COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet)
Date: 2023-07-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, European Commission
Subjects: access to information, data collection, disclosure of information, environmental policy, environmental protection, marine environment, resources of the sea, scientific research, sea, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.7.2023  SWD(2023) 281 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION   of the           European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet)         {SWD(2023) 282 final}  
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2 

1.1  What is EMODnet ? ........................................................................................................ 2 

1.2  What is EMODnet used for and by whom?..................................................................... 3 

1.3 

1.4 

Purpose of the evaluation and methodology ................................................................... 5 

Time period covered by the evaluation ........................................................................... 7 

2  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ........................ 7 

2.1 

2.2 

Rationale for the intervention .......................................................................................... 7 

Point(s) of comparison / Assessment of the achievements............................................ 11 

3 

4 

HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ........ 12 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ........................................................ 16 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................................ 16 

How did the EU intervention make a difference? ......................................................... 26 

Is the intervention still relevant? ................................................................................... 28 

5  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? .................................. 32 

5.1 

5.2 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 32 

Lessons learned ............................................................................................................. 34 

6 

7 

8 

9 

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 38 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .................................................................. 41 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .......................... 41 

ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO  THE 
EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) .............................................................. 43 

10  ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS - TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION 
AND BURDEN REDUCTION ............................................................................................ 64 

11  ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION- SYNOPSES REPORT ..................... 67 

12  ANNEX VI TIMELINE BEFORE 2014 .............................................................................. 72 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CMEMS 
DG ENV 

DG GROW 

DG MARE 
EEA 
EFCA 
EMFF 
EMODnet 
FAIR 

HELCOM 

ICES 
INSPIRE 
JRC 
MSFD 
MSPD 

OSPAR 

UNCLOS 

Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service 
Directorate-General for Environment 
Directorate-General  for  Internal  Market,  Industry, 
Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
European Environment Agency 
European Fisheries Control Agency 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund  
The European Marine Observation and Data Network 
Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable 
The  Baltic  Marine  Environment 
Commission (Helsinki Commission) 
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 
Infrastructure for Spatial InfoRmation in Europe 
Joint Research Center  
Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 
The  Convention  for  the  Protection  of  the  Marine 
Environment of the North-East Atlantic 
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea 

Protection 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1  What is EMODnet ? 

The concept of a European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) followed the publication 
of the 2006 Green Paper "Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the 
oceans and seas" [1]. This concept was endorsed in 2007 as part of the EU’s new integrated maritime 
policy which followed a public consultation and impact assessment [2]. 

In the Commission’s ‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ Communication [3], published in 2010, the European 
Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) is described as a network of marine organisations 
that  would  provide  a  single  entry  point  for  accessing  and  retrieving  marine  data  derived  from 
observations, surveys or samples from the hundreds of databases maintained on behalf of agencies, public 
authorities, research institutions and universities throughout the EU. It  would also deliver digital  map 
layers of parameters derived from these primary data for entire sea basins around Europe. 

In  2014,  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  regulation  (EMFF,  [4])  defined  EMODnet  as  ‘a 
network that integrates relevant national marine observation and data programmes into a common and 
accessible European resource’. A detailed timeline of EMODnet history until 2014 is provided in Annex 
VI.  

EMODnet’s  objectives  are  to  create  and  implement  interoperability  standards  for  marine  data  and  to 
aggregate, harmonise, quality-check and consolidate data on hundreds of parameters related to the marine 
environment.  The  data  are  used  to  create  and  make  openly  available  multi-resolution  data  products, 
covering all EU seas. 

Today EMODnet includes a wealth of data and data products covering the European seas and beyond. 
The  data  are  organised  by  seven  thematic  areas:  Bathymetry,  Geology,  Seabed  habitat,  Chemistry, 
Biology, Physics and Human activities1.  

Figure 1: The seven thematic areas of EMODnet 

1 European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet): https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  network  comprises  over  120  organisations  including  national  hydrographic  offices,  geological 
surveys,  oceanographic  institutes,  etc.,  supported  by  private  companies  with  expertise  in  data 
management, processing, and dissemination.  

The  EMODnet  portal  provides  access  to  a  large  number  of  in  situ  measurements,  information  and 
products, such as for example digital maps of the sea floor, water temperature, marine litter, presence of 
algae, nature of the seabed, type of habitats for marine life, as well as the mapping of human activities 
(e.g. offshore wind farms). 

1.2  What is EMODnet used for and by whom? 

Access  to  marine  data  is  of  vital  importance  for  scientific  research,  decision-making  bodies,  marine 
industries  and  the  society  at  large  for  implementing  EU  policies  in  relation  to  EU  oceans  and  seas. 
EMODnet,  as  a  pan-European  marine  data  infrastructure,  is  utilised  for  a  wide  array  of  uses  in  these 
domains.  

Academia  and  the  research  community  are  among  the  most  important  users  of  EMODnet  (61%,  see 
Figure  2).  The  open  sharing,  harmonising,  and  quality-checking  of  marine  data  across  Europe  is 
significantly optimising the time and cost of marine research, expediting results, increasing high-quality 
publications  and  reducing  uncertainty.  This  extends  to  better  simulation  of  marine  systems  and 
forecasting  of  their  behaviour,  which  is  valuable  beyond  research  (management  and  conservation  of 
living resources, coastal zone protection, conditions at sea etc.). 

EMODnet is used by national, regional, and local government bodies to access, share and reuse marine 
data across European borders and to access readily available data products to support and speed up the 
decision-making  processes.  It  enables  the  implementation  of  efficient  legislation  regarding  marine 
environmental protection, marine spatial planning and more. Sharing and re-using of data collected via 
public funding is optimising investment at the national and EU scales. 

EMODnet is used during the planning, development, and implementation phase of multiple activities in 
the  blue  economy,  such  as  aquaculture,  offshore  energy,  environmental  services  and  more.  The 
availability of marine data allows for more  efficient and sustainable planning, reduces data collection 
costs and sparks innovation, especially for Small and Medium Sized enterprises (SMEs). 

Civil society organisations, such as environmental NGOs, make use of the EMODnet data products to 
enhance their knowledge base and to transform it into information that engages the wider public on the 
importance of the marine environment to everyday life. EMODnet is powering the European Atlas of the 
Seas2, which distributes wide and variant marine related information for students, teachers and the wider 
public in the easy-to-understand form of maps. 

Private industry is responsible for about a quarter of the downloads. Many of these users are SMEs who 
incorporate the data in the services they provide to other industries or public authorities. 

2 European Atlas of the Seas: https://ec.europa.eu/maritimeaffairs/atlas/maritime_atlas/  

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2: Type of organisations involved in the online survey carried out by an external study [13] 

To better understand the full benefits of EMODnet for marine industries, decision-making bodies and 
scientific research, a few use case examples are given below:  

1.  EMODnet Seabed Habitats data was used for the mapping of physical damages to benthic habitats 

due to fishing in the Nord-East Atlantic as part of a wider OSPAR assessment. 

2.  An Italian technology-transfer company active in the environmental physics field has released a 
new service for its customers as part of an environmental impact assessment package which uses 
EMODnet physics radar data to provide a solid and validated input to oil spill models. 

3.  EMODnet Human Activities datasets on windfarm and hydrocarbon extraction provided crucial 

information to determine areas of interest for the development of wind farm projects. 

4.  Based on EMODnet Geology data, a university investigated the influence of the environmental 

conditions on the distribution of the seagrass species in the Mediterranean Sea basin.  

5.  EMODnet  Chemistry  contributed  to  the  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  on  Reducing 
Marine Litter: action on single use plastics and fishing gear [5], which performs an analysis of 
plastics distribution coming from these sources. 

6.  EMODnet Biology data helped prevent the introduction of non- indigenous species outside their 

natural range by assessing the effectiveness of current measures. 

7.  EMODnet Bathymetry data are used by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management 

(SwAM) to assess the cumulative impact of human activity in Swedish waters. 

Many more examples of use cases can be found on the EMODnet web site3 

A structured view of the use of EMODnet raw data, harmonised data and data products is shown in Figure 
3. 

3 https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en/use-cases 

4 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3: What is EMODnet used for. 

1.3  Purpose of the evaluation and methodology 

EMODnet has undergone an evaluation in the context of the Interim evaluation of the direct management 
component of the EMFF [6]. As the scope of the evaluation was the entire EMFF, the part dedicated to 
EMODnet remained limited in relation to the numerous points to be analysed. 

While  there  is  no  legal  requirement  to  perform  a  separate  evaluation  for  EMODnet,  the  Commission 
announced its commitment to carry out such evaluation in its 2014 “Marine Knowledge 2020 roadmap” 
accompanying the Communication "Innovation in the Blue Economy realising the potential of our seas 
and oceans for jobs and growth" [7]. There are three main objectives to this evaluation: 

1) To assess how well the original objectives have been reached, whether the original objectives are 
still valid, how the situation has changed during  the period covered by this evaluation,  how the 
action has reacted to these changes and if such action needs to be continued, 

2) To assess the performance of EMODnet, 

3) To create a reference which will allow to reflect about the future of EMODnet. 

The 5 standard evaluation criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence, and EU added value 
are analysed and are organised in the report as follows: 

-  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? (effectiveness, efficiency, coherence), 

-  How did the EU intervention make a difference? (EU added value), 

- 

Is the intervention still relevant? (relevance). 

The articulation between needs, objectives, outputs and the 5 evaluation criteria used in the context of 
this evaluation are shown in Figure 4.  

5 

 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Simplified view of the intervention and the 5 key evaluation criteria [13] 

The data gathering and analysis, legal texts, policy documents, impact assessment, studies and internal 
project reports that have been used in this evaluation can be found under the section 'References'. 

The evaluation of the 5 standards criteria draws mainly from the following: 

-  A public consultation organised in the period March to May 2019 [14],   
-  An external evaluation study published in 2020 [12], which also includes a consultation, 
-  Yearly  internal  project  review  reports  which  include  focused  surveys  and  target  assessments 

carried out by the EMODnet secretariat (e.g. [25, 26, 35]). 

Details on the public consultation and the consultation in the evaluation study are provided in the synopsis 
report in Annex V. 

There are of course limitations and strengths in the different material supporting this evaluation.  

The external evaluation study was performed by an external contractor, which ensured an independent 
approach, and it included a consultation of registered EMODnet users who have expertise in the use of 
EMODnet. 

While the consultation carried out in the external evaluation study includes 430 inputs, mostly from users, 
the public consultation gathered only 46 inputs and is therefore less statistically relevant. However, in the 
last, the inputs are mostly made by entities while in the first, there are mostly from individual users.  

The methodology includes therefore three different perspectives: an external evaluation study, a public 
consultation and internal reports by specialists. 

More details on the methodology and the reference documents can be found in Annex II. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
1.4  Time period covered by the evaluation 

Time Period 

In 2010, an impact assessment [9] was carried out and confirmed that the benefits of such action would 
likely outweigh the costs.  

Based on these results and confirmation that the structure of the prototype EMODnet financed by the 
European  Parliament’s  preparatory  actions  was  sound,  this  prototype  was  reinforced  through  a 
transitional fund [15]. In 2013, the Council invited the Commission "to develop a roadmap towards a 
sustainable structure that is driven by the needs and priorities of public authorities, industry, the research 
community and other stakeholders". EMODnet was then eligible for support from the 2014-2020 EMFF.  

This evaluation is therefore centered on the period 2014-2020 corresponding to the years of EMFF and 
the corresponding Multi-Annual Framework. Elements of information were also added for the evolutions 
which occurred in the period 2013-2014 and 2020-2022 for a better understanding and in order to be able 
to draw relevant conclusions. 

Geographical scope 

Today  EMODnet  provides  access  to  data  and  knowledge  for  all  European  seas  and  oceans  including 
waters of all EU Member States, of neighbouring third countries and of EU Outermost Regions but also 
provides information on landlocked countries (Austria, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia) e.g. regarding 
aquaculture. The scope of this evaluation covers therefore primarily the EU Member States in the period 
2014-20204. 

EMODnet covers other waters, which vary depending on the thematic group considered, the availability 
of data and the existence of international collaboration. Without going into the details of which quantity 
is available in each ocean, data can be found outside waters of EU Member States in the Atlantic, Arctic 
and Antarctic Oceans as well as the Caspian and the Black seas. 

In terms of users, the data being free and open access, entities from all around the globe are accessing 
EMODnet data. 

2  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1  Rationale for the intervention 

Needs 

The needs which motivated the establishment of EMODnet described in the 2010 impact assessment [9] 
were to: 

1)  Achieve a coherent approach to marine data collections 

In 2010, most marine data collection was focused on meeting the needs of a single purpose such as 
for example a regulatory requirement or for further scientific understanding. However, assessing the 

4 UK withdrew from the European Union as of 01/02/2020. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
state of the ocean, planning a new infrastructure or analysing its impact on the ecosystem requires 
to access an ensemble of data and cannot rely on such an approach. 

2)  Remove barriers to application of marine data 

At that time stakeholders complained that it was very difficult to find the data and to obtain the rights 
to use it without restrictions. Different data sets were using different formats, making it difficult to 
combine them, data providers would charge costs, there was often no information on the quality and 
accuracy, and the spatial and temporal resolutions were insufficient. 

3)  Enable competition to deliver product and services 

Organisations owning data wanted exclusivity to develop the added-value applications of the data. 
This  not  only  reduced  the  number  of  bodies  that  were  potentially  able  to  deliver  the  product  or 
service but  reduced innovation because it limited the development of services based on different 
suppliers of data. 

4)  Reduce uncertainty  

In order to study current and future ocean behaviours (e.g. sea-level rise), several types of data need 
to be combined. The lack of accuracy of source data results in an even higher level of uncertainty 
when they are combined. This can result in significant economic impact (e.g. cost of adaptation to 
sea level rise). 

Objectives, activities 

In the 2010 impact assessment [9], the objectives were defined as follows: 

General Objectives 

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, 

-  Support an open market with free competition. 

Specific Objectives: 

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 Directive requires a working marine data infrastructure, 

c)  Strengthen marine scientific research. 

8 

 
 
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. 

Operational Objective / Activities 

The specific objectives could be achieved by setting up and maintaining at EU level: 

1)  A  catalogue  of  European  marine  data  collections  with  common  formats  and  nomenclature, 
completed  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  are 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. 

Impacts, what success was expected to look like 

The expected impacts listed in the 2010 impact assessment [9] which are assessed in this evaluation [12] 
are: 

 

 

Improve Productivity. From an economic perspective, the development of EMODnet may lead to 
gains in terms of improved productivity and reduced redundancies, 
Increase Innovation. Innovations derive from using the data provided by EMODnet to develop 
new products,  services,  applications (both within existing and newly formed organizations) or 
additions upgrading existing products, services and applications, 

  Reduce Uncertainty. The implementation of EMODnet is expected to reduce uncertainty, mainly 

as the result of better data availability allowing operators to modify their behaviour.  

Success means having achieved progress in each of the three expected impacts. 

The EMODnet intervention logic is depicted in Figure 5. 

9 

 
 
 
Figure 5: Intervention logic of EMODnet as described in the external evaluation [12] 

10 

 
 
 
Wider Policy context before 2014  

In 2007,  the European Commission  adopted for the first  time  "An integrated Maritime Policy  for  the 
European Unions" [2] which aimed to create a more joined-up approach to all EU policies that depended 
on the seas and oceans or affected them. Previously, EU maritime actions had concentrated on fisheries. 
This  Communication  therefore  opened  up  a  new  dimension,  containing  specific  tools  for  integrated 
policy-making. 

This  included  three  flagship  cross-cutting  priorities  –  (1)  providing  better  knowledge  on  the  sea,  (2) 
detecting potential illegal or dangerous activities and (3) agreeing where individual economic activities 
should be allowed or prohibited. Responsibility for these priorities was held by different authorities so 
the  challenge  in  each  case  was  to  bring  these  authorities  together  to  share  knowledge,  facilitate 
communication and agree on standards.  

In  2008,  the  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  [19]  was  published,  calling  on  Member  States  to 
achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status (GES) in each marine region and to draw up monitoring 
programmes in the interest of coherence and coordination. 

In  2010,  the  Communication  on  Marine  Knowledge  2020  [3]  was  calling  to  develop  existing  EU 
instruments  such  as  the  preparatory  action  ur-EMODnet  alongside  with  the  fisheries  Data  Collection 
Framework,  Global  Monitoring  for  Environment  and  Security  Initiative  (GMES),  the  Shared 
Environmental Information System SEIS and its marine environmental component, WISE-marine that is 
an extension of the Water Information System for Europe (WISE) system.  

EMODnet impact assessment [7] was published in the same year, laying the foundation for a long-term 
perspective for EMODnet. 

In 2014, the Maritime Spatial Planning Directive [16] was adopted with the goal to bring coherence in 
possibly  competing  use  of  maritime  space  at  any  given  time  such  as  fishing,  aquaculture,  shipping, 
renewable energy, nature conservation and other uses. 

The same year, the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) regulation, which covers the period 
2014-2020,  was  adopted.  It  included  under  direct  management  'the  progressive  development  of  a 
comprehensive and publicly accessible high quality marine data and knowledge base which shall facilitate 
the  sharing,  re-use  and  dissemination  of  those  data  and  knowledge  among  various  user  groups,  thus 
avoiding  a  duplication  of  efforts;  for  that  purpose,  the  best  use  shall  be  made  of  existing  Union  and 
Member States’ programmes'. 

2.2  Point(s) of comparison / Assessment of the achievements 

As  discussed  in  Section  2.1  "Rationale  of  the  intervention"  and  further  detailed  in  the  timeline  of 
EMODnet before 2014 in Annex VI, the period 2006-2010 was a policy preparation phase starting with 
the 2006 Green paper "Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans 
and seas" [1] and resulting in the finalisation of the impact assessment in 2010 [9].  

Between 2008 and 2013, a first EMODnet prototype was developed financed successively by preparatory 
actions  from  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Programme  to  support  the  further  development  of  an 
Integrated Maritime Policy. Separate groups of biologists, chemists, geologists and hydrographers as well 
as a group specialising in seabed habitats replied to the call for tender, joined later by one for physics. 

In  2012,  EMODnet  was  extended  to  cover  the  needs  of  environmental  policy  and  spatial  planning, 
included a new group to assemble data on human activity. 

11 

 
 
 
However, at the time of the start of the evaluation period (2014), EMODnet was not yet operational. It 
was still time-consuming to find data and obtain permission to use it and hard to put data from different 
sources  and  of  different  types  together  to  create  a  complete  picture  because  of  differing  standards, 
nomenclatures and baselines. The resolution was limited as well as sea-basins coverage. The secretariat 
did not exist (portals were operating independently) and there was no ingestion facility. 

Usage of  the prototype  EMODnet  was low because the amount of data available was limited and the 
coverage incomplete. Potential users were not going invest in services that relied on EMODnet until they 
could be confident that it was going to be sustained once the initial contracts ended. 

3  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

EMODnet funding is usually secured with contracts of 2 years duration, with an optional renewal, and 
this for each thematic area. The different contracts are not synchronised time wise. Below, the evolution 
of the situation is presented per main phases in order to facilitate the understanding of the main evolutions 
since 2013. 

2013-2015: Stress tests - First Digital Terrain Model - Setup of the ingestion service 

In  2013  EASME  (today  CINEA),  as  an  executive  agency  of  the  European  Commission,  took  on  the 
responsibility to manage the EMODnet contracts.  

Between 2013 and 2014, a set of stress tests were undertaken to determine where EMODnet should step 
up effort on assembling and distributing data. Sets of independent consortia were asked to tackle several 
practical problems such as to find a site for a wind farm, track an oil spill, determine changes in heat 
content or eutrophication in a sea-basin, and identify the fitness for purpose of the available data. Some 
of the results included the lack of access to fisheries data, unknown river inflows, poor availability of 
wind data, lack of knowledge of impact of alien species. 

In 2015, based on the data provided by the nation al  Hydrographic  Organisations,  who  are  in  charge  of 
the production and distribution of nautical charts in EU Member States, the bathymetry service introduced 
the  Digital  Terrain  Model  (DTM).  This  resulted  in  a  considerably  increased  quantity  and  quality  of 
available bathymetric data and services. 

A  data  ingestion  service  was  also  set  up  to  include  data  in  EMODnet  from  research  projects, 
environmental  impact  assessments  (e.g.  for  an  off-shore  energy  park)  or  from  the  private  sector, 
harmonising and integrating them, when possible. 

2016-2017: Enhancing EMODnet geology and Seabed Habitats, expanding the role of the Secretariat. 

In  this  period,  EMODnet  geology  layers  underwent  significant  improvements.  The  classification  of 
sediments  became  more  uniform  and  detailed,  providing  harmonisation  in  European  data  of  seabed 
substrates. The better accuracy and uniformity of geological and hydrographical data were then fed to the 
EMODnet habitats portal which, for the first time offered a complete mapping of European habitats using 
a  uniform  classification.  This  advancement  is  crucial  for  designing  marine  protected  areas,  for  the 
achievement of Good Environmental Status under the MSFD and for efficient marine spatial planning, 
which is not possible if the classifications between Member States are not harmonised. 

12 

 
 
 
In 2017, the role of the Secretariat was expanded. This strengthened their coordinating function for the 
network, by evaluating and harmonising the services provided by the thematic areas. This included the 
assessment of reporting, assessment and advice on thematic portals developments (indicators to quantify 
the  use  of  EMODnet)  and  maintaining  the  central  website  with  a  centralised  catalogue  and  access  to 
thematic  services.  The  Secretariat  also  became  responsible  for  much  of  the  EMODnet  European  and 
international  collaboration  and  networking,  building  partnerships  with  relevant  organisations  and 
handling a larger portfolio of communication and outreach activities. They undertook the development 
of  the  EMODnet  Associated  Partnership  framework  and  started  conceptualising  the  "EMODnet  4 
business"  scheme,  aiming  to  identify  and  answer  the  needs  of  the  private  sector  in  terms  of  marine 
observation  and  data.  The  Secretariat  also  became  responsible  for  major  landmark  EMODnet  events 
(Jamboree, Open Sea Labs, ocean observation conferences), EMODnet Annual Reports and advanced 
communication material  (videos,  infographics, promotion  material). At the same time, they took  over 
from  the  JRC  the  maintenance  and  development  of  the  European  Atlas  of  the  Seas  that  is  the  ocean 
literacy marine map tool of the European Commission. 

2018-2019: Focus on user needs, applications for EU policies 

In 2018, EMODnet efforts to identify user needs were stepped up, in order to refine the service. The main 
user requirements are higher spatial and temporal resolution of data and fewer gaps in available data. The 
gaps were being addressed, partly through the incorporation of new parameters, partly by engaging with 
more data providers and partly by harmonising data collected from different sources. At this stage, one 
of  the  services  of  EMODnet  that  became  increasingly  useful  is  the  provision  of  indications  of  the 
available data reliability or completeness. 

The lack of reliable information on flows of freshwater, sediments and nutrients from European rivers 
identified by the stress-tests have been partially addressed in this period.  

In 2019, EMODnet Human Activities made available new, relatively high-resolution monthly maps of 
shipping  density  provided  by  EMSA,  differentiated  by  type  of  vessel.  This  product  has  proven  very 
popular with users. In this period, EMODnet Human Activities became the reference for the positions 
and characteristics of all offshore windfarms in the planning, licensing, construction or operation phase. 
This  data  contributed  to  the  analysis  of  national  recovery  and  resilience  plans  and  to  WindEurope’s 
analysis of space requirements for meeting 2050 deployment targets under the Green Deal. 

During this period, EMODnet Chemistry and EMODnet Biology scaled up their engagement efforts to 
provide data for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD, [19]), working closely with DG ENV, 
JRC and EEA. EMODnet Chemistry provides since 2019 the common methodology and harmonisation 
of Member States data that enabled the establishment of a baseline for beach litter in all EU countries.  

In 2019, the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between DG MARE and DG GROW 
confirmed  the  complementarity  of  the  Copernicus  Marine  Service  and  EMODnet  and  increased 
coherence,  synergies,  and  collaboration.  In  2020,  this  MoU  was  transferred  to  the  newly  established 
Directorate-General for Defence Industry and Space (DG DEFIS). 

2020-2021: Increased use for EU policies 

The European Green Deal [22] has heightened the need for reliable marine data. The EMODnet Habitats 
team had already delivered data on sea grass distribution and is working to provide mapping of coastal 
wetlands. These data can help researchers estimate carbon sequestration on national or European scales 

13 

 
 
and contribute towards the long-term aim of inclusion of sea use in  Land Use, Land-Use Change and 
Forestry  (LULUCF)  reporting.  The  staff  working  document  accompanying  the  Zero  Pollution  Action 
Plan [32] gives a significant role to EMODnet, regarding harmonising and making openly available more 
and better marine in situ data on marine pollution. 

During  this  period,  the  high  complexity  of  marine  biodiversity  was  an  area  of  focus  and  growth  for 
EMODnet.  Until  2020,  most  EMODnet  interaction  with  environmental  reporting  has  been  through 
MSFD,  and  the  Nature  Directives  have  been  comparatively  less  well  served.  Since  then,  EMODnet 
biology and EMODnet Seabed established collaboration with the Directorate-General for Environment 
(DG ENV), and the European Environment Agency (EEA), to work together and contribute more to the 
six-year reporting cycle of the Habitats [27] and Birds Directives [28]. 

In 2020 EMODnet Geology delivered a mapping of coastal erosion over the past 10 years on all the EU’s 
sandy coasts, supporting climate adaptation activities. Since then, efforts have begun on other types of 
coast substrate. 

In  the  context  of  the  European  Commission's  Technical  Expert  Group  on  Maritime  Spatial  Planning 
(MSP)  Data,  EMODnet  Human  Activities  thematic  area  contributed  in  2021  to  the  development  of  a 
harmonised nomenclature for ocean uses in the EU. Since then, it has taken up the task of converting 
official Member State submissions of maritime spatial plans to a common format in order to facilitate 
cross-border spatial planning, and therefore enhance the implementation of the Maritime Spatial Planning 
Directive (MSPD [16]). 

In 2021, a coordinated effort began in order to centralise the thematic portals under a common entry point. 
This activity, soon to be finalised, will satisfy the requests for simplification and user friendliness, in turn 
will strengthen cohesion in the EMODnet partnership. 

Evolution of data, data products, citations and visitors 

The  progress  made  through  EMODnet,  regarding  the  availability  of  marine  in-situ  data  during  the 
evaluation  period  can  be  deduced  through  the  increase  of  datasets  and  data  products  made  available 
through the network.  

An EMODnet data product is a composite collection of data related to a specific variable, harmonised 
and standardised across Europe, to reflect the state of the variable across European Seas or focusing on 
specific  region,  based  on  data  availability.  Where  relevant  the  data  is  interpolated  to  provide 
approximation of information across EU seas. In a few cases, EMODnet data products are the result of 
modelling analysis, based on standardised methodologies developed by the EMODnet thematic experts. 
This is for instance the case for the Seabed Habitats EUSeaMap and for the Human Activities Vessel 
Density Maps. All EMODnet data products are accompanied by detailed metadata. 

Between 2014 and 2020 this progress has been important as shown in Table 1, with a great variety of 
multidisciplinary data made available and data products being created. 

The  increase  of  the  number  of  citations  is  another  indicator  of  the  growing  use  of  EMODnet  by  the 
scientific community. The external study [12] evaluated that in the period 2014 to 2018, the number of 
citation grew steadily from 251 to 529 i.e. 210% increase. 

In terms of visitors, the central entry portal had 89000 unique visitors in 2021 [26] 

14 

 
 
 
Thematic area 
Bathymetry 

Biology 
Chemistry 
Geology 
Human Activities 
Physics 
Sea bed habitats 

Indicator 
137% increase in data sets used for the 
creation of the Digital Terrain Model 
(DTM) 
97 % increase in datasets 
61% increase in datasets 
240% increase in data products 
100% increase in data products 
164% increase in data products 
230% increase in data sets 

Table 1: Increase of the number of data sets and data products in the period 2014-2020 

EU funding 

During the period considered under this evaluation i.e. 2014-2020, a total of € 51.3 million i.e. of the 
order of € 7 million per annum, having in mind that some of the previous contracts ended after 2014, 
some of the contracts during this period have ended after 2020. 

It should be acknowledged that the Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) is hosting the Central Portal, office 
and  infrastructure  for  the  Secretariat  without  remuneration,  based  on  a  bilateral  agreement  with  the 
European Commission. Details on the distribution of the funding are provided in Table 2. 

Theme & Project   EU funding 
(million €) 

Thematic Portals overview 

Central services  
Secretariat  

Data Ingestion  

Thematic 
Groups  
Bathymetry  

Biology  

Chemistry  

Geology  

Human Activities  
Physics  

Seabed Habitats  

8.6 
3.5 

5,0 

44.2 

11.4 

5.0 

6.4 

8.7 

4.6 
3.4 

3.3 

Total   

51.3 

Coordination  and  technical  support,  development  of  the  EMODnet 
Central Portal, monitor the various EMODnet projects and disseminate 
their results 
Facilitates  ingestion  of  marine  datasets  for  external  users,  support  for 
processing, publishing 

Data on bathymetry (water depth), coastlines, and geographical location 
of underwater features: wrecks. 
Data  on  temporal  and  spatial  distribution  of  species  abundance  and 
biomass from several taxa. 
Data on the concentration of nutrients, organic matter, pesticides, heavy 
metals, radionuclides and antifoulants in water, sediment and biota. 
Data  on  seabed  substrate,  sea-floor  geology,  coastal  behaviour, 
geological events, and minerals. 
Data on the intensity and spatial extent of human activities at sea. 
Data  on  salinity, 
temperature,  waves,  currents,  sea-level, 
attenuation, underwater noise and more. 
Data, maps and models on the spatial distribution and extent of seabed 
habitats and communities. 

light 

Table 2: EU funding provided in the period 2014-2020 

15 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
4  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

Effectiveness and efficiency 

This section is structured according to the impacts of the intervention as described in section 2.1: 

- improve productivity, 

- increase innovation, 

- reduce uncertainty.  

It also includes considerations on the form of funding that is currently being used. 

For each of the impacts, effectiveness and efficiency are assessed together.  As illustrated in Figure 5, 
effectiveness assesses how well the outputs relate to the objectives while efficiency relates the magnitude 
of the inputs to the generated outputs (costs and benefits). In this section, the percentages used to quantify 
the answers to the public consultation are based on the sum of respondents who expressed an opinion, 
see also Annex V. 

Improving public & private sector productivity 

90%  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  [14]  reported  either  slight  (57%)  or  great  (33%) 
productivity gains. The survey conducted as part of the EMODnet external evaluation study [12, section 
5  Effectiveness],  explored  increased  productivity  through  questions  related  to  operational  costs, 
organisations’ productivity, and administrative burden. 55% of the 262 surveyed users agreed or strongly 
agreed that EMODnet use leads to an effective reduction in operational costs within their organisations. 
Additionally, all the 35 specialised users interviewed as part of the same evaluation, declared an increase 
in productivity due to the use of EMODnet. 

Some of these productivity gains referred to actual reduction of costs, as before EMODnet, the purchase 
of specific datasets for a given local area could cost up to €10,000 per dataset, adding a financial burden 
to the budget of institutions and companies. The representatives of a large civil engineering company 
reported performing between 500 to 1000 projects annually in different local areas, using the EMODnet 
Bathymetry  Digital  Terrain  Model,  providing  the  best-harmonised  resolution  in  the  EU,  as  well  as 
EMODnet Physics data, estimating their savings due to EMODnet in between €0.5 and €1 million a year 
for a single company. Small and medium-sized companies active in marine modelling, and thus in need 
of updated datasets of several marine parameters, report that, depending on the dataset and per dataset, 
savings can be from €1,000 to €10,000 [12, section 5 Effectiveness: Productivity].  

In order to quantify the efficiency, users were interviewed and asked to estimate the productivity gains 
per year associated to the use of EMODnet. For this purpose, they evaluated the saving on salaries at the 
level  of  their  company  resulting  for  the  time  saved  thanks  to  a  central  access  to  data  provided  by 
EMODnet versus having to fetch data source by source. For registered EMODnet users, the estimate of 
savings spans between €3500 and €7000 per year. While there are 874 registered users, it was estimated 
that the unregistered users could range between 8300 and 16500 yielding total savings ranging between 
€29 million and €115 million. In 2021, the number of unique visitors of EMODnet central amounted to 
90000. Of course, not all visitors are downloading data. 

16 

 
 
 
Increasing innovation 

EMODnet aims to facilitate the development of innovation in the Blue Economy, through increased and 
unrestricted access to data, thus allowing other parties, besides the original data-holder, to provide added-
value  services.  The  assembled,  harmonised,  standardised  and  quality-controlled  data  products  at  EU 
scale,  created  by  EMODnet  through  aggregation  of  data  from  different  sources  also  stimulates  the 
creation of new services. 

88% of the respondents to the public consultation slightly (36%) or greatly (52%) agree that EMODnet 
was boosting innovation development for their organisation (see Annex V). According to the external 
evaluation study [12], 74% of the survey participants agreed that EMODnet has allowed them to provide 
new or additional services to their clients and/or stakeholders. Additionally, 65% of respondents agree or 
strongly agree, that EMODnet data are contributing to boosting innovation within their field, not only in 
their affiliated organisation, but also in other organisations in their sector. It is thus clear that EMODnet 
indeed is considered as an innovation facilitator. 

Dedicated  stakeholders’  interviews  of  28  specialised  EMODnet  users  enabled  to  identify  practical 
examples. 

EMODnet developing new products and services 

EMODnet is supporting the creation of technological innovation through the development of products 
and activities which would not be possible if the EU marine data landscape remained fragmented. The 
external evaluation study [12] mentions that research organisations see potential in robotics application 
for underwater navigation thanks to the higher resolution bathymetry data available in EMODnet. The 
improvement  of  spatial  and  temporal  resolutions  of  data  allows  the  improvement  of  forecasts  at  the 
coastal zone, the development of comprehensive EU marine habitat maps and more. Other EMODnet 
activities, such as the Open Sea Labs (EMODnet Hackathons) target specifically innovators, which use 
the available open data, data products and web-services to create added-value applications as solutions 
for aquaculture sighting, ocean literacy tools, fish-stock assessment tools, visualisation tools for marine 
spatial planning and more [36]. 

In  the  domain  of  marine  biodiversity  data,  which  is  very  complex  due  to  the  temporal  and  spatial 
variability across the European seas and the particularities of monitoring, EMODnet develops internal 
activities  to  promote  and  foster  innovation.  These  demonstrators,  related  to  modelling  of  species 
observations, display how to use the available data in an artificial neural network and make available the 
full methodology that can be used by other actors. 

EMODnet boosting innovation in companies 

The effect of EMODnet in boosting innovation is particularly evident regarding SMEs, allowing them to 
be competitive in the landscape of marine related service provisions, to cater for clients outside their usual 
zone of influence or to create services based on the free, harmonised and quality-checked data. 

For  example,  a  Danish  engineering  company  has  developed  a  business  model  with  the  support  of 
EMODnet data. The company develops numerical, hind cast models for the Mediterranean Sea, resulting 
in forecasts of wind and wave. The data are stored in a database and are purchased by the company’s 
customers under a fee. EMODnet Physics data are used to calibrate and validate the outputs of the model, 
meaning that EMODnet enabled the creation and guarantees the quality of the service, which generates 
annually €100,000 for this company [12]. 

A  Portuguese  SME,  active  in  marine  modelling,  stated  that  the  development  of  higher  quality  and 
innovative products is only possible through the open, unrestricted access to high-resolution in situ data 

17 

 
 
of EMODnet, attributing directly up to 10% of their funding for a period of 3 years (€45,000-€90,000). 
Α  small  Greek  engineering  company,  has  developed  a  floating  mast  performing  offshore  wind 
measurements,  a  project  with  funding  of  about  €2  million.  EMODnet  supports  the  capitalization  and 
search  for  clients  as  it  allows  the  identification  of  areas  for  proposed  new  and  old  wind  farms  in  all 
European seas.  

Larger companies in the engineering and energy sector also acknowledge the change in the competition 
landscape created by the unrestricted access to available marine data thanks to EMODnet. 

EMODnet boosting innovation in academic labs and research centres 

Research institutes, universities and other organisations are utilising EMODnet data to develop European 
marine  knowledge. EU  Research  and  Innovation  value these  outputs and document them in  scientific 
papers.  Between  2014  and  2018  more  than  2000  peer-reviewed  papers  and  assessments  have  been 
published with the acknowledged contribution of EMODnet with a doubling of the number of citations 
per year between 2014 and 2018 (from 251 to 529). 

Additionally,  EMODnet  data  are  contributing  as  baseline  to  further  marine  research  and  innovation 
development,  for  quality  assessments,  for  the  calibration  and  validation  of  modelling  forecasts,  for 
exploration  of  critical  raw  materials  from  the  marine  environment  and  more  [25,  26].  For  these 
organisations, EMODnet facilitates the development of R&I projects on marine sciences, attracting funds 
from public and private resources and thus creating value and jobs. 

Efficiency gains in relation to innovation 

The 2010 EMODnet impact assessment analysed the situation in the USA where it is estimated that the 
greater availability of public data and their use made by industry leads to a sector that is at least 6 times 
larger than in the EU. Applied to the size of the sector in the EU (estimated between €10 million and €30 
million in 2010), this yields between €60 million and €200 million annually. 

The external  evaluation  study  [12] attempted  to provide a better  quantification of  the  gains  related to 
innovation relying on specific quantified examples from the interviews such as those mentioned above. 
This was however un-conclusive since no proper methodology was found to extrapolate these specific 
business benefits to the ensemble of EMODnet users.  

Reducing uncertainty of data 

Open, unrestricted access to harmonised standardised and quality-controlled data has a direct impact on 
the reduction of uncertainty in science, research and development, impact assessment, management, and 
decision  making.  The  availability  of  data  products  with  high  temporal  and  spatial  resolution  reduces 
significantly  uncertainties  of  the  behaviour  of  marine  systems,  lowering  risks  and  thus  enabling 
economies of scale and timely action. In previous paragraphs analysing productivity and innovation, there 
are  already  multiple  examples  mentioned  where  EMODnet  is  contributing  to  reduced  uncertainty, 
through marine forecasts, information on sea-level rise, wave height, marine biodiversity distribution, 
marine pollution and more. 

95%  percent  of  the  respondents  in  the  public  consultation  stated  that  EMODnet  reduces  uncertainty 
slightly (38%) or greatly (57%, see Annex V). According to the external evaluation study [12], 62% of 
the surveyed users agreed on the significant contribution of EMODnet for the provision of reliable data 
and that was not possible before the network was assembled. Furthermore, the majority of users perceived 
that the use of EMODnet data for their activities, reduces the uncertainty of their outputs.  

18 

 
 
Through  use  cases  available  at  the  EMODnet  Central  portal5,  notable  examples  of  reduction  of 
uncertainty can be found. Among others, the improved Bathymetry Digital Terrain Model enabled the 
improvement  of  the  accuracy  of  the  storm  surge  forecast  models  of  meteorological  services.  Another 
example  is  the  reduction  of  uncertainty  of  the  marine  environment  state  assessments  enabled  by  data 
coming from EMODnet Chemistry, Seabed Habitats and Biology. The EMODnet services are developed 
in close collaboration with the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS), powering 
a part of the CMEMS In situ Thematic Centre. The EMODnet products are used in the Copernicus Marine 
forecasting  models  or  products  for  validation  purposes  and  are  also  provided  to  Copernicus  Marine 
Service users for further research and downstream activities [38]. 

Through the consolidation of data at pan-European level, EMODnet also helps in the reduction of another 
form of uncertainty, by making more visible the thematic and geographical gaps existing regarding the 
in  situ  data  of  the  marine  environment.  The  high-level  overview  that  EMODnet  provides  allows  to 
identify  which  areas  are  observed  more  adequately  and  in  which  areas  more  public  investments  and 
efforts are necessary to achieve a robust marine knowledge background. 

Other proved benefits  of reduced uncertainty due to  the provision  of EMODnet  data and services are 
related  to  prediction  of  the  state  of  the  sea  with  regards  to  offshore  operations,  where  more  accurate 
forecast can lead to taking advantage of all optimum days for work at sea or reducing risk activities under 
unfavourable weather. Increased availability and better quality of marine data can also create savings in 
the  insurance  sector,  both  for  insurance  companies  and  their  clients,  reducing  the  risks  of  insuring 
infrastructure offshore or at the coastal zone, cabling operations and more [12, section 5 Effectiveness - 
Uncertainty]. 

A study has been performed focusing on Irish waters in 2008, estimated that an investment of €70 million 
spent on marine mapping would lead to approximately €415 million benefits to the industries of the Blue 
Economy [39], as fisheries, aquaculture, renewable energy and marine conservation, providing 5 times 
more benefits, compared to the investment.  

In the first decade of operations (until 2020), EMODnet made significant progress towards achieving a 
comprehensive mapping of all European seas. Efficiency gains in relation to uncertainty were estimated 
to an average reduction of uncertainty between 15% and 23% [12, section 5 Effectiveness - Uncertainty]. 
According  to  a  study  on  the  Assessment  of  Coastal  Vulnerability  to  Climate  Change  [23],  public 
authorities in charge of coastal management would benefit €100 million for a 25% reduction in sea-level 
rise uncertainty. Applying this gain to the percentages of reduction achieved thanks to EMODnet yields 
benefits between €60 million to €92 million. 

Cumulated benefits 

Based  on  the  detailed  benefits  detailed  in  the  above  sections,  the  cumulated  benefits  per  year  are 
summarised in Table 3 yielding €149 million per year as a minimum and €407 million as a maximum 
(see also the 2019 external evaluation study [12, section 5 Effectiveness]). 

These values are based on a number of assumptions and the difference between minimum and maximum 
is quite large but one can conclude that compared to the EU investment which has been of the order of 
€7 million per year in the period, the benefits are of the order of 20 times the cost. 

5 https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en 

19 

 
 
                                                 
Table 3: Cumulated benefits per year according to [12, Table 6-9] 

Implementation and development costs: could it be done with less resources? 

To  better  assess  the  costs  associated  with  EMODnet,  the  EMODnet  external  evaluation  study  [12] 
proposed to define 4 possible levels of functioning. 

1.  Minimum functioning, only maintaining what has been developed, with an annual cost of €0.4 
million  across  the  whole  network.  This  would  result  in  an  outdated  EMODnet  with  minimum 
added value and loss of value created through the investment. 

2.  Medium  functioning,  aggregating,  harmonising,  and  giving  access  to  data  as  well  as  full 
continuation  of  building  data  products.  Maintaining  the  IT,  managing  and  reporting, 
communicating with users as well as keeping the Secretariat active, with an annual cost of €8.5 
million. 

3.  Full functioning, creating new data products, developing new IT and more outreach, management, 
and reporting  as well as a full-fledged functioning of the Secretariat.  This  level  requires extra 
efforts in aggregating, harmonising, and giving access to data, with an annual cost of €11 million. 
4.  Expanded  functioning,  which  would  mean  additional  effort  on  creating  data  products  and 
aggregating, harmonising, and giving access to data (by improving spatial & temporal resolution, 
including  more  surveys,  etc.)  as  well  as  increasing  interaction  and  communication  with  users. 
This  will  require  more  resources  allocated  to  developing  and  maintaining  IT,  an  expanded 
secretariat and increased managing and reporting, with an annual budget of €14.6 million. 
The aforementioned functioning levels do not include the Ingestion facility in their calculations.  

During  the  period  2014  -2020,  EMODnet  operated  with  an  average  annual  cost  of  €7  million,  which 
corresponds to a functionality just slightly lower than medium functioning. It should also be noted that 
some stakeholders  are providing efforts  on a voluntary  basis (e.g.  VLIZ  and EMODnet  infrastructure 
hosting). A decrease in resources below the current €7 million would directly significantly impact the 
functions of the network. 

Potential efficiency increases 

The external evaluation study identified few areas where the same benefits could have been achieved for 
less costs [12, Table 6-10]: 

-  Enforcing data standards on data providers would avoid data processing costs, 

- 

Improved  coordination  among  portals  and  the  secretariat,  who  are  operating  with  a  high  level  of 
independence could reduce the cost of contractual reporting, 

-  One could look at possibilities to streamlining the number of partners (more than 100 overall) which 

would also lower the coordination costs, 

20 

 
 
 
-  The data assembly process before making the data available in the portal could be more automated, 

-  The use of a cloud-based infrastructure (instead of access through different servers) would enhance 

the speed and reliability of the service.  

The study also identified areas where more benefits could have been achieved for the same cost: 

-  There exists local, regional and national legal obligations to report about marine environment data 
(e.g. MSFD); a more systemic use and treatment of this existing data would widen the amount of 
data available on, EMODnet, 

-  Further efforts on the user friendliness and focus on user needs, 

-  Further dissemination and outreach to broaden the data and user basis. 

Form of funding 

EMODnet is now an operational and continuous EU level service, which has achieved a high level of 
coherence and is perceived from the outside as a single entity.  

Since 2014, the funding is provided by the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) and for the 
period between 2014 and 2020 amounted to € 51.3 million [25] and then by EMFAF. At the beginning 
of the intervention and for the 3 development phases that EMODnet underwent between 2009 and 2020, 
independent  call  for  tenders  and  contracts  have  been  launched,  starting  at  different  times  since  the 
different thematic areas started progressively.  

This was adequate as it allowed the different thematic communities to come together, create trust to open 
and share data, develop and implement common standards per thematic community, identify needs and 
work  on  priorities.  Over  the  years,  the  thematic  groups  have  brought  progressively  together  the  top 
organisations at European level, forming a unique network. In many instances, the withdrawal of one 
member would result in a loss of access to data without another alternative. For example, an aggregated 
Bathymetry service at EU level can exists only thanks to the involvement of most national hydrographic 
offices. 

As a result, today, EMODnet is implemented through 9 independent procurements (one for each of the 7 
thematic community, one for the ingestion service and one for the secretariat) of 2 years duration with 
optional  renewals,  with  different  start  dates  as  the  different  services  started  at  different  times, 
supplemented by 1 EC level administrative agreement. This creates artificial boundaries, extra costs in 
internal  coordination.  It  is  difficult  to  develop  proper  long-term  planning,  coordination,  overall  and 
synchronised management of the network. This creates a sense of lack of stability and ownership for the 
participants to the network. There is scope for improvement here also. 

Coherence 

Gaining coherence of the various elements of EMODnet 

EMODnet  was  originally  built  through  7  thematic  web  portals  operating  in  relative  independence 
resulting in some initial discrepancies in the coherency of the overall network. 

The EMODnet Secretariat, created in 2013, has developed a series of activities to ensure that the different 
thematic  areas  are  working  together  in  a  coherent  manner.  The  Secretariat  also  contributed  to  the 
monitoring  of  EMODnet,  disseminating  results,  and  analysing  user  feedback  and  statistics  (see  for 
example EMODnet periodic report [35]).  

In  parallel,  the  EMODnet  Steering  Committee  ensures  that  coherency  is  maintained  all  the  time,  that 
EMODnet is well connected to the external stakeholders and that synergies between the thematic areas 

21 

 
 
are  maximised  [25].  These  synergies  are  expressed  through  collaborations,  common  data  products, 
scientific publications and more.  

In 2016, a Central Portal was developed to provide a unique landing and entering page, guiding users to 
the full array of data, products, and services that EMODnet has to offer. Through appropriate reporting 
methodologies and through monitoring of the web-services, the whole network implemented the same 
standards  (INSPIRE  compatible)  and  the  same  methods  to  remotely  access  data  and  data  products. 
Through a revamp operation of the thematic portals in 2017, all EMODnet components implemented the 
same visual identity and a common “look and feel” of the thematic portals.  

The Ingestion facility was created in 2017 to facilitate the submission of data from actors external to the 
network. This approach permitted the thematic communities to come together, organise their priorities, 
develop  common  methodologies  and  standards,  as  well  as  to  implement  appropriate  web-services  for 
sharing data and data products. 

From  2020  onwards,  the  network  undertakes  a  major  centralisation  effort  which  will  consolidate  all 
EMODnet portals under a single point of access, with a common map-viewer and ability to combine data 
and data products from different thematic areas fully. This effort will be completed in 2023. 

Coherence with other initiatives 
The Copernicus  Marine  Environment Monitoring Service6  (CMEMS) is the marine component of the 
Copernicus Programme of the European Union. Through a centralised structure, it provides free, regular 
and  systematic  authoritative  information  on  the  state  of  the  physical  and  biogeochemical  ocean  on  a 
global and regional scale by providing satellite observation and state-of-the-art forecasting services [38]. 

The two services have a long-standing collaboration at both coordination and operational levels, as they 
are the two key, long-term marine data initiatives of the European Union. As a focal point for in  situ 
marine environmental and human activities data, EMODnet provides in situ marine data to CMEMS that 
are used to validate satellite-derived data and models and as input to forecast modelling. Additionally, 
some CMEMS model outputs are used by EMODnet,  as for instance the bottom-water current  model 
outputs  to  help  define  EMODnet  Seabed  Habitats.  Close  collaboration  with  the  Copernicus  Marine 
Service has led to greater interoperability across services and cross-validation of satellite and in situ data 
sets,  user-driven  data  products  and  complimentary  developments  to  further  add  value  to  the  user-
experience [26]. The coherence and collaboration between EMODnet and CMEMS is greatly enhancing 
the marine knowledge base in Europe.  

Coherence with EU policies 

The INSPIRE Directive [17] aims to create a European Union spatial data infrastructure for the purposes 
of EU policies or activities which have an impact on the environment. To ensure that the spatial data 
infrastructures  of  the  Member  States  are  compatible  and  usable  in  a  community  and  transboundary 
context, the INSPIRE Directive requires that common Implementing Rules are adopted in a number of 
specific areas, such as metadata, data specifications, network services and more7. Doing this should allow 
data from different sources to be assembled. 

6 https://marine.copernicus.eu/ 

7 https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/quick-overview-implementers/57528  

22 

 
 
                                                 
From the start, EMODnet pursues an INSPIRE compatible approach in all aspects of its implementation 
and  compatibility  with  INSPIRE  is  embedded  in  the  Terms  of  Reference  of  the  network.  One  of  the 
greatest  challenges  in  the  cross-border  implementation  of  INSPIRE  results  from  the  different  ways 
Member States describe the same data, making it difficult to achieve pan-European coverage for specific 
themes.  In  the  INSPIRE  evaluation  [40],  EMODnet  is  identified  as  a  good  practice  regarding  the 
additional  efforts  to  specify,  agree  and  implement  precise  common  standards  for  distributing  marine 
geospatial  data  according  to  INSPIRE-based  Findable,  Accessible,  Interoperable,  Reusable  (FAIR) 
principles [18]. EMODnet, when necessary, has enriched further the INSPIRE standards to cater to the 
special needs of the marine community, due to the fact that most geospatial data follow 2D models, when 
often marine data require 3D models. The aforementioned not only demonstrates the case of EMODnet’s 
coherence with  INSPIRE, but  go further to  showcase that EMODnet’s approach  can be a community 
practice which other sectors can follow to achieve efficient data sharing and interoperability. 

The  Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive  (MSFD,  [19])  aims  to  protect  the  marine  ecosystem  and 
biodiversity upon  which our health and marine-related economic and social activities depend on8. To 
support  the  Member  States  to  achieve  a  Good  Environmental  Status  (GES),  the  directive  sets  out  11 
illustrative  qualitative  Descriptors:  1)  Biodiversity;  2)  Non-indigenous  species;  3)  Commercial  fish 
species; 4) Food-web structure; 5) Eutrophication; 6) Sea-floor integrity; 7) Alterations of hydrographical 
conditions;  8)  Contaminants;  9)  Sea-food  contaminants;  10)  Marine  litter  and  11)  Energy  and  noise. 
Achieving the specific objectives of the MSFD require data that could be available through EMODnet to 
support their evaluation and assessment. EMODnet covers many of the mentioned areas of intervention 
of MSFD.  

Figure 6: MSFD Good Environmental Status descriptors9 

Member States can use both the primary data and the wealth of standardised and harmonised EMODnet 
data products, to produce the assessments they are required to report under the MSFD. To demonstrate 
the value of these kind of products for MSFD reporting, EMODnet and the Copernicus Marine Service 

8 https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/research-area/environment/oceans-and-seas/eu-marine-strategy-

framework-directive_en  

9 https://www.msfd.eu/rages 

23 

 
 
 
                                                 
published a common portfolio of products for the implementation of the MSFD in the Baltic Sea [41], 
covering descriptors 1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11.  

Additionally,  EMODnet,  through  the  Chemistry  thematic  group,  has  supported  the  Commission 
Technical Group on Marine Litter, led by the JRC, with the Common Implementation Strategy of the 
MSFD, regarding Descriptor 10. EMODnet Chemistry provided valuable contributions to the completion 
of the joint list of macro-litter categories [42], which includes the litter types occurring in the coastal and 
marine environment. The list can be used to enable comparable monitoring across the European Seas and 
beyond, as well as across different compartments of the marine environment. By doing this, EMODnet 
Chemistry underpinned the link between monitoring programmes and data management [43], as well as 
the importance of common criteria and methodological standards for environmental monitoring, which 
are  fundamental  for  developing  high  quality  datasets  and  data  products.  Through  this  work,  the  first 
authoritative pan-European database for marine beach litter and sea-floor litter has been developed and 
is now openly available. DG MARE, DG ENV, JRC and EMODnet are discussing about extending this 
work to other descriptors as well (contaminants, eutrophication, noise).  

Regarding Descriptor 4 on Food-web structure,  only  baseline information is  available and there is  no 
information for Descriptor 9 on Sea-Food contaminants. 

The EU Data Collection Framework regulation (DCF, [20]) organises the collection of EU Member States 
data in the fields of fisheries, biology, ecosystem impacts and socioeconomics to provide the scientific 
basis for the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). The DCF makes this data available to end-users under 
specific  procedures.  The  data  are  stored,  managed  and  disseminated  through  different  dedicated  data 
bases.  Data  are  Member  States  proprietary  and  some  are  not  available  publicly,  mostly  due  to  their 
confidential nature. In turn, many DCF data products are publicly available. DCF data provide the main 
basis  for  assessments  under  Descriptor  3  on  Commercial  Species  and  have  also  made  important 
contributions to MSFD Descriptor 1 on Biodiversity and Descriptor 6 on Sea-floor integrity. EMODnet 
gives access to some of the data made openly available in the context of the DCF, e.g. aggregations of 
fisheries data that are anonymised and provides important information and integrated data products that 
can support the provision of scientific advice to the CFP. Both DCF and EMOdnet therefore contribute 
to MSFD Descriptor 3 on Commercial species. 

The Maritime Spatial Planning Directive (MSPD, [16]) aims to sustainably organise sea uses and create 
transparent planning-at-sea systems, now and in the future. The data and data products made available by 
EMODnet are coherent with the objectives of MSPD, in terms of implementing an ecosystems approach 
for the better management of the marine environment and contribute to the sustainable development of 
the Blue Economy sectors [12, section 7 Coherence]. All the different EMODnet thematic groups contain 
data that are crucial for the environmental and socio-ecological component of MSPD. In addition, the 
Human Activities and Biology portals provide data that is essential to the economic and social aspects 
specified in the objectives. The use of EMODnet data for MSPD has been assessed in detail by other 
projects, supporting the conclusion that EMODnet is indeed coherent with MSPD.  

In  December  2020,  EMODnet  Human  Activities,  in  collaboration  with  the  Commission’s  Technical 
Expert Group on data for maritime spatial planning has developed a harmonised nomenclature model, to 
ensure harmonisation and usability of MSPD data by all potential marine users: policymakers, scientists, 
private companies and the public. This work built on previous initiatives and research projects such as 

24 

 
 
the HELCOM-VASAB10, the maritime spatial planning INSPIRE Data Model [45] and the SIM project 
[44]. The specific attributes of the maritime spatial plans across EU countries were also taken into account 
for representation on the EMODnet  geoportal. The work of harmonising the Member States maritime 
spatial  plans  is  currently  on-going,  but  once  finalised  will  allow  of  consolidated,  overall  view  of  the 
MSPD implementation in Europe. 

The EMODnet external evaluation study pointed out that at Member State level, there are differences 
between governance and organisation in the macro-level and the sub-regional level. Some Member States 
have developed tools to support their MSPs, but do not directly use EMODnet data, as they are situated 
at  too  high  a  level  (macro-scale).  This  results  in  some  cases  in  Member  States  having  their  own 
independent and unique small-scale data aggregators [12, section 7 Coherence]. A solution to the need 
for increased harmonisation may involve EMODnet organising and facilitating interactions with Member 
States  from  the  same  Sea  Basin  to  bring  in  and  harmonise  more  data  from  the  local  scale.  The 
neighbouring Regional Sea Conventions and ICES operate data systems that are already involved in the 
EMODnet activities. 

The  objective  of  the  Habitats  Directive  [27]  is  to  ensure  the  conservation  of  a  wide  range  of  rare, 
threatened, or endemic animal and plant species. The data aggregated by EMODnet for Human Activity, 
Biology and Seabed Habitats is coherent with the implementation needs of these objectives, incorporating 
even  data  products  on  cultural  heritage,  which  is  part  of  the  Habitats’  Directive  [35].  Particularly, 
EMODnet Seabed Habitats provides a single access point to European seabed habitat data and products 
by assembling individual point datasets, maps and models from various sources and publishing them as 
interoperable  data  products  for  assessing  the  environmental  state  of  ecosystems  and  sea  basins. 
Furthermore, it continues to update the EMODnet broad-scale seabed habitat map for Europe, known as 
EUSeaMap11, and makes available the environmental data and models used as inputs to EUSeaMap. 

The overarching aim of the European Green Deal [22] published in 2019 is for the European Union to 
become the world’s first “climate-neutral” economy by 2050. It has goals extending to different sectors, 
including infrastructure, biodiversity, energy, transport, and food12. EMODnet is coherent and in support 
to  the  objectives  of  the  Green  Deal,  by  providing  access  to  marine  data  and  observations  and  thus 
contributing to the knowledge base that can lead to the necessary transitions to achieve them. Marine data 
in EMODnet: a) contribute to the monitoring of evolution of pollution in EU marine waters (including 
marine  litter);  b)  provide  harmonised  data  on  marine  biodiversity  and  seabed  habitats,  c)  provide  the 
baseline information for the selection of appropriate sites for sustainable, low-trophic level aquaculture 
and for off-shore renewable energy, d) provide the primary data for the development of climate-related 
models  which  can  forecast  coastal  change  and  access  adaptation  alternatives,  etc.  In  this  regard, 
EMODnet complies with the green oath to “do no-significant harm” and helps towards responding better 
to the possibility of actions, activities or investments doing significant harm. 

Coherence with international initiatives 

EMODnet  focuses  on  the  European  Seas  but  is  also  aggregating  and  harmonising  data  coming  from 
neighbouring  countries,  especially  those  with  which  the  EU  is  sharing  sea  basins.  According  to  the 
International Ocean Governance Communication in 2016 [46], ‘Sound scientific knowledge of the oceans 

10 https://vasab.org/theme-posts/maritimespatial-planning/helcom-vasab-msp-wg/ 

11 https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu/en/euseamap-2021-emodnet-broad-scale-seabed-habitat-map-europe 

12 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_17 

25 

 
 
                                                 
is crucial to tackling most […] actions successfully and ensuring that resources are used sustainably. It 
requires considerable investment in assets and equipment. It provides maximum benefit to society if the 
knowledge and data are shared'. EMODnet is coherent with International Ocean Governance in that it is 
an example of successful international collaboration (EU Member States achieving interoperability and 
sharing of marine data), which can be used as a good practice in the wider international landscape of 
marine in situ data. 

Additionally,  regarding  the  United  Nation  Sustainability  Agenda,  EMODnet  is  coherent  with  the 
Sustainable Development Goal 14 “Life Below Waters” 13, as it provides data that can contribute to the 
estimation of the progress of the EU in sub-indicators such as the quality of bathing waters, the marine 
waters affected by eutrophication and surface seawater acidity. EMODnet also provides data that can be 
used in the context of the UN Convention for Biological Diversity assessment, as well as the assessments 
produced from the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel 
for  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services,  especially  regarding  the  regional  European  assessment 
chapters. 

Potential areas where to improve coherence 

The  external  evaluation  study  identified  mainly  two  areas  where  the  coherence  could  potentially  be 
improved [12, section 7 Coherence]: 

-  While  the  reporting  under  e.g.  MSFD,  Habitat's  Directive  is  mandatory,  the  reporting  under 

EMODnet is on a voluntary basis, 

-  There  is  scope  for  improvement  in  the  coherence  between  the  approaches  between  the  different 

portals. 

4.2  How did the EU intervention make a difference?  

Providing harmonized data services EU wide 

In the period 2014-2020, EMODnet has assembled fragmented local, regional, and national data in one 
place and made it accessible through the EMODnet portals. Today, EMODnet provides free and open 
data in harmonised format of the 27 Member States and other regions in the fields of bathymetry, biology, 
chemistry, coastal mapping, geology, human activities, physics, and seabed habitats. The justification for 
acting on EU level is the transnational nature of the challenge, where collaboration across borders and 
disciplines is required for assembling sea-basin and European seas data. Without EU intervention this 
data would not be readily available. 

Not only EMODnet data are INSPIRE compliant but EMODnet brings further added value to INSPIRE 
as  stated  in  the  their  own  evaluation  report  [40]:  ‘This  has  been  done,  for  instance,  by  the  marine 
community whereby over 120 organisations have agreed common standards for distributing geospatial 
data  according  to  INSPIRE-based  FAIR  (Findable,  Accessible,  Interoperable,  Reusable)  principles 
through the EMODnet initiative’. 

In the public consultation, two thirds of respondents agree that EMODnet allows for consistent standard 
formats, baselines, and nomenclature. 

13 Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources 
(https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/oceans/ ) 

26 

 
 
 
                                                 
Savings efforts and costs by mutualising data at EU level 

If EMODnet would not exist today, an entity who needs to access data such as bathymetry in European 
sea beds would need to contact each national oceanographic institute (22 EU Member States have access 
to the ocean / seas), collect the data Member State by Member State, aggregate it having in mind that 
probably different formats and grids are being used. If another entity would have the same need, it would 
have to undertake a similar work. In addition, when new data are produced, all this work should be carried 
out again if the user wants to benefit from the most recent knowledge. 

With the EMODnet Bathymetry portal, all this information can be accessed from one web site and once 
the work is done once, any entity can benefit from what has been done. This is valid for Bathymetry but 
also for the 6 other Portals: biology, chemistry, coastal mapping, geology, human activities, physics, and 
seabed habitats. In the case of Biology, for example, in 2019, 88 entities were supplying information. 

This constitutes important potential savings of time and resources valued between €29 million and €115 
million per year in 2019 (see under section 4.1, Efficiency and effectiveness). 

Contribution to EU policies 

As demonstrated under section 4.1 ‘Coherence with other EU policies’ EMODnet, in addition of being 
coherent, contributes to a number of European policies such as the INSPIRE directive [17], the Marine 
Strategy  Framework  directive,  the  Marine  Spatial  Planning  directive  [16],  the  Habitats  directive,  the 
Horizon Europe Research and Innovation programme, including the Mission  ‘Restore our Oceans and 
Waters by 2030’ [20], the EU Digital strategy and the Copernicus marine component of the EU space 
programme. The network also supports multiple objectives of the European Green Deal [22] and it is 
supporting the Twin (Digital and Green) transitions. 

This is further substantiated under section 4.3 ‘How EMODnet adapted to the evolutions’ which analyses 
how EMODnet has been able to answer to new needs from successive legislative proposals. 

To whom did the intervention make a difference? 

The  prime  entities  to  whom  EMODnet  makes  a  difference  are  those  who  are  performing  the 
measurements: national hydrographic offices, national or other research centres and academic labs who 
are performing expensive  in  situ  measurements and survey on water temperature, on pollution on the 
nature of the sea floor, on habitats, on human activities, etc. While making available their data, they get 
access to the data of their peers at EU level and can agree on standards. 

EMODnet also makes a difference to Member States for some of their reporting obligations. In the context 
of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and Descriptor 10 on ‘Properties and quantities of marine 
litter do not cause harm to coastal and marine environment’, JRC uses the Chemistry portal to display 
graphically marine litter data. The Human Activities portal also offers the possibility for Member States 
to display graphically the type of allocation of their maritime domains in the context of Maritime Spatial 
Planning. 

In the introduction, a few examples of uses cases have been provided to illustrate who uses EMODnet 
for what. Among users are regional conventions, such as OSPAR, SMEs developing services for their 
customers, consultancy companies performing studies, entities involved in the development of offshore 
wind plants, universities and research centers who are not data providers but use the available data for 
their research and developments and the European Commission itself for some of its policies. 

27 

 
 
Subsidiarity 

In  the  2010  impact  assessment  [12],  the  subsidiarity  argument  was  substantiated  by  the  transnational 
nature of assembling data and knowledge across sea basins or at European level. This argument is still 
valid today. 

From the above findings, it is clear that without EMODnet, such a data network would not exist at EU 
level and stopping the activities would impact readily and directly the benefits listed above. 

In the public consultation, 86% of the respondents estimate that EMODnet could not have been setup 
without EU intervention. This confirms that EMODnet is creating clear additional value compared to a 
national, regional, or local solution by bringing together a previously fragmented set of data providers. 

Another particularity of this action it that Member States do not lose any competence, it is not replacing 
their actions at national level, nor their capacity to decide on the way they manage data at national level 
and they do not loose ownership of the data. 

4.3 

 Is the intervention still relevant? 

How EMODnet adapted to the evolutions 

Since the 2007 communication on Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union, a number of new 
legislative initiatives have been introduced and EMODnet evolved to address them, to the extent possible: 

  2008 - Marine Strategy Framework Directive [19]: establishes 11 qualitative Descriptors to assess 
the Good Environmental Status. The 2017 Commission Decision on good environmental status 
further  defines  the  criteria  elements  and  the  methodological  standards  on  good  environmental 
status, as well as the specifications and standardised methods for monitoring and assessment of 
state  under  the  MSFD.  EMODnet  Chemistry  has  created  the  methodological  protocol  for  the 
monitoring  of  Descriptor  10  on  marine  litter  and  is  making  available  the  EU  harmonised 
collections. Additionally EMODnet is openly providing harmonised data that the Member States 
can utilise for their MSFD reporting and that the Commission can use to cross-reference the state 
of  European  marine  waters.  Although  the  level  of  use  of  EMODnet  data  products  for  such 
purposes  cannot  be  fully  monitored,  the  intervention  remains  relevant,  as  authoritative, 
harmonised, quality-controlled data directly related to MSFD are being openly available with no 
restrictions, for all interested users; 

  2010 - Marine knowledge 2020 – marine data and observation for smart and sustainable growth 
[3]:  EMODnet  is  acknowledged  as  one  of  the  EU  instruments  needed  to  improve  marine 
knowledge, 

  2014  -  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  Directive  [16]:  EMODnet  Human  activities,  has  created  a 
harmonised nomenclature for the MS to  use in  their  maritime spatial plans and is  hosting this 
plans in support of the implementation of the   Directive (for the moment of the MS that have 
submitted plans, aiming to include all, when available), 

  2014 - Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs 
and growth  [7]  pursues  the goal  of  ‘marine data  is  easily accessible, interoperable  and free of 
restrictions  on  use,  with  the  specific  target  of  developing  a  multi-resolution  map  of  the  entire 
seabed and overlying water column of European waters by 2020’; the objective is met, 

28 

 
 
 
  2015  -  The  17  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  of  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable 
Development  were  adopted  by  world  leaders  in  September  2015  at  an  historic  UN  Summit 
(Sustainable  Development  Summit  held  from  25-27  September  at  UN  Headquarters  in  New 
York); they officially came into force on 1 January 2016. EMODnet is and remains relevant to 
mainly  3  of  the  UN  SDGs.  EMODnet  Seabed  habitats,  Chemistry  (which  include  litter)  and 
Biology  are  providing  data  and  products  relevant  to  SDG  14  Life  below  water  and  SGD  13 
Climate  action.  With  their  mapping  of  wind  offshore  plants  and  power  cables  and  the  use  of 
marine  space,  the  EMODnet  Human  activities  is  relevant  to  SGD  7  on  affordable  and  clean 
energy, 

  2016  -  International  ocean  governance:  an  agenda  for  the  future  of  our  oceans  [46]  refers  to 
EMODnet  under  action  12:  A  coherent  EU  strategy  on  ocean  observation,  data  and  marine: 
Aligning the EU’s work with that of its international partners would considerably strengthen the 
knowledge underpinning ocean governance, 

  2019 - The European Green Deal [22]: a sustainable blue economy will have to play a central 
role. This will include ways to manage maritime space more sustainably, notably to help tap into the 
growing potential of offshore renewable energy. Data on offshore wind farm, cables and broader uses 
of the seas is made available under EMODnet Human activities, 

  2019  -  Single  Use  Plastic  Directive  [24]:  Data  on  marine  plastics  are  harmonised  and  made 

available under EMODnet Chemistry, 

  2020  -  The  Commission  launched  under  Horizon  Europe  the  EU  Missions  [21],  including 
"Restore our Oceans and Waters by 2030", in the course of which the Commission will pool its 
resources together with Member States, regional and local authorities, research institutes, private 
and financial sector to create real and lasting impact. One of the five objectives of this Mission is 
the creation of a Digital Ocean and Water Knowledge System – the EU Digital Twin Ocean. It 
will be key to better understanding the ocean system: integrating existing fields of knowledge, 
pushing frontiers in biology, and bridging social economy, linking knowledge across disciplines 
for multiple purposes and uses. EMODnet is one of the key parts of this core digital infrastructure, 

  2021 - A new approach for a sustainable blue economy in the EU transforming the EU’s Blue 
Economy for a Sustainable Future [47] refers to "work to boost the capacity for Copernicus and 
EMODnet  observation,  modelling  and  forecasting  to  better  anticipate  the  effects  of  extreme 
weather events (e.g. floods, storm surges) and regional sea-level rise". 

The public consultation also confirmed the relevance of EMODnet with respect to EU policies. A vast 
majority estimated that it is between very useful to essential: 

  82% for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, 

  91% for Maritime Spatial Planning, 

  69% to environmental impact assessments, 

  47% to companies offering consultancy for offshore or coastal engineering, 

  74% to the bioeconomy (aquaculture, fisheries etc.), 

  60% to the renewable energy industry. 

29 

 
 
Are the original objectives and the intervention still relevant? 

Recalling the objectives set out in section 2.1 and taking into the evolutions as described in the previous 
section, the following general objectives are found still very relevant today: 

  Underpin  EU  policies  that  preserve,  protect  and  improve  the  quality  of  the  environment:  the 
environment continues to be the subject of changes and threats – many new policy initiatives and 
legislations have been established in the period 2013-2020 (e.g. MSPD, Green Deal, Single use 
plastics Directive, etc.) and new initiatives are under preparation (e.g. Revision of MSFD, Climate 
law, Nature Restoration law, etc.), 

  Strengthen the scientific and technological bases of community industry: today, only 20% of the 
oceans have been mapped – we know more about the surface of the Moon and Mars than our 
seabed's; needless to say that the remaining knowledge gap is huge, 

  Support an open market with free competition: EMODnet has definitely changed the situation and 
gives access freely and without restrictions to a wide range of data and this should continue, 
  Pursue  the  prudent  and  rational  utilisation  of  natural  resources:  the  availability  of  harmonised 
transdisciplinary marine data, including for  geological  substances, biodiversity, habitats,  is  the 
basis for the developments of adequate management of resources.  

The following objectives are relevant per se but EMODnet has made a modest impact on them: 

  Support the common transport policy: the amount of data and the use of this data are relatively 

modest, the vessel density maps are however often consulted, 
  Progressively establish an area of freedom, security and justice, 
 

Increase fisheries productivity, 

Regarding  the  three  specific  objectives,  EMODnet  remains  very  relevant  today  to  all  of  them.  In  the 
context of digitalisation and initiatives such as Destination Earth and the Digital Twin of the Ocean, there 
is an increasing need for in situ data, reduced operational costs and less delays for those who use marine 
data. The European Digital Twin of the Ocean will comprise of data, models and tools that will describe 
every facet of the marine physical, geochemical, biological and social-ecological system and will require 
a wide range of data as input forces, calibration and validation needs, but also to build and assess what-
if scenarios. EMODnet is considered one of the two main pillars upon which the EU DTO data lake will 
be build, so the coherence with the initiative is obvious. EMODnet is intended to be part of the EU DTO 
core public infrastructure, which means that many EMODnet data products would be embedded in the 
core infrastructure, ready to use for any EU DTO related application.  

The current energy crisis (REPower EU, [48]) and the global competition of economies do call for action 
to help private industry compete in the global economy while meeting the challenge of sustainability. 

With all the environmental policies which are in place and the upcoming ones, it is more than ever needed 
to improve the quality of public decision-making at all levels. Coastal protection is an increasing concern 
owing to  the increasing  pressure put  on their ecosystems  by increasing population  and activities. The 
efficient implementation of MSFD still requires an efficient and transparent marine data infrastructure, 
which will allow at least a level of traceability on the origin and quality of the data used for the assessment 
of the good environmental state (GES). 

30 

 
 
The strengthening of marine scientific research remains the foundation on which environmental policies 
can build while research and innovation is capable of bringing forward solutions to some issues, as for 
example the ones addressed though the Horizon Europe Mission on Ocean. 

If EMODnet was to stop, costs and delay of accessing to data would immediately increase and reduce the 
competitive  advantage  of  companies  who  need  this  data.  We  have  also  seen  that  EMODnet  is  being 
increasingly used by public bodies for environmental assessment and this enhances  the quality of the 
decision making. 

This is supported by the results from the online survey conducted within the external evaluation study, 
which  suggests  that  most  stakeholders  use  EMODnet  for  reasons  that  correspond  to  the  identified 
problems and/or needs, e.g.: (1) 90% of the respondents agreed that EMODnet provided them with data 
they  could  not  otherwise  access;  (2)  83%  agreed  that  more  data  are  available  than  before  EMODnet 
existed; (3) 39% think that EMODnet is crucial to their work, another 39% agree that it contributes to 
their work but is not crucial. 

This  evaluation  study  also  concludes  that  the  needs  and  objectives  which  EMODnet  set  out  to  meet 
remained relevant. 

Lastly, relevance assesses whether EMODnet has contributed to meeting overall Commission priorities. 
The study concludes that EMODnet is relevant, having a special impact on four out of the ten overall 
Commission priorities: (1) Digital Single Market, (2) Jobs, Growth and Investment, (3) A stronger Global 
Actor, and (4) Energy Union and Climate. 

31 

 
 
 
 
5  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1 

 Conclusions 

Did the intervention achieve its objectives? 

A summary of the strength of the estimated impacts made for the different objectives is provided in Table 
4 with an evaluation of the impact made using + for low impact, ++ for medium impact and +++ for high 
impact. The detailed discussion substantiating this summary follows Table 4. 

Table 4: Summary of the strength of the estimated impacts made for the different objectives 

General Objectives  

Recalling the objectives set out in section 2.1 and as evidenced under section 4.1 and 4.3, the intervention 
has made many contributions in the field of EU policies that preserve, protect and improve the quality of 
the environment such as e.g. MSFD and MSPD. This is logical since most of the data are relevant to the 
environment [+++].  
Compared  to  2014,  the  quantity,  accuracy  and  coherence  of  the  data  made  available  has  improved 
considerably and therefore a strong contribution to the scientific and technology community was made. 
These are two strong points of the intervention [+++]. 
Regarding the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources, as mentioned in Section 3, the data 
and availability on the seabed has improved greatly. There are now complete seamless digital maps of 
geological strata, sediments and physical habitats for all European waters using European standards. More 
data on marine life on the seafloor and water column are now available but the technical challenges in 
merging such heterogeneous data into a common system means that much remains outside EMODnet, 
while also EMODnet cannot guarantee uptake of the available data. [++]. 

32 

 
 
  
Compared to the start of the intervention, EMODnet has considerably improved the situation in terms of 
free  access  to  data  and  waived  many  existing  restrictions.  This  supports  an  open  market  with  free 
competition, but one should acknowledge that the focus remains scientific data mostly used by university 
and research centre laboratories, many of which are publicly funded [++]. 
Regarding  the  support  to  the  common  transport  policy,  EMODnet  is  contributing  to  stakeholder's 
awareness  under  Human  activities  with  for  example  maps  of  the  traffic  on  maritime  routes.  This 
contribution, while acknowledged as very useful, remains modest [+]. 
Regarding fisheries productivity, the vast majority of data collection in the EU is taking place under the 
framework  of  the  Common  Fisheries  Policy  and  the  Data  Collection  Framework.  As  mentioned 
previously, data are Member States proprietary and some are not available publicly, mostly due to their 
confidential nature. EMODnet Human Activities and Biology thematic areas mostly provide access to 
some of the aggregated data that is made publicly available in the context of the DCF, so the contribution 
to this objective is modest. [+]. 
EMODnet contributes indirectly to establish an area of freedom and justice by providing free and open 
access marine observation, data and products to all interested users. Information on the state of the EU 
marine environment, including information on the Human Activities of the Blue Economy, allow users 
to be better informed, to be engaged and take action towards the protection, conservation and management 
of the marine environment and its resources [+]. 

Specific Objectives 

EMODnet is reducing considerably operational costs and delays for those who use marine data and the 
benefits of the actions exceeds by one order of magnitude its costs (see Section 4.1, “Enhancement of 
marine innovation”). It has strengthened considerably marine scientific research, and this is attested by 
the growing number of publications referring to EMODnet [+++]. 

EMODnet is also serving public decision-making and has continuously adapted to an evolving policy 
context and needs (see section 4.2, “How EMODnet adapted to the evolution”). The Human Activities 
thematic area and a specific section for Maritime Spatial Planning is definitely a good achievement and 
EMODnet data contribute to some of the MSFD Descriptors. As mentioned in section 4.1, “Coherence 
with other EU policies”, EMODnet provides data that is of interest for 10 of the 11 Descriptors on Good 
Environmental Status for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, with a particular strong contribution 
to  Descriptor 10 on Marine  Litter covered under the Chemistry thematic  area.  This  supports Member 
States for their assessment before they upload in the dedicated portal their aggregated information and in 
some cases their data (WISE-Marine). More data, with a more exhaustive coverage, in full synergy with 
existing data repository existing in the context of other legislation is needed [++].  

EMODnet also helps private industry to access marine data in the EU, provides them with a better position 
to compete in the global economy and meets the challenge of sustainability. EMODnet is de facto making 
competition fairer amongst users of marine data by providing wider access to quality-checked, readily 
available  coherent  marine  data  and  hence  stimulate  the  development  of  new  innovative  services. 
Numerous examples have been provided under section 4.1, “Enhancement of marine innovation”. This 
innovation is however difficult to quantify [++]. 

The reduction of uncertainty in knowledge of the oceans and the seas has been assessed in the external 
evaluation study to range between 15 and 21% and so provides a sounder basis for managing inevitable 
future changes. Efforts should be pursued however to improve the geographical coverage [+++]. 

33 

 
 
Regarding  maritime  surveillance,  licensing  and  fisheries  management,  the  contribution  of  EMODnet 
remains modest. EMODnet includes data on traffic but has a limited impact on maritime surveillance. 
Regarding  fisheries  management,  similarly  and  for  the  same  reasons  explained  above  regarding  the 
general objective on fisheries productivity, EMODnet also provides a modest contribution [+]. 

Operational Objective 

EMODnet has fully matched its objective of setting up and maintaining a catalogue of European marine 
data  collections  with  common  formats  and  nomenclature  complete  with  information  including 
geographical location, time of measurement, ownership, precision and accuracy. In addition, this has been 
achieved in a coherent way across the thematic areas (see the sub sections dealing with coherence under 
section 4.1) [+++]. 

EMODnet has been also very successful in providing a set of complete interoperable layers for European 
sea basins, showing where data are being collected, where the gaps are and providing seamless quality 
checked  data  layers  (gridded  or  polygons)  for  unrestricted  public  access,  see  Introduction  “What  is 
EMODnet”, “What is EMODnet used for”) [+++]. 

EMODnet depends nevertheless on data that is being acquired and has little influence on the quantities 
which are measured and their coverage. This dimension of 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 requires more attention [++]. 

What has been specific about the role of the EU?  

EMODnet like many other EU funded initiatives (e.g. Copernicus) is responding to a market limitation. 
This document has provided many examples of the contribution of EMODnet to science and research, to 
environment and climate, to EU policies and also in some case to businesses. However, in many cases, 
there is today no market which would enable users to bear the costs of the action through for example 
fees. Nevertheless, it has been shown that the benefits to the EU stakeholders and to the society are valued 
multiple times the EU funding. 

As evidenced in section 4.2, “Subsidiarity”, there is no entity better placed than the EU that can steer and 
finance the gathering at EU level, the access to data and data products and services of interest to EU seas 
and oceans. It is also of EU interest to make this data available to many communities to assess the state 
of the seas and the progress made thanks to a number of EU policies. In addition, this action does not 
interfere with Member States competence and capacities. 

5.2  Lessons learned 

Are the objectives still valid, is the continuation of the intervention needed? 

EMODnet  has  fulfilled  most  of  its  original  objectives  (Section  5,  “Did  the  intervention  achieve  its 
objectives?”), in many instances making a strong impact. At the same time, EMODnet has adapted to 
evolving needs (section 4.3 “How EMODnet adapted to the evolutions”). 

34 

 
 
 
With an ever-increasing amount of data and knowledge, ever evolving policy and challenges, it is clear 
that the need to collect and make accessible fragmented data in a harmonized way across Europe is and 
will remain relevant (see section 4.3 “Is the intervention still relevant?”). 

As  shown  in  Table  3,  some  of  the  original  objectives  have  been  reached  very  successfully  while  the 
contribution to some other objectives has been very modest. Based on what was learned for the period 
2014-2020  and  in  the  context  of  a  follow-up  phase  these  could  be  revisited  based  on  the  following 
considerations.  

1)  Giving  stronger  importance  and  visibility  to  those  objectives  which  are  still  valid,  of  growing 
importance and to which EMODnet made a strong impact such as scientific and technological 
basis, support policies that preserve protect and improve the quality of the environment, reduce 
operational costs and delays, reduce uncertainty and improve the resolution, expand accessibility 
to more datasets, both geographically and thematically, 

2)  Review the areas where little impact was made (e.g. transport, freedom, justice and security) and 
other  initiatives  are  more  efficient  and  align  the  objectives  with  what  EMODnet  actually 
contributes to,  

3)  Reinforcing the effort on areas where the impact was average but where needs remain and should 
be pursued more efficiently such as in relation to innovation for businesses, fisheries and user 
driven process to determine priorities, user friendliness of the portal,  

4)  Answering new areas and new needs which have emerged such as support and develop synergies 
for the technical  reporting  for EU policies such as  MSPD  (in  particular off-shore energy)  and 
MSFD, develop blue economy aspects, enhance user friendliness.  

5)  De  facto,  EMODnet  transnational  nature  has  also  establish  long-term  collaborations  across 
borders and disciplines between lead organisations in the EU, which are required for assembling 
sea-basin and European Seas data and products and has reinforced the international position of 
the EU as a strong global actor; these could be made as explicit objectives. 

Evaluation of EMODnet benefits 

As shown in section 4.1 Efficiency and Effectiveness, EMODnet yields benefits in terms of productivity 
innovation and reduction of uncertainty. These benefits are of a different nature and quantifying these ex-
post without having established a methodology and process to achieve this proved to be difficult. Also, 
some of the extrapolation results in a very wide range between minimum and maximum benefits. 

In all cases benefits exceed investments by far but a more sound and systematic methodology should be 
put in place ex-ante an evaluation is done and assessed during the functioning and not only ex-post. 

Form of funding 

As discussed at the end of the section on Effectiveness and efficiency under section 4.1. the progressive 
evolution  and  growth  of  the  network  resulted  in  multiple  contracts  which  are  not  synchronised  and 
operating independently on a contractual point of view. 

Other ways of contracting could be investigated. These should potentially keep a competitive dimension 
for  some  of  the  needs  but  formalises  the  fact  that  some  specific  entities  are  necessary  and  cannot  be 
selected on a competitive basis. 

The Financial Regulation allows a negotiated procedure where there is a monopoly situation but only for 
individual entities, rather than groups. 

35 

 
 
Another alternative could be the creation of a single EMODnet entity with a single long-term contractor 
that  would  contract  the  other  services  through  indirect  management.  In  the  case  of  Copernicus  for 
example, there is a contractual arrangement between the Commission and an entrusted entity, the duration 
of  which  corresponds  to  the  Multi-annual  Financial  Framework.  The  entrusted  entity  must  of  course 
comply with public procurement rules and issue calls for tender for the services. 

Considerations for possible future evolutions 

Beyond the benefits already obtained (see table 3), continuing to aggregate coherently more data sources 
and achieve better spatial and temporal resolution will logically generate new advances and make further 
impacts on two objectives of the current action: foster innovation and reduce uncertainty. 

As  identified  under  "Potential  efficiency  increases"  in  section  4.1,  IT  developments  targeting  easier 
accessibility and better user friendliness would improve the overall efficiency, consistency among the 
thematic  areas  and  coherency  with  other  portals  and  instruments.  Further  actions  for  outreach  and 
engagement would also enable a larger base both to provide and use the data. 

The  new  developments,  the  associated  additional  benefits  and  the  broadness  of  the  stakeholders 
community who will benefit from it will be of course dependent on the budgetary resources that can be 
allocated. The external evaluation study provides estimates of what can be achieved for different levels 
of  resources  see  section  4.1  “Implementation  and  development  costs:  could  it  be  done  with  fewer 
resources ?” 

EMODnet origins are in the mutualisation of scientific data relying on a bottom-up approach, structured 
along thematic areas. Today, more than half of the users are from academic laboratories and research 
centres.  As  shown  in  the  subsection  "Coherence  with  EU  policies"  under  section  4.1,  we  observe  an 
increasing pressure to have data which can be used for policy making such as Descriptors for MSFD or 
MSPD. In practice, it remains however very difficult to have and to access the data needed for policy 
making,  which  often  requires  Sea  basins  coverage.  In  addition  of  the  bottom  approach,  a  top-down 
approach could also be developed to better answer policy needs.  

For example, under the MSFD requirements, Member States often collect data that fall under categories 
served  by  EMODnet’s  data  (e.g.  on  nutrients,  chemicals,  habitats)  but  for  the  purpose  of  policy 
implementation. They submit the results of their assessments in the WISE-marine portal14 as well as 
some of their primary data collected. Nevertheless, today there is no systematic data exchange process 
between  EMODnet  and  WISE-marine.  A  stronger  and  more  systematically  organised  collaboration 
between EMODnet and WISE-marine (and thus DG MARE and EEA) would improve the coherence of 
EMODnet  with  the  MSFD.  A  better  linkage  between  EMODnet  and  CMEMS  would  also  mutually 
reinforce the relevance and pertinence of the two services, EMODnet providing data for validation and 
calibration  and  CMEMS  delivering  information  with  a  coverage  that  cannot  be  achieved  with  in  situ 
measurements.  

While  EMODnet  and  DCF  have  different  objectives,  they  are  complementary  and  developing  further 
synergies can provide mutual benefits and opportunities.  

As this has been the case in the period covered by this evaluation, new policy needs will emerge. Today, 
it can already be anticipated that the development of the Digital Twin Ocean in the context of the Mission 
on Oceans and its interoperability with Destination Earth in the context of the twin Green and Digital 

14 https://water.europa.eu/marine  

36 

 
 
                                                 
transitions, calls for new and more efficient access to data for calibration and validation purposes. The 
new nature restoration targets under the current proposal for a Nature Restoration Law15 will also call for 
data to monitor state of play and progress.  Maintaining the capacity of EMODnet to adapt to  an ever 
evolving context is therefore very important for its relevance. 

Overall, a reflection should be undertaken on a strategy which defines the future objectives and needs of 
a continued EMODnet and an assessment of the required resources. 

15 https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/nature-and-biodiversity/nature-restoration-law_en 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
6  REFERENCES 

1 Green Paper “Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union: A European vision for the oceans and 

seas” – (SEC(2006) 689) 

2 IMP – An Integrated Maritime Policy for the European Union – COM(2007)575 

3  Marine  knowledge  2020  –  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the 
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Marine 
knowledge 2020 marine data and observation for smart and sustainable growth – COM(2010)461  

4 EMFF – Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 
on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2328/2003, 
(EC) No 861/2006, (EC) No 1198/2006 and (EC) No 791/2007 and Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 
of the European Parliament and of the Council – EMFF – Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 

5 Commission Staff Working Document – Impact – Assessement – Reducing Marine Litter: action on 

single use plastics and fishing gear, SWD(2018)254. 

6 Interim evaluation of the direct management component of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

– SWD(2020)222 

7 Innovation in the blue economy – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions 
“Innovation in the Blue Economy: realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth” 
– COM(2014)254 

8  Better Regulation Guidelines, SWD(2021) 305 final and its Toolbox 2021 

9 2010 EMODnet IA – Commission Staff Working Document – European Marine Observation and Data 

Network Impact Assessment – SEC(2010)461 

10  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  –  Marine  Knowledge  2020:  roadmap  –  Accompanying  the 
document  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – Innovation in the Blue 
Economy realising the potential of our seas and oceans for jobs and growth – SWD(2014) 149 final 

11 EMFAF – Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2021 
establishing the European Maritime, Fisheries and Aquaculture Fund and amending Regulation (EU) 
2017/1004 -Regulation (EU) 2021/1139 

12  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  Bruyckere,  L., 
Wrona,  K.,  Vonck,  I.,  et  al.,  Evaluation  of  the  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network 
(EMODnet): final report, Publications Office, 2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/3245 

13  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  Bruyckere,  L., 
Wrona,  K.,  Vonck,  I.,  et  al., Evaluation  of  the  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network 
Office, 
report. 
(EMODnet) 
2020, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2771/453457 

Publications 

Annexes, 

final 

: 

14  Evaluation  of  EMODnet  –  Public  consultation  –  2019  –  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-

regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1538-Evaluation-of-EMODnet/public-consultation_en 

15 Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2011 
establishing  a  Programme  to  support  the  further  development  of  an  Integrated  Maritime  Policy  – 
Regulation (EU) No 1255/2011 

16  MSPD  –  Directive  2014/89/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  July  2014 

establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning- MSPD – Directive 2014/89/EU 

38 

 
 
17  INSPIRE  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 Directive 
2007/2/EC 

18 FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship’, Nature, Scientific Data, 

https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201618, 15/03/2016. 

19  MSFD  –  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) – MSFD – Directive 2008/56/EC 

20 Regulation (EU) 2017/1004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 on the 
establishment of a Union framework for the collection, management and use of data in the fisheries 
sector and support for scientific advice regarding the common fisheries policy and repealing Council 
Regulation (EC) No 199/2008 

21 Mission Ocean – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on European Missions 
– COM(2021)609 

22 The European Green Deal – COM(2019)640 

23 Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability to Climate Change, Richards and Nicholls, 1999 

24  Directive  (EU)  2019/904  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  June  2019  on  the 

reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment 

25 EMODnet Annual report 2020 

26 EMODnet Annual report 2021 

27 Habitats – Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and 

wildlife fauna and flora – Directive 92/43/EEC 

28 Directive (EU) 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on 

the conservation of wild birds 

29 Public Sector Information Directive – Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information – Directive 2003/98/EC 

30 Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public 
access  to  environmental  information  and  repealing  Council  Directive  90/313/EEC  –  Directive 
2003/4/EC 

31  Aarhus  convention  –  Council  Decision  of  17  February  2005  on  the  conclusion,  on  behalf  of  the 
European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-
making and access to justice in environmental matters – Council Decision 2005/370/EC 

32  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Pathway to a Healthy Planet 
for All — EU Action Plan: Towards Zero Pollution for Air, Water and Soil – COM(2021) 400 

33 Creating Value through Open Data: Study on the Impact of Re-use of Public Data Resources, prepared 

by Capgemini Consulting as part of the European Data Portal. European Commission, 2015.  

34 Blue Economy Report 2020 

35 EMODnet Annual report 2016 

36 Report on EMODnet Open Sea Lab II, EMODnet Secretariat, 2019 

39 

 
 
37  Barth,  A.;  Herman,  P.M.J.;  (2018):  Neural  network  modelling  of  Baltic  zooplankton  abundances. 

Marine Data Archive – https://doi.org/10.14284/381 

38 Copernicus Marine Service – https://marine.copernicus.eu/about 

39 Price Waterhouse Coopers (2008).  INFOMAR Marine Mapping Study.  Options Appraisal  Report: 
Final 
– 
2008. 
30 
https://oar.marine.ie/handle/10793/1652?show=full 

Institute, 

Marine 

Ireland 

Report 

June 

40  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Evaluation  Of  Directive  2007/2/EC  establishing  an 
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE) SWD(2022) 195 final 

41  Obaton  et  al.  2021.  Copernicus  Marine  &  EMODnet  Data  Catalogue  for  the  Marine  Strategy 

Framework Directive, Baltic Sea Case Study  

42  Fleet,  D.,  Vlachogianni,  Th.  And  Hanke,  G.,  2021.  A  Joint  List  of  Litter  Categories  for  Marine 
Macrolitter Monitoring. EUR 30348 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 
2021, ISBN 978-92-76-21445-8, doi:10.2760/127473, JRC121708 –  

43 Maximenko et al. 2019, Toward the Integrated Marine Debris Observing System, Frontiers in Marine 

Science, Vol.6, doi:10.3389/fmars.2019.0044710.3389/fmars.2019.00447  

44 Kato, Y., Carval, D..2017. SIMCelt Analysis of Data Needs and Existing Gaps – Specifically Relating 
to Transboundary Working. EU Project Grant No.: EASME/EMFF/2014/1.2.1.5/3/SI2.719473 MSP 
Lot 3. Supporting Implementation of Maritime Spatial Planning in the Celtic Seas (SIMCelt), Shom, 
https://www.simatlantic.eu/  

45 Abramic A, Garcia A, Tello Antón O, Agudo LM, Bruque Carmona G, Zanella A, Norton C, Haroun 
R. 2019. Data specification for Maritime Spatial Planning INSPIRE data model. Deliverable – D.5.1., 
under 
(GA  nº 
https://maritime-spatial-
EASME/EMFF/2016/1.2.1.6/03SI2.763106) 
planning.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/data_specification_for_maritime_spatial_planning_inspire_
data_model.pdf 

the  WP5  of  MarSP:  Macaronesian  Maritime  Spatial  Planning  project 

– 

46 Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions  – International ocean governance: an agenda for the 
future of our oceans – JOIN(2016) 49 final 

47  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  on  a  new  approach  for  a 
sustainable blue economy in the EU Transforming the EU’s Blue Economy for a Sustainable Future 
COM(2021)240 

48  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions – REPower EU – COM(2022)230 

49 Green Paper Marine Knowledge 2020 from seabed mapping to ocean forecasting – SWD(2012)250 

50 Regulation (EU) No 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 
establishing Horizon 2020 – the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
7  ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

  Lead  DG,  Decide  reference:  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  - 

PLAN/2017/1441 

  Derogations granted and justification: Not applicable 
  Organisation and timing: 

-  17/09/2017: First interservice group meeting (Ares(2017)4470490) 
-  18/012/2018: Finalisation of the evaluation and fitness check roadmap (Ares(2018)316404) 
-  06/03/2019 - 29/05/2019: Consultation period [14], 
-  05/05/2020: Publication of the external evaluation study [12, 13] 
-  22/02/2023: Interservice group meeting to present the first draft of the evaluation attended by 

DG MOVE, ENV, RTD, EEA, JRC, written comments by SG, ENV, MOVE. 

-  2023- first quarter finalisation of the evaluation 
  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board: Not applicable 
  Use of external expertise: Public consultation [14], external evaluation study [12] 

8  ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The methodology used to perform this evaluation is based on the following steps: (1) structuring, (2) data 
gathering,  (3)  analysing,  (4)  judging,  and  (5)  reporting,  similar  to  what  was  done  for  the  external 
evaluation study [12]. The structuring of the document follows the standard template  provided by the 
Better  Regulation  guidelines  [8]  i.e.  (1)  the  purpose  of  the  evaluation  is  first  described,  then  (2)  the 
outcome of the intervention at the time of its inception is reminded and (3) the evolution of the situation 
over  the  evaluation  period  described.  Then  (4)  the  evaluation  findings  are  presented  and  (5)  the 
conclusions drawn. 

Regarding data gathering, for section (2) (3) and (4), legal texts, policy documents, annual reports, users 
surveys, impact assessment, public consultation, and evaluations from the inception in 2007 until 2020 
have been analysed. These can be found in the section "References".  

Sections (3) analysing (4) judging were more specifically based on:  

1)  an  external  study  on  the  Evaluation  of  the  European  Marine  Observation  and  Data  Network 
(EMODnet) [12] 

Between January 2018 and August 2018 was carried out the evaluation of the EMODnet with the purpose 
to evaluate its performance and functioning. The evaluation was performed according to the evaluation 
criteria laid out in the Better Regulation Guidelines of the European Commission: Relevance, EU added 
value,  Effectiveness,  Efficiency  and  Coherence.  The  findings  of  the  evaluation  were  used  to  guide 
activities undertaken in support of marine knowledge of the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 

2) a public consultation organised by the Commission  

The detailed results of the public consultation are provided in Annex V 

3) Other documents supporting the evaluation 

 Annual evaluation reports (e.g. [14],[25],[26])  

41 

 
 
 
 
 In addition, the EMODnet secretariat has carried out: 

  User surveys have been carried out to capture and analyse the views and experiences of those 
building EMODnet about difficulties in obtaining data, actual and potential users of EMODnet 
about  user  friendliness,  impact  on  productivity,  innovation,  comparison  with  other  providers, 
contributors of data to EMODnet about due recognition of contribution, effort involved, users of 
added-value  services  based  on  EMODnet  products  about  impact  on  productivity,  quality  of 
service. 

  Quantified statistics on usage (downloads, views etc.) as well as feedback from users, 
  Targeted  consultations  by  an  external  contractor  within  the  above  mentioned  supporting 
evaluation study. The answers to the evaluation questions are informed by literature review, desk 
research,  interviews  with  EMODnet  users,  EMODnet  Secretariat  and  Thematic  Portals’ 
representatives and EU policy experts, as well as a user and supplier survey with 430 responses. 

Evaluation of the 5 criteria 

In order to determine the relevance, the objectives of EMODnet are compared against the needs/problems 
that were defined ex-ante and while EMODnet was in effect. The EU added value was determined by 
assessing the effect of an EU-wide regulation instead of having regulations on Member State (MS) or 
regional  levels.  The  effectiveness  of  the  data  network  was  determined  by  assessing  the  outcomes  of 
EMODnet relative to its objectives focusing on productivity, innovation and uncertainty. Efficiency was 
determined by an assessment of the costs and benefits related to achieving the desired outcomes. The 
coherence of EMODnet in relation to other marine observation data networks and among its own portal 
was determined by  assessing the synergies and possible inconsistencies between EMODnet  and these 
networks, and among EMODnet’s portals. The sustainability of EMODnet was determined by comparing 
scenarios for the financing and governance after the financing ends in 2020. 

In order to determine the Relevance of EMODnet, the objectives of EMODnet were compared against 
the needs/problems that were defined ex-ante and while EMODnet was in effect. The EU added value is 
determined by assessing the effect of an EU-wide regulation as opposed to having regulations on Member 
State  (MS)  or  regional  levels.  The  Effectiveness  of  the  data  network  is  determined  by  assessing  the 
outcomes of EMODnet relative to its objectives. Efficiency is determined through an assessment of the 
costs and benefits related to achieving the desired outcomes. The Coherence of EMODnet in relation to 
other  marine  observation  data  networks  is  determined  by  assessing  the  synergies  and  possible 
inconsistencies  with  these  networks.  The  Sustainability  of  EMODnet  is  determined  by  comparing 
scenarios for the financing and governance after 2020.  

In  terms  of  limitations,  one  should  recognise  that  the  methodology  to  quantify  the  benefits  has  been 
designed  by  the  external  evaluation  study  i.e.  a  posteriori.  The  quantitative  values  (see  Table  3: 
Cumulated benefits per year according to [12, Table 6-9] are based on interviews and existing literature 
and yields to a wide range between minimum and maximum values. It would have been better to have 
defined  this  at  the  beginning  of  the  action  and  collect  data  more  systematically  as  the  project  was 
progressing.  

42 

 
 
 
 
9  ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY 

CRITERION) 

Operationalised  EQ 

The problems that EMODnet aimed to solve are called the objectives of EMODnet: 

1) General objectives: The general objective 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 
2) Specific objectives: 

Reduce operational costs and delays for those who use marine data and therefore; Help private 
industry compete in the global economy; Improve the quality of public decision  making at all levels 
and; Strengthen marine scientific research 
Increase competitiveness and innovation amongst users and re-users of marine data by providing 
wider access to  quality-checked, rapidly available, coherent marine data Reduce uncertainty in 
knowledge of the oceans and the seas and so provide a sounder 
basis for  managing inevitable future changes2 

Indicators/Descriptors 

1)  Determine how often EMODnet is used on a yearly basis per data portal (8 in total) 
2)  Determine  the  advantages  from a qualitative  point of view of EMODnet  data  (currently  and in 

the past, to  make a comparison possible) 

3)  Try to extract quantitative indicators related to the 3 objectives of EMODnet 
4)  Provide insights in the reasons for  non-use 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Data  sources 

1)  Desk research 

• 

EMODnet  database (number of yearly clicks) 

• 

• 

2)  Survey,  ask the following questions to  all EMODnet users (only target the EMODnet users): 
Can you indicate which databases you used before to gather the data now available by 
EMODnet? 
Can you indicate how much time and costs were involved in gathering the data before 
EMODnet was active? 
Can you indicate  how much time and costs there are now associated  with data gathering 
via EMODnet? 
Can you indicate which of the below is relevant for the data gathered via EMODnet: 

• 

• 

i.  Higher quality than before 
ii.  More data available than before 
iii.  Data better linked to other data 
iv.  Lowers uncertainty related to the data used before 
v.  Steering innovation within your type of business 

•  What is the  main reason you started to  use EMODnet  in the first place? 

i.  Suggest to use closed answers: reduce costs, increase innovation, better quality of 
data, reduce uncertainty in knowledge of Seas and Oceans 

•  What is the  main reason you are still using EMODnet? 

i.  Suggest to use closed answers: reduce costs, increase innovation, reduce 
uncertainty in knowledge of Seas and Oceans 

• 

To what extent is EMODnet crucial for  your daily work 

i.  Without  EMODnet  I am not able to  perform my  work 
ii.  EMODnet is a vital part of my work 
iii.  EMODnet contributes to my work but not crucial 

iv.  EMODnet is a nice asset to have, but without EMODnet I can still do the work 
without problems 

v.  Without EMODnet  no changes in my work are foreseen 

3)  Literature review on previous EMODnet evaluations (PART-2018-32007Vl): 

• 

• 

Interim Evaluation of the European  Marine Observation and Data Network Accompanying 
the document Green Paper Marine Knowledge  2020: from seabed mapping to ocean 
forecasting 
Ex post evaluation of the transitional financial programme of the Integrated Maritime 
Policy (IMP) and of two preparatory actions on maritime spatial planning 
Interim  evaluation  of  the  implementation of  the  direct  management  component  of  the 
Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (European Maritime and 
Fisheries Fund (EMFF) Regulation (Articles 15 and 125)). 

• 

• 

• 

The new interim evaluation of the direct management component of the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund will run concurrently to this evaluation. (EMODnet is only a 
small part of that evaluation) 
A set of stress tests on marine data were run for the Arctic, Atlantic, Baltic, Black Sea, 
Mediterranean and North Sea in order to assess the fitness of purpose of Europe's marine 
data infrastructure. The scope  was wider than only EMODnet  but the "data adequacy 
reports"  offer  useful  information  on what has  been achieved  and  what  needs to  be done. 
A set of projects are evaluating the adequacy of data for cross-border spatial planning. 

• 
Stakeholder interviews with possible non-users (find these via the  EMODnet secretariat, 
4) 
based on the type of users we have identified). Interviews should be targeted at reasons for non-
use (unknown/ not useful/ not relevant). 

Method 

1)  Desk research 

EMODnet  data analysis: Examine the allocation of clicks 

• 
2)  Survey 
• 

Among EMODnet users (only) 

Stakeholders 

3)  Literature review 
4)  Stakeholder  interviews  with  non-users 
1)  EMODnet organisation for usage data 
2)  EMODnet users 
3)  Possible EMODnet users (but currently non-users) 

44 

 
 
 
Expected outcome 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Yearly number of users of EMODnet per data portal (and how this evolves over time) 
Indication of time and costs involved in data gathering before EMODnet (extrapolated) 
Indication of time and costs involved in data gathering with EMODnet (extrapolated) 
Reasons why EMODnet was used in the past 
Reasons why EMODnet is still used (and compare this with past reasons) 
Added value of EMODnet to the work of stakeholders involved in EMODnet 
Insight in (groups of) non users and reasons for  current non-use. 

Operationalised EQ 

EMODnet is aimed at multiple types of users namely: 

private industry compete in the global economy 
• 
• 
public  decision-making 
•  marine  scientific  research 
• 
• 

civiI society 
Navy 

For each of these users the goals are to: 

• 
• 
• 

Reduce operational costs and delays 
Increase  competitiveness and innovation 
Reduce uncertainty in knowledge 

In addition the relevant core objectives of EMODnet stated in the interim evaluation report are: 

• 

Collate existing data from public and private organisation relating to the state of maritime 
basins 
Develop, test, operate  and maintain  a  portal allowing public  access 

• 
•  Monitor and report on the effectiveness of the system 
• 
• 

Improve accuracy, precision, coverage and ease of use of the data 
These goals could be achieved on a national level or via alternative databases. However, 
databased at national level will be aimed at solving national issues or catering to  national 
users (assumption) 

Therefore we must ask the questions: 

• 
• 

• 

• 

Do member  states have  diverging objectives  from EMODnet? 
To what extent would the objectives of EMODnet be achieved by Member States (at 
national and/or regional levels)? 
To what extent would the output have been realised without the EMODnet activities? 

To what extent are other parties willing and capable to offer comparable services like 
EMODnet? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

• 

Is a European action still required to achieve the objectives of EMODnet? 
1)  # of portals/initiatives on a national level NOT included as EMODnet suppliers 
2)  # of  portals/initiatives on an international level (both European and Global) NOT included as 

EMODnet suppliers 

3)  Member state objective overview towards marine data gathering 
4)  Stakeholder interview input on comparability  of other  portals to  EMODnet 
5)  Review documents of existing alternative portals 
6)  Alternative  approaches  to  achieving EMODnet  addressed issues 

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Data  sources 

1)  Desk research 

• 

EMODnet supplier analysis from EMODnet supplier database: list of suppliers, list of 
possible future suppliers 

2)  Survey, ask the following questions to all EMODnet users (only target the EMODnet users): 

• 

• 

• 

Are you aware of any alternative platforms? If yes, which? 

Does EMODnet provide you with the required level of detail or do you require additional 
databases? 
Does national data  suffice or  do you  require a larger geographical  scope? 

3)  Case studies with all identified user archetypes 

• 

• 

In depth discussion on the alternatives of EMODnet 

Overview of segments of data used (national, international, cross themes) 

4)  Stakeholder  interviews: Ask the  following questions to  all EMODnet  national suppliers 

• 

• 

Are you aware of national platforms which offer an alternative for  EMODnet? 

How do these international platforms compare based on: 

i.  Geographical  spread 
ii.  Level of  detail 
Integration with other databases 
iv.  User  base 

iii. 

5)  Literature review 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Interim Evaluation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network 
Accompanying the document Green Paper Marine Knowledge 2020: from seabed 
mapping to ocean forecasting 

Interim evaluation of the implementation of the direct management component of the 
Regulation (EU) No 508/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) Regulation 

A set of stress tests on marine data were run for the Arctic, Atlantic, Baltic, Black Sea, 
Mediterranean and North Sea in  order to assess the  fitness of purpose of Europe's 
marine data infrastructure. The scope was wider than only EMODnet but the  "data 
adequacy reports" offer useful information on what has been achieved and what needs 
to be done. 

A set of projects are evaluating the adequacy of data for cross-border spatial planning. 
The one on the Celtic Seas has been completed 

National mission statements for  improvement of marine data quality 

•  Websites from and documents on existing and planned national portals/initiatives 

1)  Stakeholder  survey  among  EMODnet  users  (only) 
2)  Case studies 
3)  Survey OR stakeholder interviews with national EMODnet data suppliers 
4)  Literature review 

1)  EMODnet data providers (on national level) 
2)  EMODnet users 

1)  Overview of alternative  platforms on national and international level 
2)  High level benchmark  of  aIternative  platforms  to  EMODnet  with regards  to  available  data, 

geographical spread, and user base (if  possible given GDPR) 

3)  Usefulness of EU involvement in platform 
4)  National capabilities for  platform development 

Method 

Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

46 

 
 
Operationalised EQ 

The European Commission has several targets (see EU priorities below) to which the EMODnet 
platform  can  either  directly  or indirectly  contribute. 

Indicators/Descriptors 

• 
• 

To what extent are overall Commission  priorities applicable to  EMODnet? 
To what extent contribute the outcome and results of EMODnet to meeting Commission 
priorities? 
Is there potential to contribute to other priorities in a more active manner? 
Based on the overall question: To what extent contribute the outcome and results of EMODnet to 
meeting Commission priorities? 

• 

The effect of EMODnet on each of the 10 EU priorities will be checked: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Jobs, growth and investment: indication of#  of employment generated, indication of 
effect on investment 
Digital single market: indication if EMODnet improves: better access of consumer to 
online tools, the development of digital solutions, the market as a whole through digital 
Energy Union and Climate: indication if EMODnet improves: climate, energy efficiency, 
safety and innovation 
A stronger Global Actor: indication if EMODnet has any impact of the visibility of the EU 
as global actor on for e.g. nature preservation 

Priorities not considered: 

• 
• 

• 
• 

Internal Market: indication if EMODnet improves the internal market 
A deeper and fairer Economic and Monetary Union: indication if EMODnet improves the 
fairness of the Economic and Monetary Union 
A balanced and progressive trade policy to  harness globalisation 
Justice and Fundamental Rights: indication if EMODnet improves Justice and 
Fundamental Rights 

•  Migration: indication if EMODnet has an effect on migration policy or management 
• 

Democratic Change: indication if EMODnet has any impact of the Democratic values of 
the EU 

This results in indicators: 

1) 
2) 
3) 
4) 
5) 
6) 

Impact on internal market improvement (none -  low to high) 
Impact on job growth (none -  low to high) 
Impact on investment growth in the blue economy (none -  low to high) 
Impact on digital single market (none -  low to high) 
Impact on energy efficiency and climate (none -  low to high) 
Impact on EU as strong global actor in nature conservation (none -  low to high) 

Data sources 

1)  Survey,  ask the following questions to all EMODnet users (only target the EMODnet users, 

using a Likert scale for  quantification): 
• 

Does EMODnet contribute to any of the following EU priorities: +List of all the priorities 
with checkbox 
Does EMODnet increase the  willingness to  invest in the Blue Economy cluster 
Does EMODnet increase employment  in the Blue Economy cluster 
Does EMODnet allow/facilitate you to create digital tools 
Does EMODnet facilitate you in finding greener, safer solutions 

• 
• 
• 
• 

2)  Case studies  with all identified  user  archetypes 

Focussed on perception of EMODnet with regards to relevant indicators 

• 
•  Where possible quantification of indicators (jobs, investments) for  basis of extrapolation 

3)  Stakeholder interview with  DG Mare 

• 

Does EMODnet contribute to the 10 EU priorities? 

1)  Survey amongst EMODnet users 
2)  Case interviews with EMODnet users 
3)  Stakeholder Interviews 

• 

DG mare/EC 

1)  EMODnet users 
2)  DG Mare/ European commission 

Qualitative measure of contribution of EMODnet to relevant Commission priorities, where possible 
supplemented with quantitative Likert scale output 

Method 

Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operationalised EQ 

The expected effects (specific objectives)  of EMODnet are as follows: 

1) 

2) 

Improving  productivity  in  the  blue  economy:  users  do  not  need  to  make  additional 
measurements or surveys where they had already been made but were previously hidden or 
inaccessible; it costs less to  assemble data from different sources that use similar standards, 
formats, baselines, and nomenclature. 
Increasing innovation in the blue economy: the increased access to  data allows those other 
than  the  holders  of  data  to  provide  added-value  services;  new  services  based  on  data from 
different sources become feasible. 

3)  Reducing uncertainty in the blue economy: data products of higher quality reduce uncertainly 

in the behaviour of the sea and hence investment risk. 

In order to ascertain the effects of EMODnet in terms of productivity, innovation and reduced 
uncertainty to industry, researchers, public authorities and civil society, we will first focus on 
ascertaining the degree of awareness of EMODnet among its target group, whether public or private 
bodies, and the actual uptake (i.e. use) of EMODnet among these same stakeholders. 

Further to this, we will look into the extent to which EMODnet has had an impact by answering the 
following questions: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To what extent and how has EMODnet  had an impact on the work of public and private 
bodies? Is it  useful to  their (daily)  work? In what way? 
To what extent have users (industry, researchers, public authorities and civil society) relied 
solely on EMODnet for their data requirements? 
To  what extent are stakeholders  other  than the  holders  of data  providing added-value  services 
as a result of the data provided by EMODnet? 
To what extent have new services been provided as a result of the data provided by 
EMODnet? 
To what extent has EMODnet resulted in a greater ability to forecast marine events and put in 
place appropriate measures to  protect life and property on the coast and offshore? 

By doing so, we will be able to assess the extent to which EMODnet has achieved its original 
objectives of reducing operational costs and delays, increasing competitiveness and innovation, 
and reducing uncertainty in knowledge. 

The indicators that we will employ to answer the questions listed above are linked to the logic of 
intervention of EMODnet and are situated at the output, outcome, result and impact levels, as 
listed below. 

Output level: 

1)  Number of thematic portals providing access to marine data. 
2)  Number of data products created. 
3)  Number of sea-basin checkpoints 
4)  Number of EMODnet features/services/initiatives (e.g. data ingestion, data wanted, etc.) 

Outcome level: 

1)  Stakeholders' views on the degree to  which the sea-basin checkpoints adequately assess the 

availability  and fitness for  purpose  of marine data in  different  regions. 

2)  Stakeholders' views on the degree to  which the Central Portal provides access to  data from all 

the thematic portals. 

3)  Stakeholders'  views on the degree to  which it  is possible to  retrieve data layers from multiple 

portals at the same time. 

4)  Stakeholders' views on the degree to which the Ingestion Portal facilitates the submission of 

new datasets. 

5)  Stakeholders' views on the degree to  which the EMODnet Secretariat ensures coherence between 

the different strands; disseminates  results, and analyses  user feedback and statistics. 

Result level: 

48 

Indicators/Descriptors 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Degree to which public/private bodies are making use of the data. 
Degree to which there are variations in the levels of use of the data across the eight thematic 

Degree to  which users and other stakeholders provide (innovative} examples of how the data 

l} 
2) 
portals. 
3} 
is being used. 

4)  Degree to which there are variations in how the data is being used across the eight thematic 

portals. 

5)  Degree to  which users assess that EMODnet  has had impact on their (daily} work and provide 

Public/private users' views on the degree to  which they relied solely on EMODnet for  their 

examples of this. 
6} 
data requirements, i.e. they have not had to undertake additional measurements or surveys? 
7} 
  Public/private users' views on the extent to which stakeholders other than the holders of 
data are providing added-value services as a result of the data provided by EMODnet. Degree to 
which concrete examples are provided of such added-value services. 
8} 
result of the data provided by EMODnet. Degree to  which concrete examples are provided of such 
new services. 
9} 
ability to forecast  marine events and put in place appropriate  measures to  protect  life and property  on 
the coast and offshore.  Degree  to  which  concrete examples  are provided. 

Users and other stakeholders'  views on the extent to  which EMODnet  has resulted in a greater 

Users and other stakeholders'  views on the extent to  which new services been provided as a 

Data  sources 

Degree to  which evidence of the uptake of EMODnet by public and private demonstrates its 

Impact level: 
1} 
contribution to its specific objectives of reduced operational costs and increased productivity; 
greater competition and/or innovation in the blue economy; and/or to reduced uncertainty 
and investment risk in the blue economy. 
1}  Desk research and data analysis 
•  Monitoring data on outputs: 

o  Number of thematic portals providing access to marine data 
o  Number of data products created 
o  Number of sea-basin checkpoints 
o  Number of features/services/initiatives offered 

•  Monitoring data on usage: 

o  Number and type of registered users (overall and per thematic portal} 
o  Number of non-users among the stakeholder audience 
o  Number of views and downloads on website 
o  Results of completed pop-up forms/questionnaires on planned usage of 

downloaded data 

o  Results of website user survey 

•  Monitoring data on fitness for  purpose of data: 

o  Stress tests and data availability  reports of the six sea basin checkpoints 

•  Monitoring data on feedback: 

o  Users of thematic groups, MS Expert Group, UK House of Lords EU Committee, 

Agriculture, Fisheries, ENV and Energy sub-committee, EU Regional Marine 
Cooperation 

o  Data on use cases from EMODnet website/"Study to support impact 

assessment for  marine knowledge" 

Survey/Stakeholder interviews with registered users (public/private} of EMODnet data 

2} 
(primarily), but also from the EMODnet organisation and data suppliers: 

• 

To what extent do the sea-basin checkpoints adequately assess the  availability and fitness 
for  purpose  of  marine  data  in different  regions? How could this be  improved?  (Interviews 

-  EMODnet organisation, data suppliers) 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To what extent does the Central Portal provide access to  data from all the thematic 
portals? How could it be improved? (Interviews - EMODnet organisation, data suppliers} 
To what extent is it  possible to  retrieve data layers from multiple portals at the same 
time? How could this be improved? (Interviews - EMODnet organisation, data suppliers} 
To what extent does the Ingestion Portal facilitate the submission of new datasets? How 
could it be improved? (Interviews -  EMODnet organisation, data suppliers} 
To what extent does the EMODnet Secretariat  ensure coherence  between the different 
strands; disseminate results, and analyse user feedback and statistics? How could it  be 

improved?  (Interviews -  EMODnet  organisation,  data suppliers} 

49 

 
 
 
 
• 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Have you ever made use of EMODnet data? If so, what type of data do you use, i.e. from 
which thematic portal? (Survey/Interviews - users) 
For what reason(s) do you make use of EMODnet data? (Survey - users, multiple options 
possible) 

o  Reliable data 
o  Complete data 
o 

Interlinked data 

How frequently do you use EMODnet data? (Survey users, Closed question) 
How do you use EMODnet data? In what situations has it been most/least useful and 
why? (Interviews-users) 
To what extent is EMODnet crucial for  your daily work? (Survey-users, Closed question) 

o  Without  EMODnet  I am not able to  perform my  work 
o 
o 
o 

EMODnet is a vital part of my work 
EMODnet contributes to my work but not crucial 
EMODnet is a nice asset to have, but without EMODnet I can still do the work 
without problems 

o  Without EMODnet  no changes in my work are foreseen 

Has EMODnet had an impact on your (daily) work? If so, how? If not, why not? 
(Interviews - users) 
To what extent has EMODnet reduced the costs for  your company/organisation to 
assemble data from different sources that use similar standards, formats, baselines, and 
nomenclature? (Survey - users, closed) 
Can you indicate how much time and costs were involved in gathering the data before 
EMODnet was active? (Interviews - users) 
Can you indicate how much time and costs there are now associated with data gathering 
via EMODnet? (Interviews - users) 
To what extent have you relied solely on EMODnet  for  your data requirements, i.e. you 
have not had to  undertake additional measurements  or surveys to  complement its data? 
(Survey-users, closed) 
To what extent has EMODnet allowed you access to  data that you would otherwise not 
have had access to  or have had difficulty accessing? (Survey-users, closed) 
To what extent have you used EMODnet data to provide new services to  your own 
customers? To what extent has EMODnet data allowed you to provide services that you 
would otherwise not have been able to provide to your own customers? ((Survey-users, 
closed/interviews-user) Please provide examples. (Interviews-users) 
To what extent has EMODnet made it more feasible than in the past to  develop new 
services based on data from different sources? (Survey, interviews - users) Please provide 
concrete examples. (Interviews-users) 
To what extent has EMODnet  resulted in a greater ability to  (1) forecast  marine events, 

(2) put in place appropriate measures to protect life and property on the coast, (3) put in place 
appropriate measures to  protect life and property offshore. (Survey/interviews  users) Please 
provide concrete examples. (Interview-users) 

• 

To what extent has EMODnet (1) reduced your operational costs, (2) increased your 
productivity, (3) created greater competition, (4) steered innovation in your 
organisation/company, (5) reduced uncertainty in the behaviour of the sea, (6) reduced 
investment risk in the blue economy? (Survey, closed/Interviews -users) Please provide 
concrete examples of how it has done so. (Interviews-users) 

3)  Case studies of 12 archetypes of EMODnet users to gather more in-depth data on: 

• 

• 

Differences in degree and types of use across different stakeholder types, thematic 
portals and reasons for  this 
Time and costs involved in gathering the data before EMODnet was active/via EMODnet, 
including: 

o  Estimated cost of additional measurements or surveys undertaken prior to 
EMODnet when they had already been made but were previously hidden or 
inaccessible, and which are now available via EMODnet 

o  Estimated cost savings related to increased facility to assemble data from 
different sources that use similar standards, formats, baselines, and 
nomenclature. 

o  Number and value of added-value services provided by those other than the 

holders of data 

o  Number and value of new services developed thanks to  EMODnet  data 

50 

 
 
 
 
Method 

l} 
2) 
3} 

Desk research and data analysis 
Surveys 
Stakeholder interviews 

4)  Case studies of EMODnet user archetypes 
5)  Drawing on the  survey,  interviews  and  case  studies  seek to  provide  a  quantitative  estimate  of 
the  impact  of  EMODnet  for  each  archetype  of  use,  including  quantification  in  euro  of  the 
benefits where data is available 

Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

Operationalised EQ 

6}  Through extrapolation, provide a consolidated figure of the impact of EMODnet on the EU as a 
whole. Extrapolation will be done based on estimates of the population of actual and potential users. 
Such  estimates  will  be  derived from  a  combination  of  available data  on  the  use  of  EMODnet (user 
statistics  and  web  analytics}  and  stakeholder  opinions  on the  level  of  awareness  and  penetration  of 
EMODnet.  The  latter  will  be  gathered  through  the  survey,  as  well  as  additional  interviews  with 
EMODnet  participants  and  other  stakeholder  organisations  as 
necessary. 
l} 

public or 
representatives of industry, researchers, 
public authorities 
civiI society. 

Users of EMODnet in particular, whether 
• 
• 
• 
• 
DG Mare; 
EMODnet organisation 

2) 
3} 
Understanding of how EMODnet is being used by the European marine community and what the 
impact is on productivity, innovation and reduced uncertainty through: 

• 
• 
• 

Yearly number of users of EMODnet per data portal (and how this evolves over time} 
Trends in the  differences in use by user type, across different portals 
Indication of time and costs involved in data gathering before/ with EMODnet 
(extrapolated} 

•  Where possible, quantification/monetisation of the effects on EMODnet in terms of the 
provision of value of added-value services by those other than the holders of data and 
new services developed thanks to EMODnet data 
Estimate of the effect of EMODnet at EU level for  each type of use-case, and then as a 

• 

whole through extrapolation 

In order to  assess the factors influencing the achievements  of these objectives, we will seek to identify 
the factors  internal to  EMODnet  and external  to  it  that  have  had an impact  on the  degree to  which 
it  meets its objectives. We will use the  following questions as a basis to  do so: 

•  What internal factors have negatively/positively influenced EMODnet's ability to meet its 
objectives of reducing operational costs and delays, increasing competitiveness and 
innovation, and reducing uncertainty in knowledge? 

o 
o 
o 

o 

To what extent is the  data on EMODnet accessible? 
To what extent is the  data clear? Are sources clear? Are gaps clearly identified? 
To what extent is the  data contained on EMODnet of high quality (i.e. complete, 
standardised/comparable/interoperable}? 
To what extent has the quality assurance  process employed by EMODnet  led to 

high quality content (i.e. complete, standardised/comparable/interoperable}? How could it be 
improved? 

o 

To what extent has EMODnet resulted in data products of a higher quality than 
what was available in the past? 

•  What external factors, if any, have negatively/positively influenced EMODnet's ability to meet 
its objectives of reducing operational costs and delays, increasing competitiveness and 
innovation, and reducing uncertainty in knowledge? 

o 

o 
o 

To what extent is EMODnet a user-driven process in terms of priority setting for 
the gathering and assembly of marine data? 
To what extent are public/private bodies able/willing to provide data? 
To what extent is the  data provided fit  for  purpose? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Result level - internal factors: 

• 

Public/private users'  and other stakeholders'  assessment  of the degree to  which the  data 
is clear (i.e. identification of sources and gaps} and extent to  which there has been an 
evolution in this over time. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

• 

• 

• 

Public/private users' and other stakeholders' assessment of the degree to which the data 
is complete (i.e. transboundary and multi-disciplinary; includes data from the public and 
private sectors (e.g. data generated through EU research grants, non-confidential private 
data arising from licensing requirements and environmental impact assessments); and 
offers full coverage of the necessary themes through its 8 portals) and extent to which 
there has been an evolution in this over time. 
Public/private users' and other stakeholders' assessment of the degree to which the data 
is standardised/ comparable/ interoperable across European sea basins (i.e. use of 
consistent standards, formats, baselines, nomenclatura) and extent to which there has 
been an evolution in this over time. 
Assessment of the quality assurance process and degree to which it contributes to data 
quality. 
Public/private users' and other stakeholders' assessment of the degree to which there are 
variations in data quality across the eight thematic portals, depending on the indicators 
concerned and/or depending on the data products concerned. 

Output/result  level - external factors: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Users' views on the extent to which they are involved in priority setting for the collection 
and assembly of marine data on EMODnet. 
Data providers and potential data providers' views on their ability and willingness to 
provide data that is fit  for  purpose (i.e. complete, comparable). 
Degree to  which checkpoints  positively assess the availability  of data and degree to  which 
it is fit  for  purpose in the six sea basins. 
Stakeholders' views on data providers and potential data providers' ability and willingness 

to  provide data that is fit  for  purpose (i.e. complete, comparable). 

Data  sources 

1)  Literature review: 

• 
• 

Review of quality assurance processes. 
Review of user-friendliness of EMODnet. 

2)  Desk research and data analysis 

•  Monitoring data  on fitness for  purpose of data -  Stress tests and  data  availability  reports 

of the six sea basin checkpoints 

•  Monitoring data on feedback- users of thematic groups, MS Expert Group, UK House of 
Lords EU Committee, Agriculture, Fisheries, ENV and Energy sub-committee, EU Regional 
Marine Cooperation 

3)  Survey/Stakeholder interviews with registered users (public/private) of EMODnet data: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

To what extent is the data on EMODnet clear? Are data sources clearly identified? Are 
data gaps clearly identified? (Survey/Interviews) Has there been an evolution in the 
clarity of data over time? How could it  be improved? (Interviews) 
To what extent is the data on EMODnet complete? Is the  data transboundary and multi  
disciplinary? To what extent does it include data from all relevant sources (e.g. private, 
public, data generated through EU research grants, non-confidential private data arising 
from licensing requirements and environmental impact assessments)? 
(Survey/Interviews) Are there any gaps in the data sources? If so, why? (Interviews) 
To what extent does the data on EMODnet offer full coverage of the necessary themes 
through its 8 portals? (Survey/Interviews) What other themes, if any, should it cover? To 
what extent has there been an evolution in the completeness of the data over time? 
(Interviews) 
To what extent is the  data on EMODnet standardised/ comparable/ interoperable across 
European sea basins? Are consistent standards formats, baselines, and nomenclatura 
being used? (Survey/Interviews) To what extent has this changed over time? (Interviews) 
Are there differences in the quality (i.e. completeness, standardisation, interoperability) 
of the data available on the eight thematic portals? If so, why is this the case? 
(Interviews)  Note: Only ask if aware of more than one thematic portal. 
Have you ever used EMODnet services to  locate data you needed but was not available 
on the  platform?  If  so, did they manage  to  find the  data you  were looking for? (Survey) 
Have you been involved in priority setting for the collection and assembly of marine data 
on EMODnet? If so, in what way? Have you ever used EMODnet services to locate data 
you needed bur was not available on the platform? If so, did they manage to find the data 
you were looking for? (Interviews) 

•  What key internal/external factors affect the completeness and comparability of data 
available on EMODnet? Prompts: Ability and willingness of data providers to share data, issues linked 
to  standardisation etc. (Interviews) 

52 

 
 
 
 
4)  Survey/Stakeholder interviews with data suppliers 

• 

To what extent is the  data you supply to  EMODnet standardised/ comparable/ 
interoperable across European sea basins? (Survey/Interviews} Do you use standard 
formats, baselines, and nomenclatura? If so, which? (Interviews} 

•  What do you see as the  main barriers, if any, to  supplying data to EMODnet for  data 

• 

holders like yourself? How can these be overcome? (Interviews} 
To what extent is the  data available on EMODnet standardised/ comparable/ 
interoperable across European sea basins? Are consistent standards formats, baselines, 
and nomenclatura  being used? (Survey/Interviews} How could this be improved? 
(Interviews} 

5)  Stakeholder Interviews with representatives of checkpoints on data availability and fitness for 

purpose: 
• 

• 

To what extent is the  data on EMODnet complete? Is the  data transboundary and multi  
disciplinary? To what extent does it  include data from all relevant sources (e.g. private, 
public, data generated through EU research grants, non-confidential private data arising 
from licensing requirements and environmental impact assessments}? Are there any gaps 
in the data sources? If so, why? 
To what extent is the  data on EMODnet standardised/ comparable/ interoperable across 
European sea basins? Are consistent standards formats, baselines, and nomenclatura 
being used? To what extent has this changed over time? 
Are there differences in the quality (i.e. completeness, standardisation, interoperability} 
of the data available on the eight thematic portals? If so, why is this the case? 
•  What key internal/external factors affect the completeness and comparability of data 

• 

available on EMODnet? Prompts: Ability and willingness of data providers to share data, 
issues linked to standardisation etc. 

Stakeholder interviews with EMODnet secretariat on data gathering process and quality 

6} 
assurance processes 

• 

Please describe the process used to gather data. What would you say are its main 
strengths and weaknesses? 

•  What means, if any, do you employ to ensure the quality of the data provided by data 

suppliers? How well does this work? What more could be done? 

•  What means, if any, do you employ to  ensure the  quality of the data available on 

• 

EMODnet? What more could be done? 
To what extent is the  data on EMODnet complete? Is the  data transboundary and multi  
disciplinary? To what extent does it  include data from all relevant sources (e.g. private, 
public, data generated through EU research grants, non-confidential private data arising 
from licensing requirements and environmental impact assessments}? Are there any gaps 
in the data sources? If so, why? 
To what extent is the  data on EMODnet standardised/ comparable/ interoperable across 
European sea basins? Are consistent standards formats, baselines, and nomenclatura 
being used? To what extent has this changed over time? 
Are there differences in the quality (i.e. completeness, standardisation, interoperability} 
of the data available on the eight thematic portals? If so, why is this the case? 
•  What key internal/external factors affect the completeness and comparability of data 

• 

• 

available on EMODnet? Prompts: Ability and willingness of data providers to share data, 
issues linked to standardisation etc.? 

7)  Stakeholder  Interviews  with  stakeholder  platforms  or  industry  organisations  to  assess 

awareness of EMODnet 
• 

To what extent are you/your  members  aware of EMODnet? If  so, where did you first hear 
about it? 
Have you ever visited the  EMODnet  platform? If so, to  what end? 
Have you ever recommended EMODnet to one of your members? 
Have you ever made use of EMODnet data? If so: 

• 
• 
• 

o 

o 

To what extent is the  data on EMODnet complete? Is the  data transboundary 
and multi-disciplinary? To what extent does it include data from all relevant 
sources (e.g. private, public, data generated through EU research grants, non  
confidential private data arising from licensing requirements and environmental 
impact assessments}? Are there any gaps in the data sources? 
To what extent does the data on EMODnet offer full coverage of the necessary 
themes through its 8 portals? (Survey/Interviews} What other themes, if any, 
should it cover? To what extent has there been an evolution in the 

completeness of the data over time? (Interviews} 

so 

 
 
 
 
 
o 

o 

To what extent is the  data on EMODnet standardised/ comparable/ 
interoperable across European sea basins? Are consistent standards formats, 
baselines, and nomenclatura  being used? (Survey/Interviews) To what extent 
has this changed over time? {Interviews) 
Are there differences in the quality (i.e. completeness, standardisation, 

Method 

interoperability) of the data available on the eight thematic portals? If so, why is this the case? 
(Interviews) 

1)  Focus on why impacts are achieved (or not) 
2)  Assess  the  internal and external  factors influencing the  achievements  of EMODnet,  in relation 

to 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Supply of data (user-driven  process) 
Quality of data 
Accessibility of data 
Uptake (awareness and use) -  (covered under EQ6) 

3)  Literature review 
4)  Desk  research  on monitoring data 
5)  Expert review of quality assurance  processes; review of user-friendliness 
6)  Survey of users and data suppliers 
7)  Stakeholder  interviews  with  users,  data  providers  and  stakeholder  platforms  or  industry 

organisations 

1)  Registered  users (public/private) of EMODnet  data 
2)  Data suppliers 
3)  Representatives of checkpoints on data availability and fitness for  purpose 
4)  EMODnet  secretariat  on data gathering and quality assurance  processes 

Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

Understanding of why impacts on productivity, innovation and reduced uncertainty are being 
achieved (or not) through: 

• 

An overview the various measures and actions taken in 2014-2018, their degree of 
achievement according to  plans, and their contribution towards the operational 
objectives of EMODnet. As suggested in the ToR, it  will be based on a sample of measures 

/  actions. 

• 

• 

An assessment of EMODnet performance in terms of data supply, data 
quality/accessibility, and use. 
Identification of internal and external factors affecting the data supply, data 

quality/accessibility, and  use 

Operationalised EQ 

•  What are the in-cash contributions (if any) and in-kind contributions (e.g. related to the 

standardisation of the data received) related to the operation of EMODnet? 

•  What are the investment and operational costs associated with EMODnet? 

o  How have these costs evolved over time? 
o  How are these costs distributed (e.g. per type of task undertaken, per thematic 

Indicators/Descriptors 

In-cash and in-kind contributions 

portal, per product type)? 

1)  Amount of in-cash contributions (annual, over time, in% of total) 
2)  Amount of in-kind contributions  (annual, over time, in% of total) 

•  Goods, like computers, software per supplier 
• 
• 

Services, like administrative/financial support,  data optimization 
Expertise, like legal, tax, or business advice; marketing and website development; and 
strategic planning 

Investment and operational costs 

3)  Amount of monetary investment costs (annual, over time, in% of total) 
4)  Amount of monetary operational costs (annual, over time, in% of total) 
Amount of other costs (annual, over time, in% of total) 
1)  Literature review: 

• 

EMODnet Annual Reports (e.g. for  2017 
http://www.emodnet.eu/sites/emodnet.eu/fi les/public/Annual_report_2017/ 
booklet_emodnet_Annual_report_15May2018_web%20(1).pdf) for budget overview of 
funding/costs and an initial breakdown of the costs 

Data sources 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Meeting minutes for EMODnet Steering Committee meeting concerning 

budget/tina nciaIs 

•  Meeting minutes for budget/financial meetings between the Head of EMODnet 

Secretariat, 

EMODnet controlling, EU Purchasing/Funding and EMODnet  Policy Officer 

EU Procurement  Documents/  Open calls for  tender  documents 

• 
•  Maritime Policy Fund documents 
• 

EMFF documents 

2)  Stakeholder interviews: 

• 

Responses of EMODnet Secretariat/Controlling to the following interview questions: 
o  Do you receive in-cash or in-kind contributions? If yes: What are they? How 

high are they? How have they evolved over time? 

o 
Are all costs  displayed  in the budget of the Annual Reports? 
o  Which costs are in investment and which operational costs? 
o  Which costs are summarized in the bucket secretariat? What are the sub  

categories? And how high are the  costs per sub-category? 

o  How have the costs evolved over time? Are there any anomalies and if  yes, why 

so? 

3)  Desk research  and data analysis 

• 
• 

• 
• 

• 
• 

Investment and Operational cost per subcategory and evolution over time 
Proportionality of users per portal to investment and operational costs per portal and its 
evolution over time 
Validation and enrichment of quantitative analysis with stakeholder interview responses 
Analysis of multiplyer of costs based on usage of platform (or e.g. cost increase per 100 
users extra) and trend forecast till 2025 
EMODnet users and providers statistics per portal 
Preparational spreadsheets and controlling data for  the EMODnet Annual Report 
Budgets detailing out costs 

Method 

In-cash and in-kind contributions 

• 
• 

High level quantification of in kind contributions 
Analysis of quantitative in-cash contribution data since inception of EMODnet and 
validation of quantitative data in stakeholder interviews 

Investment and operational costs 

• 

Define investment cost categories 
o  Hardware  (servers) 
o 
o  Configuration (IT contractor fees) 
o 

Setup (Hardware  and IT contractor  fees) 

Software (website, standardization tools, etc.) 

• 

Define  operational  cost categories 

0 

0 

0 

0 

FTEs, 
Maintenance 
Standardization 
Quality control 

o  Data storage 

• 

Define further separation of cost categories: 

o 
o 
o 

Thematic portal 
Product type 
Type of task undertaken (e.g. central services, checkpoints, observations, 
studies, thematic lot) 

• 

• 

• 
• 

Identify relevant documents to obtain investment and operational costs per cost category 
and/or subcategories 
Conduct additional interviews with EMODnet Secretariat/Controller if needed to validate 
findings 
Analyse quantitative and qualitative data 
Identify findings around evolution of costs 

Stakeholders 

1)  EMODnet Secretariat 
2)  EMODnet Controlling 

Expected outcome 

In-cash and in-kind contributions 

• 

List of in-cash and in-kind contributions (if any) 

Investment and operational costs 

• 

Distribution of Annual Report Grand Total in investment costs and operational costs and 

its cost categories (also% of total) 

52 

 
 
 
• 

Assessment  of (Un-)Proportionality of costs versus increase  in  data  users/providers per 

thematic portal/product type/task undertaken 

Indicators/Descriptors 

 •  What internal and external factors influence the efficiency of EMODnet's operation? 
List of possible factors Internal factors: 

1) 

IT 

o 

Software 

2)  Hardware 

Bugs/Errors/System  breakdowns 

o 
o  Maintenance 
Support 
o 
3)  Number of FTE involved 
4)  Processes 

o  Coordination with data providers 
o  Coordination with data users 
o  Coordination with national data centres 
o 
o 
o  Data structuring 
o  Data cleaning 
o  Data storing 
List of possible external factors: 
1)  Data providers: 

Internal coordination 
Support processes 

o  Data quality 
o  Standards/Formats 
o  Number of providers 

2)  Users: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Amount of users 
Frequency of usage 
Benefits of usage 
Different types of users (typology of users) 

3)  Other: 
o 
o  Privacy/Security 

International, national legislation and organizational policies 

Data sources 

1)  Stakeholder interviews: 

• 

EMODnet organisation  (Head of EMODnet Secretariat, EMODnet central portal, EMODnet 
IT Support, EMODnet Data Ingestion Portal, EMODnet Checkpoint Leads) 

o  What are the main factors influencing the efficiency of EMODnet's operation? 
o  How do they influence the efficiency of EMODnet's operation? 

• 

EMODnet  National Data Centres and related organizations 

o  What are the main factors influencing the efficiency of EMODnet's operation 

from the perspective and work of the national data centres? 

o  How do they influence the efficiency of EMODnet's operation? 

2)  Literature review: 

• 
• 
• 
• 

EMODnet Annual Reports 
EMODnet meetings minutes 
EMODnet  Thematic  group meeting minutes 
EU policy documents in relation to privacy and data security legislation (international, 
national) 

•  Maintenance/service provider bills from purchasing office 

3)  Desk research on EMODnet database: 

• 

Database statistics on access time, memory utilization, shutdowns, errors, data ingestion 
errors, failures, download speed 

1)  Stakeholder interviews with EMODnet organisation (incl. data centres) 
2)  Desk research for identified factors from interviews 
3)  Review of EMODnet database statistics for identified factors from stakeholder interviews 

Method 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stakeholders 

3)  EMODnet organisation 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Head of EMODnet Secretariat 
EMODnet  central portal 
EMODnet IT Support 
EMODnet Data Ingestion Portal 
EMODnet Checkpoint Leads 

4)  EMODnet  national data centres 

• 

List of internal and external factors influencing the efficiency of EMODnet's operation 

Operationalised  EQ 

•  Which of EMODnet's activities are particularly contributing to the costs of EMODnet? Are 

such costs justified by relative to the benefits? 

•  Which factors determine costly or complex activities? Why? 
•  Which stakeholders'  perspective  around simplifications are suggested? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

1)  Costs (or percentage of total) per identified factor influencing the efficiency of EMODnet's 

operation 

2)  EMODnet's activities are particularly contributing to the costs of EMODnet 
3)  Benefits  per cost  item/activity  of EMODnet  in terms of 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Output 
Outcomes 
Results 
Impact 

4)  Relative impact of costs to effects 

• 

Assessment per activity (based on a list of activities): 

o  Could same benefits be achieved for  less costs? 
o  Could more benefits be achieved for  same costs? 

• 

• 
• 
• 

Comparison amongst same activities for different portals/activities (accumulated, over 
time) 
Comparison per portal over time 
Comparison  with best practices  from other EU portals (EQ 12) 
Comparison  with best practices  from other non-EU portals (EQ 11) 

5)  Proportionality of  benefits  to  the  costs  (efficiency)  per  identified  activity/factor by  mutual 

comparison 

6)  Reasons (stakeholders' views) for  costly or complex activities and potentials for simplification 

Data  sources 

1)  Literature review: 

• 

Results from previous evaluation questions: 

o  Costs and cost breakdown  (Output EQ8) 
o 

Factors influencing efficiency of EMODnet's operations (Output EQ9) 

o 

Benefits per cost item/activity/factor (Output EQ6+7) on different levels 
(defined in data sources part from EQ6+7): 

■  Output (narrow sense of efficiency: input vs. output) 

■ 

■ 

■ 

Outcomes (wider sense of efficiency: input vs. outcomes) 
Results (wider sense of efficiency: input vs. results) 
Impacts (widest sense of efficiency: input vs. impacts) 

2)  Desk research 

• 

• 

Analysis of costs per identified activity to determine which of EMODnet's activities are 
particularly contributing to the costs of EMODnet (ranking by costs) 
EMODnet database statistics/KPls for  functionality: 

Access time 

o 
o  Memory  utilization 
o 
o  Data ingestion errors/failures 
o  Download  speed availability 

Shutdowns/bugs/errors and time to resolve 

3)  Stakeholder interviews: 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

EMODnet organisation: Head of Secretariat, EMODnet Controlling, EMODnet Central 
Portal/IT, EMODnet Portals, EMODnet Checkpoints, EMODnet Data Ingestion Portals, 
EMODnet Thematic Groups: 

o  Which activities are the most costly or complex for you? 
o  What are in your opinion the largest benefits? Can these be quantified? 

■ 

■ 

Could the same benefits be achieved for  less costs? 
Could more benefits be achieved for  the same costs? 

o  Do you see other inefficiencies for EMODnet? 
o  Can you explain the inefficiencies and do you have suggestion how to resolve 

these? 

o  What are the lessons learned over time to improve efficiency? 
o  Have you received any feedback from end-users regarding features that they 

find particularly facilitates the use of EMODnet? 

• 

Registered  users (public/private) of EMODnet  data: 

o  Are there features that particularly facilitate the use of EMODnet? 

■ 

■ 

Ease of use 
Layout 

■ 
■  Metadata standards 

Ease of use 
Layout 

■ 
■  Metadata standards 
Data standards 

■ 

o 
o 
o 

Is there the possibility for simplification? If yes, where and how? 
Are there features which you do not use or hamper your use of EMODnet? 
Are there features which could be offered or replacing/upgrading existing 
functionality  which would increase your use of EMODnet? 

Method 

Stakeholders 

1)  Literature review including results from previous EQ 6+7 on benefits and EQ8 on costs 
2)  Desk research being quantitative  data from EMODnet database for  user statistics 
3)  Stakeholder interviews 
1)  EMODnet organisation: 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Head of EMODnet Secretariat (high-level) 
EMODnet Controlling/Finance 
Central Portal Manager/IT 
Thematic groups 
Data Centres 
Checkppoints 
Portals 
Data Ingestion Portal 

Expected outcome 

2)  Registered  users for  survey/stakeholder interviews 
1)  Cost-benefit overview for EMODnet activities 
2)  List of identified (non-)proportionalities of cost and benefits for EMODnet activities in terms 

of: 
• 
• 
• 

Could same benefits be achieved for  less costs? 
Could more benefits be achieved for  same costs? 
Comparison  (also over time) for  portals and initiatives 

3)  List of suggested  simplifications and registered  user desires to  improve efficiency 

Operationalised EQ 

• 

• 
• 

Are there any good practices/ approaches used in other instruments (e.g. Copernicus, the 
Data Collection Framework for Fisheries, GEO, INSPIRE, etc) which contribute positively to 
their efficiency? 
Could these approaches  be used in EMODnet to  improve efficiency? 
Are there practices/ approaches used in other instruments that have been identified as 
inefficient? If so, what means have been employed to resolve this issue? 

lndicators/Descripto rs 

1)  Evidence of good practices and approaches which contribute positively to the efficiency of 

other instruments. 

2)  Examples provided by stakeholders of good practices and approaches  which contribute 

positively to the efficiency of other instruments. 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Examples of solutions employed to address inefficient practices in other instruments. 
  Assessment by stakeholders of the degree of applicability of the good practices and 

3} 
4) 
approaches identified to EMODnet. 

Data sources 

1)  Literature review 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

European Environment Agency (2014} Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE 
implementation: Joint EEA-JRC report. [Online]. Luxembourg, Publications Office. Available 
at: http://bookshop.europa.eu/uri?target=EUB:NOTICE:THAK14017:EN:HTML. 

European Commission {2017} Interim evaluation of Copernicus final report. [Online]. 
Available at: https://publications.europa.eu/ en/publication-detail/-/publication/86fe47d6- 
c501-1le 7-9b01-0laa 75ed71a 1/language-en. 

European Commission {2018} Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for  Fisheries 
(STECF) - Evaluation of DCF 2017 Annual  Reports (STECF-18-10}. [Online]. Available at: 
https:// stecf.j rc.ec.euro pa.eu/ documents/ 43805/2086501/STECF-18-
l0+Evaluation+of+DCF+2017+Annual+Re ports.pdf. 

European Commission (2015} Fisheries Data Collection Framework: The  DCF  Reporting 
and  Implementation  Cycles  and  the Data  End-user [Online]. Available at: 
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstrea m/JRC97782/def_enduse_feedbac 
k.pdf. 

European Commission (2018} Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the 
re-use of public sector information [Online]. Available at: 
https://pubIications.euro  pa.eu/  en/pubIication-detai1/-/pubIication/  45328d2e-4834-1le8-beld-
0laa75ed71a 1/language-e n. 

2} 

Stakeholder interviews with other platforms 

• 

Can you briefly explain how data is ingested, processed, and distributed on this platform? 

•  What do you see as the  main strength and the main weakness of  [the portal in question]? 
Has [the portal in question] undergone any changes in its working practices that has made 
• 
their data ingestion process more efficient? If so, please expand. 

• 

Can you identify any working practices in [the portal in question] that are currently 
inefficient (e.g. duplication}? If so, has any measures been put in place to address this 
issue? 

• 

Can you give examples of  best practices in the  data ingestion process? 

o  Methods of data delivery from provider to platform (e.g. metadata model, 

aggregation chain} 

o  Operation of, and communication via, a help-service for  providers 
o 

Identification and marketing to engage new  data providers (as well as 
incentivising them to do so} 
o  Distribution of data to  end-users 
o  Quality assurance process 
o 

Automation in the data delivery process 

• 

Have you received any feedback from end-users regarding features of your portal that 
[e.g. Copernicus] they find particularly facilitates their access to  the  portal's data? 

Ease of use 
Layout 

o 
o 
o  Metadata  standards 
Data standards 

o 

Method 

1)  Desk research 

• 

In line with EQ14, map out the scope of similar instruments: 

o 

Long list of instruments and frameworks of potential relevance to learn lessons 
applicable to EMODnet is first developed. This will ensure that a sufficient 
breadth of instruments are considered 

o  Screening of instruments for relevance via information accessible on the 

instrument's websites. 

o  Shortlist of 4-6 instruments developed that will be reviewed somewhat more in 
depth. Specifically, the  working processes of other instruments will be mapped 
in such a review, covering the data ingestion and distribution processes. 

o  Mapped table of not more than 1 page per instrument. In context of EQll, such 
a review will underpin the judgement of the extent to which approaches in other 
EU instruments are applicable to EMODnet. 

• 

To further investigate sources of efficiency gains in other instruments, we would seek 
documents that provide judgement, or collects opinions on, the efficiency of work  

processes in other instruments. As such, types of documents that will be relevant to 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
review are: evaluations and impact assessments of other EU Instruments, quarterly and annual reports, 
websites, and stakeholder consultation outcomes. 

• 

The following instruments and frameworks may be of interest to investigate in relation to 

EQll: 

o  Copernicus (Copernicus  Data and Information Access  Services) 
o  Data Collection Framework for Fisheries 
o  GEO 
o 
INSPIRE 
o  EuroGEOSS 
o  ESA TE 
o  European Environment Information and Observation Network (EIONET) 
o  European  Geological  Data  Infrastructure  (EGDI) 
o  EUMETNET 
o  ECMWF 
o 
(European Ocean Observing System) 
o  Biodiversity Information System Europe 
o  Water lnformatin System Europe 
o  Climate-ADAPT 
o  DG ESTAT 
o  Eurostat 
o 
JRC 
o  European  research  infrastructures  and  projects contributing to the 

European Strategy Forum on Research Infrastructures (ESFRI) 

2)  Stakeholder interviews 

•  We foresee that the information on efficiency of working processes in other instruments 

may primarily come from evaluation reports. As such reports may only exist for  a handful 
of the other instruments,  particularly  EU instruments, and since evaluations are carried 
out  relatively infrequently, it may be difficult to find relevant information on efficiency for 
some of the shortlisted instruments. 

• 

To fill this information gap, we propose to  interview relevant stakeholders. To this end, we 
will interview up to 2 stakeholders related to a maximum of 6 platforms, where contact 
details are provided by the European Commission. 

1) 

1)  Policy officers of  the  EC 
2)  Data providers 
3)  EMODnet  users 

• 

• 

• 

• 

A table listing the long list of other relevant instruments, with a short summary of potential 
sources of efficiency gains for  each respective instrument, as well as the  literature on which the 
summary is based. 
A table containing the short list of 4-6 most relevant EU instruments. 

Description of the  work flows of instruments among those shortlisted that have been found to 
be efficient 

Recommendations they have been given for similar problems faced by EMODnet (e.g. difficulty 
to use data, to harmonise data collection and structure) and degree of applicability to  

EMODnet. 

Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

Operationalised  EQ 

•  What are the objectives and implementation needs of the  broader EU policy and legal 

framework on maritime spatial planning, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Nature 
Directives and the Water Framework Directive relate specifically to information provided by 
EMODnet? 

•  What types of information are provided by EMODnet? 

• 

To what extent is the  information provided by EMODnet coherent with (i.e. is in line with 
and does not  run counter to) these objectives and implementation needs? 

•  Were any means or processes put in place to ensure coherence with the objectives and 

implementation needs of the broader EU policy and legal framework 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indicators/Descriptors 

1)  List the objectives and implementation needs of the broader EU policy and legal framework 
on maritime spatial planning, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Nature Directives 
and the Water Framework Directive relating to information provided by EMODnet (in order 
to  work  with a  manageable  number  of  EU  policy  objectives  we  focus  on the  four  areas 
mentioned in the Terms of Reference) 

2)  List the types of information provided by EMODnet 
3)  Overview  of  synergies  and inconsistencies  between  the  data  provided  by  EMODnet  and  the 

broader EU policy and legal framework 

4)  Stakeholders' views on coherence of objectives and implementation needs of the broader 

EU policy and legal framework and information provided by EMODnet 

5)  List of means or processes put in place to  ensure coherence with the objectives and 

implementation needs of the broader  EU policy and legal framework 

Data sources 

1)  Literature review: 

Birds Directive 
Habitats Directive 

•  Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 
•  Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
• 
• 
•  Water Framework Directive 
•  Marine Strategy Framework Directive 
• 
• 
• 

Communication on Marine Knowledge 2020 
Common Fisheries Policy Regulation 
Data Collection Regulation for  Fisheries 

2)  Desk research, data analysis: 

• 
• 
• 

Extract the objectives of the broader policy framework 
List types of data provided by EMODnet 
Triangulate own assessment of EMODnet's contribution to these objectives with 
assessment by interviewees 

3)  Survey/stakeholder interviews with DG MARE staff involved in the set-up of EMODnet, EU 
policy officers involved in maritime/biodiversity/water policy (primarily) but also registered 
users (public/private) of EMODnet data 
•  Were any means or processes put in place to ensure coherence with the objectives and 
implementation needs related to maritime spatial planning, the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive, Nature Directives and the Water Framework Directive (Interview 

-DG MARE staff involved in the set-up of EMODnet) o 
can you describe these? 

If yes, 

• 

Do you consider the data provided by EMODnet to contribute to the objectives and 
implementation needs one of the following policy initiatives? 

o  Maritime spatial planning, 
o 
o 
o 

The Marine Strategy Framework  Directive 
The Nature Directives 
The Water Framework Directive? (Interview -EU policy officers involved in 
maritime/biodiversity/water policy & survey, providing the option "do not 
know") 

• 

Do you consider the data provided by EMODnet to run counter the objectives and 
implementation needs of one of the following policy initiatives? 

o  Maritime spatial planning, 
o 
o 
o 

The Marine Strategy Framework  Directive 
The Nature Directives 
The Water Framework  Directive? (EU policy officers involved in 

maritime/biodiversity/water  policy  &  survey  providing  the  option  "do  not know") 

1)  Desk  research  of  the  relevant  policy  documents  related  to  maritime  spatial  planning,  the 
Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Nature Directives and the Water Framework Directive 
to  extract  the  objectives  and  implementation  needs  of  the  broader  EU  policy  and  legal 
framework 

2)  List the types of data provided by EMODnet 
3)  Assessment of whether the information provided by EMODnet is contributing to or running 

counter these objectives and implementation needs 

4)  Triangulation of own assessment with that of interviewees (EU policy officers with 

knowledge of these Directives) 

5)  Assessment  of whether this consistency  was taken into account  when developing EMODnet 

Method 

58 

 
 
Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

Survey with EMODnet users: questions on EMODnet's contribution or inconsistency with 

6) 
these objectives (including the option "do not know"as we cannot assume that the average 
EMODnet user is familiar with these Directives) 

1)  EMODnet users 
2)  EU policy makers 
3)  DG MARE  policy  officers 

• 

• 

• 

List of objectives and implementation needs of the  broader EU policy and legal framework 
on maritime spatial planning, the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Nature Directives 
and the  Water Framework Directive 

Stakeholders'  views on the coherence of objectives and implementation needs of the 
broader EU policy and legal framework on maritime spatial planning, the Marine Strategy 
Framework Directive, Nature Directives and the Water Framework Directive and and 
information provided by EMODne 
Concrete contribution of EMODnet to  EU policy objectives and implementation in the fields 

of marine policy, water policy and biodiversity policy 

Operationalised  EQ 

1)  To what extent is the  data provided by the  separate EMODnet thematic groups 

complementary to each other? To what extent does it  overlap? 

2)  To what extent is the  data across the  thematic groups consistent, i.e. follows common 

standards and nomenclature? 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Does EMODnet's approach towards data holders that are not used to  practices and 
standards as used by the international marine data management community improve 
consistency among the data provided by the separate EMODnet thematic groups 
relating to each other? 

Does  the  workflow  process  of  EMODnet's  data  ingestion  portal from  data  submission 
to  publication support consistency? 

Does EMODnet's further elaboration of the dataset package and integration in 
national, European and EMODnet thematic portals improve consistency of the data 
across portals? 
Are there any other measures taken to improve the consistency among the data 
provided by the separate EMODnet thematic groups relating to each other? 

3)  To what extent can the  data across thematic portals be merged to create common 

datasets/maps? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

1)  Stakeholders' views on the relatability of separate EMODnet thematic groups 
2)  Stakeholders' views on consistency of relatable data provided by separate EMODnet 

thematic groups 

3)  Stakeholders' views on the  overlap between the data provided by the different thematic 

groups 

4)  Stakeholders' views on the EMODnet's approach towards data holders that are not used to 

practices and standards as used by the international marine data management community on 
improved consistency of relatable data provided by separate EMODnet thematic groups 

5)  Stakeholders' views on the workflow process of EMODnet's data ingestion portal from data 
submission to  publication on improved consistency of relatable data provided by separate EMODnet 
thematic groups 

6)  Stakeholders'  views  on  EMODnet's  further  elaboration  of  the  dataset  package  and 
integration in national, European and EMODnet thematic portals improved consistency of 
relatable data provided by separate EMODnet thematic groups 

7)  Measures taken to improve the consistency among the data provided by the separate 

EMODnet thematic groups relating to each other 

8)  Potential to merge data across thematic portals to create common datasets/maps 

Data  sources 

1)  Survey/Stakeholder  interviews  with  registered  users  (public/private)  of  EMODnet  data, 

EMODnet  data  suppliers/partners and EMODnet  organisation 
• 

Do you consider that the EMODnet Data Ingestion Portal provides sufficient guidance 
for  data holders that are not familiar with the international practices and standards on 
marine data management to ensure consistency of the uploaded data? (interviews - 

EMODnet data suppliers/partners and EMODnet organisation) 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Method 

Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

• 

Do you consider theprocessing of the data by the data centres and integration in 
national, European and EMODnet thematic portals to improve consistency of the 
uploaded data?  (interviews - EMODnet data suppliers/partners and EMODnet 
organisation) 

•  What measures are taken to improve the consistency among the data provided by the 

separate EMODnet thematic groups relating to each other? (Interviews - EMODnet 
organisation) 
Do you use data from more than one thematic portal? 
o 
o 
Do you consider  the  data  provided  by the separate  EMODnet  thematic groups  relating 
to each other to be consistent? (survey -  EMODnet users) 

If so, is the data you use in the different data portals complementary? 
If so, does this data overlap? (survey -  EMODnet users) 

• 

• 

1)  Survey 
• 

EMODnet users 

2)  Stakeholder interviews 

• 
• 

EMODnet organisation 
EMODnet data suppliers/partners 

1)  EMODnet users 
2)  EMODnet data suppliers/partners 
3)  EMODnet organisation 

• 
• 

• 

• 

• 

List of overlaps between data provision of different thematic groups 
List of complementarities between the data provided by the separate EMODnet thematic 
groups 
Assessment of the processing of the data by the data centres and its impact on consistency 
of the uploaded data 
Assessment of EMODnet's approach towards data holders that are not familiar with the 
practices and standards used by the international marine data management community 
List of measures taken to improve consistency among data provided by the separate 
EMODnet thematic groups relating to each otherConcrete  contribution of EMODnet to  EU 
policy  objectives  and  implementation in the  fields  of  marine  policy,  water  policy  and 

biodiversity policy 

Operationalised EQ 

Regarding the wording of the question, we will use the  following definitions: 

•  We understand "set up" to mean the modus operandi of other instruments; 
• 

and "scope" to refer to the target stakeholders and services provided by other instruments. 

• 

To what extent is the set up and scope of EMODnet coherent with other EU instruments? 
o  What complementarities are there between EMODnet and other EU instruments? 
o  What overlaps are there between the set up and scope of EMODnet and other EU 

instruments? 

o  What synergies are there between EMODnet  and other EU instruments? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

1)  Stakeholders' view on set up and scope coherence of EMODnet in context of other EU 

instruments. 

2)  Stakeholders' view on overlaps between EMODnet and similar platforms 
3)  Stakeholders' view on complementarities between EMODnet and similar platforms 
4)  Stakeholders'  view on synergies  between EMODnet  and similar platforms 
1)  Literature review related to EU instruments similar to EMODnet that are relevant to review 
for this question include: websites ("about us" section), technical guidelines, and directives. 
Below is a list of preliminary sources that may be used to  map the working practices and 
scope of similar EU instruments, depending on whether they are included in the shortlist of 
4-6 instruments for review or not: 
• 

Biodiversity Information System for  Europe (n.d.) About BISE -  Biodiversity 
Information system for  Europe. 
European Centre for  Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (2013) What we do. 
European Commission (n.d.) About EuroGEOSS. EuroGEOSS. 
European Commission (n.d.) About INSPIRE. 
European Commission (2014) Copernicus in brief. 

• 
• 
• 
• 

Data sources 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

European  Commission  (n.d.)  DataCollection. 

• 
{ESFRI). 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 
• 

European  Commission  (n.d.)  European  Strategy  Forum  on  Research  Infrastructures 

European Commission  {2016) Fisheries sector: data collection 

European Environment Agency (n.d.) About Eionet. 

European Meteorological Services Network (n.d.) 

European Multidisciplinary Seafloor and water column Observatory (n.d.) What is 
EMSO. 

European Ocean Observing System (n.d.) What is EOOS 

European Plate Observing System (n.d.) What  is EPOS. 

Group on Earth Observations (n.d.) GEO at  a glance. 

Marine Information System for  Europe (n.d.) About WISE Marine -  Marine. 
SeaDataNet  (n.d.)  About us. [Online]. SeaDataNet 

2)  Stakeholder interviews with 

• 

EMODnet end-users: 

o  Can any of the  data you retrieve from EMODnet be retrieved from other 

portals? If so, is it presented in a different way on EMODnet? Or would you 
say it  is a duplication of effort? 

• 

EMODnet data providers: 

o  Of the  data you provide to  EMODnet: is any of  it  provided to  another 
portal(s)? If so, do these portals use it  in the  same way as EMODnet? 

• 

Ask EMODnet organisation and other platform managers: 

o  Does EMODnet carry out any activities in their workflow that duplicates the 

work of any other platform? 

o  Does EMODnet complement the work/output  of other platforms (if so, how)? 
o  How  can synergies  between  EMODnet  and other  platform  be increased? 
o  How  can overlaps  between  EMODnet  and other  platforms  be  decreased? 

Method 

1)  Desk research 

• 

• 

This question is similar to EQll, which relates to the efficiency between EMODnet and 
other, similar EU information systems and instruments. Before these two  questions can 
be addressed, it is crucial that the scope of similar instruments is mapped out. Thus, 
the desk research will give an understanding of: 
the work processes of other instruments 
the areas in which EMODnet duplicates work of other services 
the areas in which EMODnet enhances or complements other services. 

o 
o 
o 

In context of EQ14, this will underpin the judgement of the extent to which EMODnet 
overlaps or complements other EU instruments. This literature will be coded 
qualitatively with help of the qualitative data analysis software NVivo. 

•  We suggest to  review the same list of 4-6 other EU instruments as listed in EQll 

2)  Stakeholder Interviews 

• 

• 

As the  functioning of information collection and distribution systems have high 
complexity, information accessible on websites may provide too little information, and 
technical guidelines may be too  detailed to provide a good overview of activities and 
services that may be overlapping or synergetic between instruments. 

Interviews will therefore be a source of information where information can be 
gathered at the  appropriate level (not too much or too  little detail). 

•  We suggest to interview up to two persons from the 4-6 shortlisted platforms (and that 

these are the same as those interviewed for EQll). 

• 

Interview notes will be coded with the qualitative data analysis software NVivo. 

Stakeholders 

1)  Policy officer & platform manager from platforms similar to  EMODnet. 
2)  EMODnet end-users 
3)  EMODnet data providers 
4)  EMODnet portal managers 

Expected outcome 

• 

Long list of other relevant instruments (incl. short summary of target users, end-service, 
thematic focus, and data ingestion and processing work flow), judgement criteria to build 
short list, and 4-6 EU instruments  short list 

A coded set of interview notes that will contain end-users, data providers, and portal managers of 
EMODnet and other instruments views on: 

• 
• 

• 

Potential complementarities between EMODnet and other  portals 
Potential overlaps between EMODnet and other portals 

Potential synergies between EMODnet and other portals 

61 

 
 
 
 
Operationalised EQ 

Given the  cost structure of EMODnet  and the  impact that the funding of the EC has on the 
effectiveness  of EMODnet  we can determine the impact of stopping the  cash flow towards the 
platform. To determine  this we need to  understand: 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data sources 

To what extent depends EMODnet on the EU funding? 
Does the funding impact the effects/effectiveness of EMODnet? 

• 
• 
•  Which costs are affected by the  EU involvement? 
1)  Quantified link between funding and effectiveness 
2)  Cost allocations per service provided, per activity 
3)  Cost forecast for the following years  based on indicators of EQ8 and EQlO 
1)  Desk research 

• 

Using the  financial statements EMODnet we will determine: 

o  Cost evolution of various cost centres (fixed, variable, employment, IT, ...) 
Based on EQ8 determine which cost categories are highly impacted by EU 
o 
funding 

• 
• 

• 

Funding agreement and structure of EMODnet 
Analysis of expected cost evolution 

o  Based on the interview insights and findings of the financial statements we 

will estimate the impact of the EU funding on the cost structure 

Based on our findings in EQ8 we will estimate the evolution of costs based on a variety 
of parameters like expected user evolution, cost structure evolution, expected 
development costs, etc. in order to estimate if costs will increase or decrease in the 
short and medium term 

2)  Stakeholder interviews with EMODnet organisation in order to gather more insights into the 
cost structure, input for most of the analysis can be gathered by interview questions posed 
in EQ8 and EQ9 
•  Which activities  within EMODnet are fully subsidized  by the  EC 
•  Which activities require no external input from the EC 
• 

Do you expect there to be an increase in required development costs towards the 
future 

3)  Literature review 

• 

Legacy documents  of comparable  EU initiatives in the  past (mentioned in EQ14) 

Method 

1)  Desk research, Financial analysis 

• 

• 

Based on the cost structure  determined  in EQ8 we will determine  the  relative  impact of 
EU funding on each of the cost elements  of EMODnet  and assess the  impact it  has on 
the underlying effectiveness 
This effectiveness  will be cross checked  with the results  of the literature  review of the 
legacy documents of comparable EU initiatives of which funding has already been 
stopped or altered 

2)  Stakeholder interviews with EMODnet organization 

 1) 

•  We propose that the interviews will be held at the same time as the  interviews of EQ8 
EMODnet organisation 
•  Expected cost evolution of EMODnet over the coming years 
• 

Impact of EU funding on costs and performance of the platform 

Expected outcome 

Operationalised EQ 

To what extent are other parties capable and willing to maintain and develop EMODnet? Which 
options are available and what would be the impact? 

• 
• 
• 

Self-financing 
Stop activity, sale to other platform 
Integration  in other  national  or  international  platform 

o  Downscaling of geographical scale 
o  Upscaling to  global scale 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What is the  willingness to  pay by the different stakeholders  within EMODnet,  being users, 
suppliers  (member  states)? 

Indicators/Descriptors 

Data  sources 

1)  Total cost of running EMODnet 
2)  Willingness to  pay per user archetype 
1)  Survey  within userbase of EMODnet  based on interview insights 

• 

• 

Are you willing to pay for additional services/products provided by EMODnet like data 
analysis, customised reports, etc 
Are you willing to pay for faster/larger data access 

2)  Stakeholder interviews with national suppliers 

• 

• 
• 

Do you think there is a willingness to  take over part of the EMODnet activities  within 
your national setting 
Are there certain thematic focus areas of EMODnet which are particularly valuable? 
Do you this EMODnet would be more or less profitable if it would scale its activity up or 
down 

3)  Stakeholder interviews with EMODnet organisation' 

• 
• 

Do you think there is a willingness to  pay by the users 
Do you think products could be developed based on the platform from which revenue 
can be generated 

•  Which funding would be required in order to make EMODnet self financing 

4)  Stakeholder interview with European Commission 

Is there a possibility/added value to internalize the EMODnet operations 

5) 

• 
Literature review 
• 
• 

Agreements  with dataproviders on data-use 
Assessment of legacy documents of comparable EU data platforms 

Method 

In  order  to  determine  the  possible  futures  of  the  platform  we  aim  to  identify  the  willingness  and 
capabilities  of  other  parties  to  run  the  platform.  The  answer  of  this  question  will  build  on  insights 
gathered in during previous questions including EQ3, EQ4 and EQS 
In addition insights will be gathered through: 

• 

• 

Interviews with 
o  National suppliers, 
o  EMODnet organisation, 
o  European Commission 
Survey amongst the userbase 

Stakeholders 

Expected outcome 

1)  EMODnet organisation 
2)  European Commission/  DG Mare 
3)  EMODnet Users 
4)  EMODnet Suppliers 
• 
• 

Overview  of the possible scenarios of legacy management of the EMODnet  platform. 
Scenarios linked to the outcome of the interviews and the expected possibilities of revenue 
generation of EMODnet. 
o 

Base case scenario will be keeping EMODnet going under its current structure and 
assess the required revenue generation to offset the European funding. 

o  Other scenarios include the sale of EMODnet to another public organisation (for e.g. 

UN), to a private company (for e.g. data providers), or getting the required funding from national 
member states {data providing member states) 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
10  ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS - TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION  

How was the intervention designed 

EMODnet is not resulting from one single specific legislation setting obligations for Member States, public bodies or private entities, with a dedicated 
budget  line.  Instead,  the  EMODnet  action  was  setup  progressively  with  references  in  several  documents  such  as  Communication  or  Regulations.  The 
funding has not been earmarked in a specific legal text. Parallel and successive contracts have been established with more than 120 beneficiaries and the 
action has not incurred costs to Member States. Nevertheless, it achieved saving for the community, including for Member States public bodies, by making 
available for free, openly and readily data at European level data which users should have searched, obtained the agreement and downloaded by itself 
otherwise. 

The approach selected in the external evaluation study [12] to estimate cost benefit was therefore based on the Expected Impacts listed under Section 2.1 
i.e.  the  gains  in  Productivity,  Innovation  and  Reduced  uncertainty.  As  most  of  the  input,  including  quantitative,  come  from  users  but  of  course  this 
quantification varies depending on the users, the benefits were assessed in a low scenario and and high scenario where users  relate moderate and large 
benefit respectively. 

While details of this quantitative assessment are provided in section 4.1 under 'Efficiency and effectiveness', the summary of these is provided in the same 
section in Table 3. As mentioned in the introduction, the share of business is estimated to 25%. In the tables below, we have therefore assigned this share 
of benefits to business and 75% under administration, having in mind that these 75% also include NGOs.  Cumulated benefits related to 'Innovation' and 
'Reduced  uncertainty'  are  reported  in  table  1.  The  'Productivity'  gains  translate  into  savings  and  are  presented  in  table  2  on  simplification  and  burden 
reduction. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation16 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

EU 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 
 MEur 

Comment 

Quantitative  
MEur 

Comment  

Quantitative  
MEur 

Comment 

Cost or Benefit description: 

Mark the type of cost/benefit, 
each on a separate line: 

Not Applicable 
(NA) 

NA 

Costs: 
Direct compliance costs 
(adjustment costs, administrative 
costs, regulatory charges) 
Enforcement costs:  (costs 
associated with activities linked to 
the implementation of an initiative 
such as monitoring, inspections 
and adjudication/litigation) 
Indirect costs (indirect 
compliance costs or other indirect 
costs such as transaction costs) 

Benefits: 
Direct benefits (such as improved 
well being: changes  in pollution 
levels, safety, health, 
employment; market efficiency) 
Indirect benefits (such as wider 
economic benefits, 
macroeconomic benefits, social 
impacts, environmental impacts)  

Type: 
Recurrent 

30-73 

Direct economic 
benefit, per year, 
based on Table 2, 
assigning 25% of 
benefits to 
businesses 

90-219 

Direct economic 
benefit, per year 
based on Table 
2, assigning 75% 
of benefits to 
administrations  

7 

per year, from 
EMFF 

Direct:  
contribute 
reporting 
MSPD 
MSFD 

to 
for 
and 

Indirect: 
availability  of 
data  used  by 
EEA  and  JRC 
for their work 

16 Where there is a prior impact assessment, the table should contain as a minimum the costs/benefits identified in the IA with the information gathered on the actual cost/benefit. As 
available,  the  table  should  include  the  monetisation  (€)  of  the  costs/benefits  based  on  any  quantitative  translation  of  the  data  (time  taken,  person  days,  number  of 
records/equipment/staff etc. affected or involved represented in monetary value  – see Standard cost model, for example). For all information presented, it should be included in the 
comments section whether it relates to all Member States or is drawn from a subset. An indication of the robustness of the data should be provided in Annex II on Methodology and 
analytical models used. 

65 

 
                                                 
                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 2:  Simplification and burden reduction (savings already achieved)  
Report any simplification, burden reduction and cost savings achieved already by the intervention evaluated, including the points of comparison/ where available (e.g. REFIT savings 
predicted in the IA or other sources).  

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Public bodies /Administrations  [Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative   

Comment 

Quantitative  
MEur 

Comment 

Quantitative  
MEur 

Comment  

Quantitative  Comment 

Title17 Cost savings for businesses, public bodies and administration having access centrally to data instead of having to request it to individual data owners 

Type: recurrent 

NA 

NA 

7-29 

per year, see [12, 
Table 5-4]  

22-86 

per  year,  see 
[12, Table 5-4] 

Identify further potential simplification and savings that could be achieved with a view to make the initiative more effective and efficient without prejudice to its policy objectives18. 

PART II: II Potential simplification and burden reduction (savings) 

Citizens/Consumers/Workers 

Businesses 

Public bodies/ 
Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative  

Comment 

Quantitative 

Comment   Quantitative 

Comment 

Description: Further cost savings could occur if data was systematically made available with data coverage, accuracy improved and support more reporting obligations 

Type:  recurrent 

Extra  savings  and 
more 
innovation 
would  be  enabled 
by  better  coverage, 
better 
resolution, 
better accuracy  

savings 
by 

Extra 
possible 
facilitating 
more  reporting 
obligations 
under  MSP, 
MSFD or other 

17    Each simplification/saving should be included on a separate line.  

18    This assessment is without prejudice to a possible future Impact Assessment. 

66 

 
 
 
                                                 
               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11  ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION- SYNOPSES REPORT 

Two consultations have been carried out, both online: 

1) a consultation organised in the context of the external evaluation study [12] (the detailed report can be found in the Annex to the report on the external 
study [13] with a data collection period between 09/11/2018 and 09/12/2018 in the section Annex 5- Survey results). 

2) a public consultation organised by the European Commission services [14] between 06 March 2019 - 29 May 2019. The factual summary report of the 
public  consultation 
is  available  at:  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/1538-Evaluation-of-EMODnet/public-
consultation_en). The contributions received cannot be regarded as the official position of the Commission and its services and thus does not bind the 
Commission nor that the contributions can be considered as a representative sample of the EU population. 

While the first consultation collected 430 responses and was strongly and pro-actively targeting EMODnet users (including registered users), the second 
consultation was open to the public and obtained only 46 respondents i.e. is less statically representative.  

The processing of data is standard: in both cases i.e. percentages of respondents are calculated for the different possible answers. The percentages below 
all report percentages based on the number of respondents who have expressed an opinion. 

The questionnaire of the second consultation was strongly focussed on collecting information for the purpose of the evaluation, was organised along the 
evaluation criteria: effectiveness, relevance, coherency, efficiency and EU-added value, had a strong focus on EU related initiatives and policies and was 
very  coherent  with  the  objectives  set  out  in  the  2010  Impact  Assessment  i.e.  improve  productivity,  increase  innovation,  reduce  uncertainty.  The 
questionnaire of the first consultation also included questions on the evaluation criteria, questions were in most cases more detailed, covered a broader 
scope and were more targeting the operational aspects of EMODnet and less the aspects of how EMODnet serves EU policies. For example, there were 
questions  on the functioning of EMODnet, on which other platforms  users are also working  and  on strengths  and weaknesses of EMODnet.  The two 
consultations provide therefore slightly different angles. 

Regarding who are the contributors, in both cases, the largest share of the respondents is from academia (61% and 39% respectively) followed by public 
authorities and the private sector. The civil society has much larger shares in the second consultation (20%) than in the first (2%). The first consultation 
provides further insights and more details regarding the sector of activity and use od the data made by the respondents, see Figure i). A large majority of 

67 

 
 
respondents (65%) work in the field of environment, followed by maritime spatial planning (27%) fisheries (24%), aquaculture (17%), and energy (16%). 
As expected, the use of the data accessed through EMODnet is marine research was the most often-cited purpose (53% of the responses), followed by 
marine mapping (43%), modelling (36%) and environmental monitoring (30%). This is overall coherent with the sector of activities.  

Figure i) Sector of activity of respondents (left, several sectors could be selected) – what respondents use EMODnet for (right) 

Regarding the relevance, the second consultation shows that 91% of respondents assess the contribution of EMODnet to MSPD between essential and very 
useful, 82% for MSFD. The percentage falls to 60% when it comes to renewable energy industry. The first consultation had a more user-oriented approach 
and found out that 34% of the respondents are not able to perform their work without EMODnet and 39% acknowledge that it contributes to their work but 
is not crucial. The external evaluation study has also assessed the impact on the availability of marine data, see Figure ii). The stakeholders community 

68 

 
 
clearly agrees or strongly agrees that thnaks to EMODnet, more data is available compared to before (83%), that this data is better linked to other data 
(72%), that this contributes to more innovation (65 %) and higher quality (65 %). 

Figure ii) Impact of EMODnet on marine data availability 

Regarding the effectiveness, the second consultation shows that 33% of those who expressed an opinion estimated that and it has improved greatly the 
productivity of those working in sea (e.g., by avoiding new measurements where they have already been made or reducing the time taken to gather data 
from  different  sources),  49%  estimated  that  EMODnet  has  improved  innovation  i.e.  contributed  to  develop  have  new  products  or  services  and  57% 
estimating that EMODnet has reduced uncertainty in our knowledge of the nature, state or dynamics of our seas and oceans. The first consultation shows 
that 82% of the respondents agree that to a great extent or a certain extent EMODnet allowed them to access new data or data that was previously difficult 
to access but only 45% agree that to a great extent or to a certain extent it contributes to provide new or additional services (innovation). The external 
evaluation  study  provides  an  assessment  of  the  data  accessible  through  EMODnet.  While  respondents  agree  or  strongly  agree  that  EMODnet  data  is 
multidisciplinary (86%), that the sources are clearly identified (85%) and consistent standards and formats are used (79%), they also point out at a partial 
coverage  with  only  57%  of  respondents  finding  that  data  gaps  are  clearly  identified,  38%  that  the  country  coverage  is  adequate  and  26%  that  data  is 
complete. Clearly, there are still significant efforts needed to improve the coverage. 

69 

 
 
Figure iii) Assessment of EMODnet data 

Regarding efficiency, the second consultation shows that 56% of the respondents estimate that results could not have been achieved with fewer resources. 
The first consultation reports that 56% of the respondents estimate that EMODnet increased their organisation productivity (to a great extent, 12%, to a 
certain  extent 42%).  Both  public consultations  did  not  put  much emphasis  in  collecting  feedback  on the efficiency.  In the main report of the external 
evaluation study however (section 6), a thorough and quantified analysis is carried out which shows that the benefits are estimated to 20 times the costs. 
One should recognise that external stakeholders do not have the budgetary elements to assess quantitatively the efficiency. 

On Coherence, the second consultation concluded that 22% of respondents found that EMODnet was completely complementary  with other EU or regional 
initiatives on marine data and 65%  expressed that it could be better coordinated. It is to be noted that on all the questions related to coherence, about half 
of the respondents did not have an opinion. The first consultation took a data-oriented approach and found out that 71% of the respondents considered that 
data on other portals complements EMODnet data to a great or a certain extent while only 35% considered that EMODnet provide access to the same data 
than other sources, see Figure iv). 

70 

 
 
Figure iv) Coherence with other data sources 

Regarding  EU-added  value,  86%  of  respondents  to  the  second  consultation  estimate  that  EMODnet  network  could  not  have  been  done  without  EU 
intervention. The first consultation took a different angle asking if EMODnet was covering the geographical scope they needed to what 36% responded 
that their need was limited to EU Member States but 50% required that data covered a wider international scope. The external study also points out at other 
added values such as the facilitation of the creation of digital tools (78% agree or strongly agree), an increased willingness to invest in the blue economy 
(56%) and the facilitation to find greener and safer solutions (57%) but only 39% estimate that EMODnet contributes to employment in the blue economy. 

Figure v)  Other added value of EMODnet 

71 

 
 
 
12  ANNEX VI TIMELINE BEFORE 2014 

Before EMODnet 

In 2003, the Environmental Information Directive [30] was published. It requires public authorities to make available environmental information held by 
or for them to any “applicant” requesting that information and without the applicant having to state an interest, in line with the Aarhus Convention [31]. 
The Public Sector Information Directive [28], also from 2003, aimed to facilitate requests for the re-use of documents held by public bodies for commercial 
or non-commercial purposes other than the initial purpose within the public task for which they were produced. In 2005, the EU signed the UN Aarhus 
convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.  

In 2007, The INSPIRE Directive [17] was more ambitious, shifting from asking users to request data, to making data available from where it is produced. 
It aimed to create a digital infrastructure that would allow the users to identify and access spatial or geographical information from a wide range of sources, 
from the local level to the global level, in an inter-operable way for a variety of uses. 

Researchers were  well aware of the value of reliable data, with  common standards across national  borders  and a number of EU-funded projects  were 
devoted to creating interoperable databases. The existence of such database was a necessary condition to develop new innovative services based on these 
data. 

In spite of all these initiatives, a number of issues persisted: 

 

the legislations did not addressed well enough issues such as copyright, confidentiality and in some cases, research centres or universities were not 
covered by the legislation.  

  Government agencies were encouraged to become self-sufficient and were not overly keen to hand their expensively–collected data over for others 

to undercut the services they offered using these data  

  Attempts by government agencies to recover funds by charging some of the costs resulted in usage dry up (e.g. Landsat images) 

72 

 
 
 
 
  Databases did not maintain themselves and once research projects finished, the databases were abandoned; the FP7 project EGDI-Scope: 'Scoping 
study for a pan-European geological data infrastructure'19 estimated that between €400 and €700 million had been wasted in this way. A possible 
exception was the SeaDataNet which linked national ocean data centres. Owing to the high level of support from national research ministries, it was 
funded from successive EU research infrastructure. 

This was the rationale for setting up a European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet). 

2007-2013 Setting the foundations 

First prototype 

In the absence of any legal basis to fund such steps, in 2007 the European Parliament voted a budget of €6.3 million for Preparatory Actions to develop a 
prototype to improve the interoperability of data held by public bodies, to facilitate access to the data and prepare data products. The Commission launched 
calls for tender to select contractors to do the work.  

The data products can be understood as digital maps where individual observations are interpolated to provide a value of a parameter such as water depth, 
seafloor sediments or pollution concentrations at all locations in a sea-basin. The tenders called for the work to be done by groups specializing on the 
parameters being measured – topographical, biological, geological, chemical etc. - and not focusing on a particular technology, a particular EU policy or a 
particular geographical area as had been usual in research projects with similar aims. The initiative was funded through procurements rather than grants in 
order to define better what needed to be delivered and to secure European Commission’s ownership. 

The successful contractors were obliged to provide written permission from data owners to distribute these data openly and free of charge. In this preparatory 
phase, the focus was to cover data and observation to a limited number of sea-basins. The projects were of 3 years duration and began in mid-2009. An 
additional budget was voted in 2009 which allowed the coverage of the bathymetry to be extended and for a thematic group to be set up dedicated to 
physical parameters which had not been covered in the first batch. 

19 https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/312845 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Theme 

Coverage 

Habitats 

North Sea, Baltic, Celtic Seas, Western Mediterranean 

Bathymetry  North Sea, Celtic Seas, the Western Mediterranean, the Ionian Sea and the Central Mediterranean; 

Biology 

North Sea, Bay of Biscay and the Iberian Coast  

Chemistry  North Sea and Black Sea 

Geology 

North Sea, Baltic and Celtic Seas 

Bathymetry  Iberian Coast, Bay of Biscay, Adriatic Levantine 

Physics 

All European waters 

Budget (M€) 

Start 

0.8 

February 2009 

1.175 

0.750 

0.700 

0.925 

1.0 

May 2009 

May 2009 

June 2009 

July 2009 

June 2010 

1.0  December 2010 

Table 1 Prototype EMODnet supported by preparatory actions 

Impact assessment, interim evaluation and second prototype EMODnet 

In 2010, an impact assessment confirmed that the benefits of an operational EMODnet would greatly exceed the cost [9]. Based on this, the Commission’s 
‘Marine Knowledge 2020’ Communication of 2012 [3] proposed that the preparatory actions be evaluated to determine whether or not the same structure 
could form the basis of an operational system that could achieve these benefits.  

An interim evaluation confirmed that the basic structure of EMODnet was sound but that continuity was needed in order to give confidence to those public 
and private bodies that were building new services and products based on the EMODnet data and data products. A second prototype was then launched 
financed by a new instrument adopted in 2011 covering the last years of the EU’s 2007-2014 multiannual financial framework.  

The scope of the network moved from a limited number of sea-basins to all European sea basins, including the waters shared with non-EU neighbours. In 
addition to the 6 existing thematic groups, a new group was set up to assemble data on human activity in order to meet the needs of environmental policy 
and spatial planning. The duration of the projects was again set to 3 years. 

74 

 
 
 
Theme 

Budget (M€)  start 

Bathymetry 

Geology 

Habitats 

Chemistry 

Biology 

Physics 

2.0 

July 2013 

4.3  October 2013 

1.38  August 2013 

4.0 

July 2013 

1.7  August 2013 

0.985 

July 2013 

Human activity 

2.0  October 2013 

Table 2 Second prototype of EMODnet 

Vision for longer-term, and consultation 

The 2010 Green Paper on marine knowledge for 2020 [3] the following vision was set out for EMODnet: 

'A seamless multi-resolution digital seabed map of European waters by 2020. It should be of the highest resolution possible, covering topography, geology, 
habitats  and  ecosystems.  It  should  be  accompanied  by  access  to  timely  observations  and  information  on  the  present  and  past  physical,  chemical  and 
biological state of the overlying water column, by associated data on human activities, by their impact on the sea and by oceanographic forecasts. All this 
should be easily accessible, interoperable and free of restrictions on use. It should be nourished by a sustainable process that progressively improves its 
fitness for purpose and helps Member States maximise the potential of their marine observation, sampling and surveying programmes'. 

A public consultation was then launched with a scope that was wider than EMODnet covering also, for instance, observation technology and Copernicus. 
There were 244 replies. Although some suggested that the bathymetry and geology could be merged, those consulted agreed that the 7 groups should be 
retained, at least for the next phase of EMODnet. The biology group did not deal with fisheries in order not to overlap with the Data Collection Framework 
but an overwhelming majority of civil society, researchers and private bodies as well as a substantial minority of public authorities considered that an 
additional EMODnet  group on fisheries should be set  up in  order to  foster collaboration between the fisheries  and marine research  communities. The 
respondents, moreover, considered that that the groups should meet regularly to avoid divergence. The need to provide a portal giving access to data and 
data products from all groups was emphasised. 

75 

 
 
 
In June 2013, the Council invited the Commission "to develop a roadmap towards a sustainable structure that is driven by the needs and priorities of public 
authorities, industry, the research community and other stakeholders" and to "continue building synergies between the various EU data, information and 
knowledge initiatives".  

In November 2013, the European Parliament also considered that the initiative needed 'a specific action plan setting out medium- and long-term goals, 
based on a concerted effort by the EU and the Member States'. A dedicated budget has been set aside for this purpose within the part of the 2014-2020 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund earmarked for the integrated maritime policy. Since 2014, EMODnet is supported by the EU’s integrated maritime 
policy EMFF and updated in 2021 by EMFAF. 

Evolution of Thematic data coverage after 2014: 

Thematic Groups 

Starting 
time 

Thematic DATA coverage before 2014 

Thematic DATA coverage after 2014 

Physics 

Q4 2010 

Temperature 
Waves 
currents 
Sea-level 
Light penetration 

Temperature Wave height and duration 
Wind speed and direction 
Salinity 
Horizontal speed of the water column 
Water clarity 
Changes  in sea level 
Inflow from rivers 
Water conductivity  
Atmospheric parameters 
Underwater noise 

76 

 
 
 
Sediment map at a scale of one to one Million 

Geology 

Q3 2009 

Strata 
Coastal erosion 
Geological hazards 

Chemistry 

Q2 2009 

Concentrations of chemicals in water, sediments 
and biota 

Seabed substrate 
Sediment accumulation rates 
Seafloor lithology 
Seafloor stratigraphy 
Coastal behaviour 
Geological events and probabilities 
Mineral occurences 

Acidity 
Antifoulants 
Chlorophyll 
Dissolved gases 
Fertilisers 
Hydrocarbons  
Marine litter (micro, beach, seafloor) 
Heavy metals 
Organic matter 
Polychlorinated biphenyls 
Pesticides  
and biocides 
Radionuclides 
Silicates 

77 

 
Biology 

Q2 2009 

Abundance of living species 

Occurrences and abundances of species of: 
Phytoplankton 
Zooplankton 
Macro-algae 
Angiosperm 
Fish 
Reptile 
Benthos 
Bird 
Sea mammal 

Sea Bed Habitats 

Q1 2009 

Habitat classification based on physical 
parameters: 
(water depth, light penetration, sediments)  

Seabed habitat maps (broad-scale and specific per basin) 
Individual seabed habitat maps  
from surveys 
Environmental variables influencing habitat type (depth, salinity, 
currents, light, …) 

78 

 
Human Activity 

Q3 2013 

Aggregate extraction 
Mariculture  
Cultural heritage 
Dredging 
Fisheries zones 
Major ports 
Ocean energy facilities 
Hydrocarbon extraction  
Pipelines and cables 
Protected areas 
Commercial shipping, recreational shipping  
Waste disposal  
Wind farms 
Other forms of area 
management/designation 

Aggregate extraction 
Aquaculture 
Cultural heritage 
Dredging 
Fisheries 
Hydrocarbon extraction 
Traffic in main ports 
Ocean energy facilities 
Pipelines and cables 
Protected areas 
Status of bathing sites 
Vessel density 
Waste disposal 
Wind farms 
Other forms of area management/designation 

Bathymetry 

Q2 2009 

Coastlines,  
Underwater feature (wrecks) 

Hydrography – bathymetry (water depth),  

Survey tracks 
Water depth and depth profiles 
Undersea features 
High resolution bathymetry in coastal areas 

79 

 
80