.1. 

Underlying technologies 

None of the projects started from scratch. All the thematic groups based their 
portal  software  to  some  extent  on  technologies  and  standards  developed 
through EU projects – mostly from the EU Framework projects for research but 
one was based on work done under Interreg12.  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Three  of  the  projects  used  the  SeaDataNet  standards  to  describe  their 
metadata.  This  was  developed  through  a  series  of  EU  Framework 
Programme  projects  starting  with  SEASEARCH  in  the  Fifth  Framework 
Programme and followed by SeaDataNet projects in the Sixth and Seventh 
Framework Programmes. 

The  biological  group  based  their  software  on  the  European  Ocean 
Biogeographic Information System "EurOBIS" which is an integrated data 
system  developed  by  the  Flanders  Marine  Institute  (VLIZ)  for  the  EU 
Network of Excellence "Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning" 
(MarBEF) in 2004. 

The  geology  group  used  software,  methods  and  standards  developed 
under  the  OneGeology  Europe  project  which  aims  to  provide  access  to 
European  geological  data.  OneGeology  Europe  covers  land  data  so  this 
choice ensured continuity between land and sea. 

The physics group made use of components developed within the Global 
Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  (GMES)  MyOcean  project  for 
the  delivery  of  real-time  observations  as  well  as  SeaDataNet  for  archived 
observations. 

The  physical  habitats  group  differs  from  the  other  groups  in  that  it 
delivers  products  (seabed  maps)  based  on  modelling  several  types  of 
measurement.  The  group  derived  habitat  type  from  measurements  of 
parameters such as water depth, wave energy, sediment type, temperature 
and  light  penetration.  The  work  was  based  on  results  from  the  Interreg 
MESH  (North  Sea  and  Celtic  Sea)  and  BALANCE  (Baltic)  projects.  The 
EMODnet group harmonised the classification between the two areas and 
extended  the  analysis  to  the  Western  Mediterranean,  using  the  European 
EUNIS classification as the standard classification for the maps. 

12  

Interreg  is  an  initiative  that  aims  to  stimulate  cooperation  between  regions  in  the  European  Union.  It 
started in 1989, and is financed under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The current 
programme is Interreg IV, covering the period 2007–2013. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.2. 

Composition of thematic assembly groups 

The 53 organisations belonging to the thematic assembly groups were largely 
from the public sector. Some observations concerning the composition are; 

(1)  Two  thematic  groups  (physics  and  hydrography)  were  led  by  small 

private companies. 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

The  geology  group  was  the  most  homogeneous.  The  partnership 
consisted  of  the  national  organisations  of  each  country  bordering the sea-
basins concerned that are responsible for geological surveys.  

The chemistry group was largely made of research institutes and national 
oceanographic  data  centres  (see  annex  1).  They  readily  shared  data  but 
were  unable  to  obtain  all  the  data  held  by  environmental  agencies  – 
particularly round the Black Sea. 

National  hydrographic  agencies  were  conspicuously  absent  from  the 
the  French  Service 
hydrographic  group.  The  only  exception  was 
Hydrographique  et  Océanographique  de 
la  Marine  (SHOM).  This 
heterogeneity  of  the  hydrographic  group  is  partly  due  to  a  reticence  of 
hydrographic  agencies  to  provide  detailed  data  and  partly  due  to  the  fact 
that  many  other  types  of  organisations  survey  seabeds.  However  national 
hydrographic  agencies  did  provide  data  products  to  the  groups  and  the 
International  Hydrographic  Organisation  has 
a 
Memorandum  of  Understanding  with  the  Commission  that  could  open  a 
structured dialogue on this matter. 

recently 

signed 

4.3.  Metadata, Data and Data Products 

Three of the groups - hydrography, geology and physical habitats – managed to 
deliver data products that are immediately useful for data users. These were: 

(1) 

coverage of most European waters13 with a digital terrain model14 of one 
quarter  of  a  minute  resolution  (approximately  500  metres).  This  is 
certainly  not  a  fine  enough  resolution  for  many  applications  and  the 
underlying survey data would allow finer resolution in some places but it 
is double the resolution of previous publicly available data.  

(2) 

sediment maps for selected European sea-basins at a scale of one to one 
million.  This  reflects  efforts  by  the  thematic  group  to  reclassify  maps  of 
each country's waters using common criteria. Previously countries had used 
different  grain  sizes  to  distinguish  the  different  categories  of  mud,  sand, 
gravel or boulders. 

(3) 

Physical habitat maps covering a significant proportion of European seas 
with habitat maps. It is now possible to compare in a quantitative way the 

13  
14  

The Baltic, Black Sea and Macaronesia have not yet been covered 
A digital terrain model is a digital model or three-dimensional representation of the topography of the 
sea floor 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Baltic  with  the  North  Sea,  to  estimate  what  proportion  of  certain  habitat 
types  are  covered  by  marine  protected  areas  or  determine  which  habitat 
types might be disturbed by bottom trawling 

For  the  other  types  of  data  –  physics,  chemistry  and  biology,  there  has  been 
more emphasis on collating data and metadata. The reasons for this are: 

(1)  Chemical  data  are  heterogeneous.  Measurements  are  made  in  the  water 
column, the sediment and biota. Furthermore the concentrations can vary 
greatly  between  measurement  points  that  are  located  within  metres  of 
each other. 

(2) 

(3) 

The challenge with biological measurements is to quantify the sampling 
effort. How do we compare the number of specimens of a certain species of 
invertebrate  found  in  a  benthic  sample  with  those  found  in  another  area 
sampled with a different instrument? If a certain species is not recorded in 
a sample is it because it was not present or because nobody looked for it?  

The thematic assembly group for physics focuses on data and metadata. 
The Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES)15 MyOcean 
project  is  the  prototype  for  a  "marine  core  service".  It  already  delivers 
hindcasts, nowcasts and forecasts for European seas for parameters such as 
temperature,  current  and  salinity.  The  physics  thematic  assembly  group 
will  complement  this  by  providing  raw  measurements  that  can  feed  into 
these  MyOcean  models.  EMODnet  also  provides  measurements  in  the 
near-coast regions where GMES does not reach. 

5. 

RELEVANCE 

5.1. 

Benefits 

An  impact  assessment16  has  determined  that  Europe  spends  approximately 
€1.5 billion  a  year  of  public  money  on  ma rine  observations  but  that  they  are 
difficult  to  use.  It  is  very  difficult  for  business,  especially  small  start-up 
enterprises, to find these data and to obtain permission to use them. And even 
when  they  do  so,  it  costs  them  so  much  to  put  incompatible  data  from  a 
multitude  of  bodies  together,  that  they  are  unable  to  create  value-added 
services  or  products  at  a  price  that  the  market  can  pay.  This  lack  of 
competiveness  costs  the  European  economy  approximately  €300 million  per 
year.  

The loss of opportunity to develop innovative high added-value products costs 
the  economy  another  €60  to  €200  million  per  year.  It  is  unrealistic  to  expect 
new  services  and  products  from  EMODnet  at  this  very  early  stage.  However 
some enterprising companies are beginning to spot opportunities – for instance 
within the framework of the Irish SmartBay initiative. 

15  

16  

Regulation (EU) No 911/2010 of the European Parliament and of the council of 22 September 2010 on 
the European Earth monitoring programme (GMES) and its initial operations (2011 to 2013). 
European Marine Observation and Data Network. Impact Assessment SEC(2010) 998 final 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
These  figures  do  not  include  the  improvement  in  efficiency  that  would  result 
from a reduced uncertainty in our understanding of the behaviour of the sea – 
for  instance  in  coastal  protection.  Since  the  ocean  circulation  is  the  primary 
driver  for  seasonal  variation  in  climate,  a  better  understanding  of  the  oceans 
can bring a better knowledge of what the future climate might bring.  

Furthermore  these  estimates  do  not  take  into  account  the  growing  marine 
economy. They are based on 2010 figures. 

Water  and  Marine  Directors  of  the  European  Union,  Candidate  and  EFTA 
Countrieshave indicated in Warsaw, 8-9 December 2011 that EMODnet would 
contribute  to  their  future  reporting  for  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework 
Directive.  

5.2. 

Example 

The  relevance  and  usefulness  of  the  preparatory  action  projects  is  best 
understood  through  an  example.  Figure  1  shows  a  screenshot  from  the 
hydrography  portal.  This  portal  provides  the  highest  resolution  digital  terrain 
model  covering  European  seas  that  is  currently  available.  A  digital  terrain 
model  is  a  digital  model  or  three  dimensional  representation  of  the  seabed 
(Figure 2). The bathymetry is represented by a grid of values for the depth of 
water  with  the  resolution  defined  as  the  length  of  the  sides  of  each  grid  cell. 
The  different  colours  indicate  the  different  organisations  that  have  provided 
data uses to create the digital terrain model. 20 different organisations provided 
data based on survey data from 113 organisations. 

Previously  users  would  have  had  to  ask  each  of  these  data  owners  separately 
for  the  data  and  then  process  them  to  create  the  model.  However,  a  digital 
terrain  model  is  needed  for  nearly  all  analyses  of  the  marine  environment  so 
each organisation would have separately needed to do the same processing. In 
practice they did not do so because the cost of creating the data layer and the 
time needed to do it would not have been justifiable. They would have had to 
make do with lower resolution data.  

Thus  the  new  data  product  reduces  the  cost  to  those  who  need  digital  terrain 
models; it creates new possibilities for innovation using products and services 
derived from the higher resolution data and increases the precision and hence 
reduces  the  uncertainty  of  all  analyses  that  had  previously  used  lower 
resolution data. 

This screenshot also shows grey areas where the thematic assembly group were 
unable  to  obtain  the  necessary  permissions  for  the  data  needed  to  create  the 
digital terrain model or where no surveys had been done that would allow the 
quarter minute resolution model to be constructed. In these cases the thematic 
assembly group used lower resolution data. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Figure  1  a  screenshot  from  the  hydrography 
portals.  The  different  colours 
the 
different  organisations  that  have  provided  data 
to create a digital terrain model 

indicate 

Figure 2 Digital terrain model of Bay 
of Biscay and Iberian coasts region 

The portal also allows an evaluation of the accuracy and precision of the data. 
Users  can  interrogate  a  particular  point  and  find  out  how  many  surveys 
contributed to the digital terrain model there and what the standard deviation is. 
They  can  also  generate  a  map  showing  where  the  areas  with  the  lowest 
accuracy are. 

Another  example  is  the  sediment  data  layer  produced  by  the  thematic  area 
group  for  geology  (Figure  3).  This  is  the first  time  that  such  a  data  layer  has 
been produced for marine sediments. The first stages of planning a cabling or 
pipe-laying  operation  across  the  North  Sea  can  now  use  a  set  of  data  that  is 
consistent for the waters of all the coastal states. Furthermore the marine data is 
perfectly consistent with the land data which facilitates the task of coastal zone 
management. 

Figure 3 Sediment layers produced by the geology thematic assembly group (The land areas use the 
OneGeologyEurope classification)  

6. 

MANAGEMENT 

6.1. 

Reports 

During  the  period  of  this  evaluation  five  of  the  thematic  groups  delivered 
"final"  reports  although  the  contracts  will  run  for  another  year  in  a 
"maintenance" phase. It would be inappropriate to judge the projects purely on 
the reports because the main deliverables were working portals. All the projects 
delivered  portals  are  of  acceptable  quality.  The  evaluation  of  these  portals  is 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
considered more carefully in section 7 "7.  Effectiveness". Four of the reports 
were delivered within four working days of the deadline. Only one took longer 
- ten working days. The Commission had forty five days to evaluate them and 
all these were completed within this time. Three of the reports were accepted. 
Revisions  were  requested  for  the  other  two  –  primarily  to  make  the  reports 
more  comprehensible  to  a  general  reader.  The  contractors  provided  modified 
versions of the reports within the stipulated 20 days. 

6.2. 

Payments 

The interval between the expected delivery of a report and the payment made 
to  the  contractor  was  analysed.  Excluding  the  pre-financing  payment  for  the 
physics portal, the average was two and half months. This pre-financing for the 
physics  portal  was  delayed  because  of  the  complicated  administrative 
procedures  necessary  to  obtain  a  bank  guarantee  from  an  Italian  bank. 
Contractors  who  submitted  a  report  on  time  that  was  accepted  first  time  and 
who submitted an invoice together with the report were paid within one or two 
months. Only one of the twenty payments was outside the Commissions' limit. 
Interest of €223.56 was paid  to the contractor. Steps have been taken to ensure 
that this does not happen again.  

7. 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The effectiveness of the portals was checked through 

(1) 

a  specific  contract17.  The  consultants,  MRAG  Ltd,  were  given  the  task  of 
checking  the  operation  of  the  portals  for  user-friendliness  and  fitness  for 
purpose. 

(1)  mutual awareness through common six-monthly meetings. 

(2) 

examination  by  peers.  The  independent  28-member  Marine  Observation  and 
Data  Expert  Group18  attend  the  ur-EMODnet  mutual  awareness  meetings  and 
deliver opinions on progress.  

(3) 

assessment by Commission services and EU agencies. 

7.1. 

Specific contract to evaluate EMODnet 

A contract to evaluate the ur-EMODnet portals was awarded to MRAG Ltd in 
December 2011. Intermediate results were presented to the thematic assembly 
groups  who  had  developed  the  portals,  to  the  Marine  Observation  and  Data 
Expert Group, to services of the Commission and to the European Environment 
Agency.  Comments  from  these  groups  were  taken  into  account  in  the  final 

17  
18  

The value of the contract is €45,000 
Details  of  the  group  and  summaries  of  meetings  can  be  found  on  the  open-access  part  of  the  EU's 
Maritime Forum https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/category/161 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
report19  that  was  accepted  in  August  2010.  The  evaluation  aimed  to  answer 
three questions: 

(1) 

user-friendliness – How easy is it to navigate the portals and how much 

information do they provide about the underlying data? 

(2) 

(3) 

fitness for purpose – Can the data be downloaded and processed easily? 

data policy – Is it clear who owns the data and what they can be used for? 

7.1.1.  User-friendliness 

Table 1 matrix comparing portals 

portal 

good first 
impression 

portal 
intuitive to 
use 

instructions 
were useful

data easy 
to find 

data was 
easy to 
access 

data was 
comprehen
sive 

data was in 
convenient 
format 

portal had 
advanced 
features 
and 
functions 

biology  

chemistry 

geology 

*** 

** 

*** 

** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

** 

** 

* 

* 

** 

hydrography  

*** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

*** 

** 

** 

** 

*** 

*** 

** 

** 

*** 

*** 

physical 
habitats 

** 

** 

*** 

** 

** 

*** 

** 

*** 

All of the portals were found to be intuitive to use, with all of them, apart 
from  the  physical  habitats  one,  providing  a  searchable  catalogue  and  a 
map interface for retrieving records. The continuity between the land and 
sea layers in the geology portal is certainly an advantage but it was hard 
to separate and analyse only the marine layers. 

Difficulties  in  finding  data  were  normally  attributed  to  poor  or  non-
standard  metadata.  In  other  words  the  same  type  of  data  was  described 
differently in the distributed databases feeding information to the portal. 

Data providers need to know what data is being used for so some of the 
portals  have  user  identification  procedures.  However,  lengthy  or 
inhomogeneous procedures can discourage data users. There is as yet no 
single sign-in procedure for all EMODnet portals. 

The  data  quality  indicators  were  generally  clear  and  useful  for  the  data 
products  assembled  during  the  project.  The  information  on  quality  for 
sets  of  the  underlying  data  was  sometimes  harder  to  interpret  if  the  set 
was composed of data from more than one provider. 

19  

Study  on  Interim  Evaluation  of  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  Final  Report 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/content/2180 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7.1.2.  Reusability of data 

Most users will not be satisfied with viewing maps on the portal. Rather 
they  will  want  to  download  data,  process  them  and  integrate  them  with 
other data using either their own software or commercial data processing, 
statistical,  graphical  platforms  such  as  SAS,  MATLAB  or  ARCGIS.  A 
number of tests were run to see how easy it was to do this.  

Bathymetric  and  geological  data  layers  were  downloaded  from  their 
respective  portals  and  fed  successfully  into  a  geographical  information 
system. Data downloaded from the biology portal allowed the number of 
observations  of  certain  species  of  seabirds  in  a  certain  area  to  be 
determined.  Physical  habitat  data  enabled  an  estimate  of  the  total  area 
covered  by  different  habitat  types  within  a  selected  area.  Data 
downloaded  from  the  chemistry  portal  allowed  an  assessment  of  the 
spatial and temporal distribution of pollutants. The evaluation confirmed 
that the objective of trouble-free reusability had been achieved. 

7.1.3.  Data policy 

Data accessed through the portals may be subject to intellectual property 
rights.  Clarifying  the  data  owner  of  data  downloaded  from  the  portal 
allows  these  rights  to  be  respected.  Analysis  showed  that  intellectual 
property rights issues have clearly been taken into account in the design 
and operation of the portals.  

7.2.  Mutual Awareness Meetings 

Representatives of the groups met together each six months to report progress 
in the presence of the Commission20. This allowed different technologies to be 
compared, best practice to be determined and better cooperation across cross-
thematic  groups.  It  promoted  interoperability  by  preventing  the  portals  from 
diverging into completely separate independent platforms. 

7.3.  Marine Observation and Data Expert Group 

The  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Expert  Group  meets  four  times  a  year.  At 
two of these meetings the work of the thematic assembly group is presented to 
them.  Summaries  of  all  meetings  and  copies  of  all  presentations  are  publicly 
available through the EU maritime forum21.  

Other  than  detailed  points  that  are  largely  covered  in  the  assessment  by 
MRAG, and in a summary of their meeting22 the Expert Group concluded that: 

(1) 

a  main  entry  portal  giving  access  to  all  the  thematic  assembly  groups 
should be set up. The Commission plans to implement one with the 2012-
2013 budget. 

20  

21  
22  

Summaries  of  meetings  are  available  on  the  opena-access  part  of  the  EU's  maritime  forum 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/category/events/162  
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/category/events/161  
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/maritimeforum/content/1947 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2)  The preparatory actions are on the right track but they must be followed 
up. If the EU ceases to take an interest the momentum will be lost. 

(3) 

In the longer term consideration should be given to  

(a)  merging the hydrography and geology groups. Both geologists and 
hydrographers  make  extensive  use  of  multibeam  echosounders  to 
measure  the  bottom  of  the  sea.  Although  most  countries  have  a 
national hydrographic office and a national geological survey, there 
is considerable overlap in their surveying work. The Expert Group 
wondered whether it might be feasible to combine the hydrography 
and geology thematic assembly groups. There is considerable merit 
in the idea which should be considered seriously for the third post-
2013 phase of the project. 

(b)  deeper  integration  with  the  GMES  and  the  Data  Collection 

Framework for fisheries. 

7.4. 

Observations from Commission Services and EU Agencies 

The  preparatory  actions  were  implemented  by  the  Directorate  General  for 
Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  (MARE)  and  the  project  has  been  followed 
from the outset by other services of the Commission – mostly the Directorate 
Generals for Environment (ENV), Research and Innovation (RTD), Enterprise 
(ENTR)  as  well  as  the  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  and  the  European 
Environment Agency (EEA). Other services, such as the Directorates General 
for Information Society and Competition (INFSO and COMP) have assisted on 
matters  relating  to  the  benefits  to  competition  of  the  re-use  of  public 
information.  These  services  of 
tender 
specifications,  attended  expert  group  meetings  and  monitored  outputs  of 
projects. 

the  Commission  have  checked 

ENV  and  EEA  have  been  particularly  interested  in  the  possibility  of  using 
EMODnet  to  help  Member  States  report  the  state  of  Europe's  seas  as  part  of 
their  obligations  under  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive23  and  their 
continued presence in the monitoring process has assured that this is possible. 

8. 

EFFICIENCY 

It is difficult to determine whether or not the same results could have been obtained 
for  a  cheaper  price.  The  projects  were  implemented  through  procurement  for  fixed 
prices  set  by  Commission  services.  Therefore,  the  Commission  services  have  no 
knowledge  of  how  much  effort  the  contractors  put  into  their  work  or  how  much 
profit or loss they made. However whether or not the EU obtained a good deal can be 
ascertained in other ways. In particular the following questions are relevant 

(1)  was  the  implementation  through  procurement  appropriate  or  would  a  grant 

have been better? 

23  

Directive 2008/56/EC 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2)  how well do the results of the project compare to projects with similar goals? 

(3)  were the administrative costs of the projects reasonable? 

8.1. 

Implementation 

The Financial Regulation allows projects to be implemented in two basic ways 
–  as  a  procurement  or  a  grant.  In  the  case  of  a  procurement  the  Commission 
obtains a product or service it needs in return for payment, while in the case of 
a  grant  it  makes  a  contribution  either  to  a  project  carried  out  by  an  external 
organization  or  direct  to  that  organization  because  its  activities  contribute  to 
Community  policy  aims.  However,  in  practice  many  projects  can  be 
implemented in either way. In this case procurements were chosen in order to 
give the EU ownership rights over the data products and thus facilitate the open 
access policy advocated not only in "Marine Knowledge 2020" but also in the 
Public Sector Information Directive24. 

A  further argument  in favour of procurement was  that the Commission could 
specify  exactly  what  should  be  delivered  and  payments  were  made  on 
acceptance  of  these  deliverables.  With  grants,  on  the  other  hand,  payment  is 
effectively  made  on  the  input  -  effort  put  in  -  and  there  is  less  control  of  the 
output. Should some legal entity emerge with a mission to deliver the type of 
services  and  products  that  are  compatible  with  the  objectives  of  "Marine 
Knowledge 2020" then a negotiated procedure could be considered.  

8.2. 

Comparison with other initiatives 

The  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network  is  not  the  first  or  only 
initiative  that  aims  to  provide  better  dissemination  of  marine  data.  Indeed 
"Marine  Knowledge  2020"  emphasises  that  it  is  only  one  of  a  number  of 
complementary  EU  efforts.  One  way  of  measuring  the  efficiency  of  the 
preparatory  actions  is  to  determine  how  the  €6.45  million  committed 25  adds 
value to these other efforts. 

8.2.1.  Research Projects 

There is no precise figure as to how much  the EU spends on marine or 
maritime  research  because  there  is  no  one  theme  devoted  to  this  issue. 
However a reasonable estimate is €367 million per year 26. A number of 
these  projects  such  as  SeaDataNet  and  GEOSEAS  have  provided 
underpinning technology for EMODnet.  

The  cost  of  the  EMODnet  work  is  reasonable.  The  OneGeologyEurope 
project  is  similar  to  EMODnet's  geology  lot.  Both  provide  one  to  one 
million scale geological layers. OneGeologyEurope covers the land area 
of  Europe  for  a  cost  to  the  EU  of  €2.7 million  whilst  EMODnet  covers 

24  
25  
26  

Directive 2003/98/EC on the re-use of public sector information 
This is an interim assessment. This money has not yet all been spent. 
Analysis  and  inventory  of  FP7  marine-related  proposals,  European  Commission  ISBN  978-82-79-
16288-6 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
approximately one third of the sea area for €.0.925 million. The costs are 
comparable. 

8.2.2.  The Data Collection Framework 

The  Data  Collection  Framework  adopted  in  200827
  obliges  Member 
States to collect, manage and provide high quality fisheries data for the 
purpose of scientific advice. The EU provides co-financing of more than 
€40  million  per  year  towards  the  activity  The  new  framework  obliges 
Member States to provide access to these data for fisheries management 
advice, scientific publication, public debate and stakeholder participation 
in policy development. 

However nearly all fish stock management required data from more than 
one  country  and  once  assembled,  the  data  cannot  then  be  re-used  for 
another purpose without the permission of all the data owners. There are 
no web-sites providing access to digital data on a sea-basin, fishing fleet 
or  fish  stock  basis.  Measures  to  improve  access  to  the  data,  along  the 
lines of EMOdnet, are being considered. 

8.2.3.  Global Monitoring for Environment and Security 

The Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) initiative 
is  a  flagship  of  the  EU's  space  policy.  Between  2011  and  2013  the  EU 
has allocated €1.3 billion to  the initiative. Again much of the expenditure 
has  been  on  the  expensive  business  of  satellite  operation.  However 
specific  efforts  have  been  made  to  provide  data  products  for  ocean 
observation.  This  has  been  achieved  largely  through  the  39-month 
MyOcean project to which the EU contributed €33 million. A follow-up 
of a similar magnitude has now started. 

Indeed the EMODnet physics thematic assembly group is directly linked 
to  GMES.  The  same  infrastructure  is  used  to  deliver  real-time  physical 
measurements  and  in-situ  measurements  assembled  by  EMODnet  are 
used  to  calibrate  and  validate  the  GMES  forecasts  and  satellite 
measurements.  Furthermore  EMODnet  covers  the  near  coastal  regions 
that are not included in MyOcean. 

MyOcean  has  a  global  coverage  and  its  forecasting  capability  has  no 
parallel  in  EMODnet.  Nevertheless  EMODnet  adds  value  to  what  is 
being done within MyOcean at a cost that is not disproportionate. 

8.3. 

Administrative Costs 

The effort of the Commission in setting up and monitoring these projects up to 
the time that the last one has finished will be approximately two-person years 
for  project  management  and  one  person  year  for  financial  management.  This 
includes  setting  up  the  calls  for  tender,  evaluating  them,  implementing  the 
resulting projects, monitoring the output and reporting to budgetary authorities. 

27  

Council Regulation (EC) N° 199/2008 of 25 February 2008 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
It  does  not  include  dissemination  of  the  results  to  stakeholders  at  various 
therefore 
conferences  and  workshops.  The  administrative  costs  are 
approximately 6% of the total costs of the project. This is proportionate. 

9. 

LESSONS LEARNED 

The preparatory actions indicated that the basic architecture for marine data set out in 
"Marine Knowledge 2020" is appropriate. Leaving data and metadata in national or 
archives and receiving them automatically on demand is more efficient than asking 
the Member States to report to a central body. 

The basic division of thematic assembly groups into hydrography, geology, physics, 
chemistry, biology and physical habitats was justified. Asking one group to look at 
all types of data would be setting too broad  a  task. Conversely splitting the groups 
further  (eg  physical  parameters  into  a  group  for  fixed  buoys  and  another  for  ships) 
would risk incompatibilities in data standards. However further thought is needed as 
to  whether  the  hydrography  and  geology  groups  could  be  considered  for  the  third 
post-2013 phase of the initiative. 

The data products produced by hydrography, geology and physical habitat groups are 
immediately  useful  whereas  the  users  of  the  chemistry  and  biology  portals  require 
the  raw  data  because  it  is  extremely  difficult  within  the  limited  budget  available 
under  the  preparatory  actions  to  create  automatic  algorithms  for  constructing 
distribution maps of concentration or abundance. It is too early to say whether this is 
the  case  for  the  physical  portal  because  this  project  only  started  at  the  tail  end  of 
2010. 

There  is  now  a  better  understanding  of  the  data  policies  of  the  hundreds  of  data 
holders within the EU. Hydrographic offices are still reluctant to release their highest 
resolution  data.  However,  a  Memorandum  of  Understanding  with  the  International 
Hydrographic  Office  has  now  been  signed  and  this  should  enable  a  structured 
dialogue  to  take  place  as  to  how  the  data  policies  could  be  liberalised.  Some 
environmental agencies are concerned lest "unofficial" interpretations of data be used 
to determine compliance with environmental standards. In other words, they do not 
want  to  provide  ammunition  for  those  who  challenge  the  competent  authority's 
opinion as to whether or not a certain standard has been met. However, on the whole 
most data holders see the benefits of the exercise and are keen to be associated with 
the  initiative.  Some  organisations  that  were  reluctant  to  join  in  the  beginning  have 
now asked to participate. 

It is not yet possible to reach all the data with a single signing-in. Some data holders 
insist on a separate user authorisation procedure. The objective must be to arrive at a 
single sign –in for all data. 

A  study28  has  shown  that  private  companies  collect  even  more  data  than  public 
authorities  but  these  data  have  not  been  included  in  EU  initiatives  so  far.  This  is 
partly  because  the  approach  was  to  move  one  step  at  a  time  and  partly  because  of 

28  

Marine Data Infrastructure Final Report submitted to DG Maritime Affairs & Fisheries by MRAG Ltd, 
November 2009 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
concerns  about  increasing  the  administrative  burden  of  these  private  companies. 
However since companies with licences to operate offshore are often already under 
an obligation in many cases to hand over data to public authorities, a more structured 
approach  might  simplify  their  work  and  reduce  burden.  This  issue  should  be 
investigated further. 

The initiative meshes well with other EU initiatives including Global Monitoring for 
Environment and Security (GMES), the Data Collection Framework in fisheries and 
potentially  the  Marine  Framework  Strategy  Directive29.  An  impact  assessment 
suggests  that  it  will  contribute  in  a  proportionate  way  to  the  competitiveness  and 
innovativeness of the growing European offshore industry.  

29  

This  has  still  to  be  defined  further  and  set  up  in  practice,  including  specific  labelling  of  datasets  as 
formally/officially used for Marine Strategy Framework Directive  assessments. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 1 

ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED IN UR-EMODNET 

country 
Belgium 

Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Denmark 

Estonia 
Finland 
France 

Georgia 
Germany 

Greece 
International 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 
Lithuania 
Netherlands 

Norway 

Poland 

organisation 
Flanders Marine Institute/Vlaams Instituut voor de Zee(VLIZ) 
Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences 
University of Liege - GeoHydrodynamics and Environment 
Research (ULG)j 
Institute of Oceanology Bulgarian Academy of Science (IO-BAS) 
University of Cyprus-Oceanography Centre (OC)  
Danish Environmental and Planning Agency (BLST) 
Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI) 
Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland 
National Environmental Research Institute (NERI-MAR) 
Geological Survey of Estonia 
Geological Survey of Finland, 
Bureau de recherches géologiques et minières  
Collecte Localisation Satellites (CLS) 
Institut Français de Recherche pour l'Exploitation de la Mer 
(Ifremer) 
Service Hydrographique et Oceanographique de la Marine (SHOM). 
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University (TSU-DNA) 
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) 
Bundesamt für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie (BSH-DOD), 
Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources 
University of Bremen (UniHB) 
Hellenic Centre for Marine Research (HCMR) 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) 
The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) 
UNEP/GRID-Arendal 
Geological Survey of Ireland 
Marine Institute (MI) 
ETT srl 
Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofísica Sperimentale 
(OGS) 
Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e la Ricerca Ambientale 
(ISPRA) 
Latvian Environment, Geology and Meteorology Agency 
Lithuania institute of Geology and Geography 
ATLIS 
Deltares 
Mariene Informatie Service 'MARIS' BV 
NIOZ Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ) 
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences/Koninklijke 
Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (KN A W); Netherlands 
Institute of Ecology; Centre for Estuarine and Marine Ecology 
(NIOO-CEME) 
Geological Survey of Norway 
Norwegian Marine Data Centre - Institute of Marine Research 
(IMR), 
Polish Geological Institute 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Romania 

Russian 
Federation 

Spain 
Sweden 

Ukraine 

United 
Kingdom 

National Institute for Marine Research and Development "Grigore 
Antipa" (NIMRD) 
All Russian Research Institute of Hydro-meteorological Information 
- WDC B (RIHMI-WDC) 
P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology Russian Academy of Science 
(SIO-RAS) 
Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO) 
Geological Survey of Sweden 
Sveriges Meteorologiska Och Hydrologiska Institut (SMHI) 
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency 
Institute of Biology of the Southern Seas, National Academy of 
Sciences of Ukraine (IBSS NASU 
Marine Hydro-physical Institute (MHI) 
Joint Nature Conservation Committee Support Co 

United States 

NERC British Oceanographie Data Centre, Liverpool (BODC) 
NERC, British Geological Survey, Edinburgh (BGS) 
NERC, National Oceanography Centre Southampton (NOC) 
Rutgers University; Institute for Marine and Coastal Sciences 
(IMCS) 

EN 

18 

   EN