Deliverables

The report highlights the complexity of the ocean observing landscape and how that influences the clarity of the foresight that can be achieved. The ocean observing landscape is interconnected at all levels. This complex landscape has grown organically, as different stakeholders have understood the importance of ocean observing for understanding our climate, the provision on ecosystem services such as food and generally for understanding how the ocean functions. In this complex landscape many initiatives depend on partnerships with other communities and end-users. It is imperative that the current coordination and partnership efforts are supported, reinforced and possibly better organised. This support is needed in different communities such as the ocean research communities, the monitoring community for policy-driven objectives, as well as between these communities.

As most ocean observations are funded at a national level, national coordination and sustainability discussions, should be reinforced by EuroSea and the upcoming EU Ocean Data Collection Framework Directive. At the European level, the European Ocean Observing System (EOOS) framework, supported by EuroSea, will provide the discussion forum to promote the alignment and coordination of integrated observation systems in Europe. EOOS aims to bring together the national, regional and international ocean observing community to enhance ocean observing in Europe.

This report will inform the EuroSea project on the governance implications of its activities, by providing the baseline foresight initiatives and documents to consider duration the project in the preparation of its legacy. This publication is primarily aimed at readers interested in learning more about the international and European ocean observing and forecasting landscape. Interested readers also include stakeholders involved in ocean observing and forecasting, spanning diverse roles from commissioning, managing, funding and coordinating, to developing, implementing, or advising on programmes.

You can find the BioEco Observing Networks List here –

 The workshop consisted of three plenary sessions and eleven Working Group meetings. These Working Groups, including EuroSea participants, met multiple times during 21-24 September 2020. The workshop themes relevant to EuroSea included:

● Convergence of methods and endorsement of best practices
● Data and information management: towards globally scalable interoperability
● Developing community capacities for the creation and use of best practices
● Ethics and best practices for ocean observing and applications
● Fisheries
● Marine Litter/Plastics
● Omics/eDNA
● Partnership Building
● Surface Radiation
● Uncertainty Quantification

The workshop participants came from across the globe (see Figure 1 under Participants) and had a wide range of interests relating to the ocean.

The workshop focused on ways that ocean observing across the value chain (from observations to end user decisions) can use best practices to improve interoperability and our knowledge of the oceans. Ocean practitioners collaboratively addressed best practices as well as recommendations for the Ocean Best Practices System (OBPS) which will guide its next implementation phase.

The recommendations (see Section 8) will broaden community engagement and help the OBPS serve the community and advance efforts along the following key dimensions:

● Data, Information, Knowledge
● Endorsement of methodological documents by communities
● Uptake of methodologies by communities
● Convergence of methods across scales (thematic, local, regional, global)
● Development paths – how does a region/community build best practices? How can the OBPS better support that?

This report provides details of discussions and recommendations for advancement of best practices and the Ocean Best Practices System.

The workshop participants identified key areas that need addressing such as standardisation of protocols, better data management, and improved coordination and communication. The second workshop on seagrass builds on current and parallel global efforts to establish SOPs. Because of these parallel efforts that are laying the groundwork for data management and interoperability, we undertook a European focussed workshop which identified the top 100 priority questions that, if answered, would strongly advance seagrass conservation in Europe towards rich and resilient seagrass ecosystems that would benefit both nature and people. The top 100 questions are spread across 9 themes – Monitoring and Assessment, Biodiversity and Ecology, Drivers and Threats, Conservation and Restoration, Fisheries support, Ecosystem services, Communications, Blue carbon, Governance, Policy and Management.

Whilst EuroSea is focussed within the European region, it is important that components built in this study help progress ocean observation on a global scale, and that Europe gains in efficiency and outcome from this interaction with global experts and structures. To that end, we used the results from D1.2, specifically on zooplankton, to engage the global observing community in an effort to (1) synthesise our current understanding of zooplankton in a changing climate, (2) determine key knowledge gaps, (3) identify all monitoring programmes globally, (4) determine data availability from observing programmes, and (5) design an integrated observing programme that would meet user needs. A review article, currently under review, was developed as an outcome to highlight key knowledge and geographic gaps that need urgent attention.

Moving forward, the two workshops and review article identified the need for improved data availability, standardisation of protocols and better coordination via community engagement (e.g., working groups) and/or regional/global efforts (e.g., European Ocean Observing System, Global Ocean Observing System).

Major accomplishments in implementing the Action Plan are reported, with emphasis on the development of long-term partnerships and collaborations between several international organizations, institutions, expert working groups and other key stakeholder groups responsible for or interested in advancing marine debris monitoring including but not limited to: GOOS, UNEP Global Partnership on Marine Litter (GPML), Group on Earth Observations (GEO) Blue Planet, SCOR Working Group FLOTSAM, MSFD Technical Group on Marine Litter, GESAMP Working Group 40, UNESCO-IOC Working Group on Ocean Best Practices System (OBPS), the Ministry of Environmental Government of Japan (MOEJ), JAMSTEC, or the International Ocean Colour Coordinating Group (IOCCG) Task Force on Remote Sensing of Marine Litter and Debris.

The report presents Marine Plastics Debris as a new emerging EOV and includes the first version of the EOV Specification Sheet prepared based on current international expert guidelines and recommendations for global scale monitoring of marine plastics and other debris. Furthermore, the report summarizes the progress towards establishing common sampling protocols for marine plastic debris in Europe and beyond, in particular sampling protocols and shared survey designs which would augment existing ocean observing approaches and thereby also increase the readiness level of marine debris monitoring.

Despite this fruitful and efficient collaboration, the services provided by these actors do not answer all the requirements of the stakeholders regarding European Ocean Observing System monitoring and reporting capacity. Three types of OOS stakeholders have been identified, the funders of the OOS, the implementers (e.g., EuroGOOS), and the operators (e.g., observing networks like Argo, HF radar, DBCP…). Each type of stakeholder has its own needs in terms of OOS monitoring and none of the three actors listed above can entirely fulfil it, as none of them have the mandate to do so.

Expansion of the European capacity to monitor and report about OOS has been investigated. Despite some improvements made during this task, the conclusion is that without a clear mission and a long-term vision about this question, monitoring the EOOS, in its entire complexity and along each link of the value chain, from planning to data product delivery, cannot be achieved today. Many networks should engage further in the coordination with European and Regional OOS, and monitoring tools should be developed to serve the multiple stakeholders’ needs.

Even though the collaboration between OceanOPS, EMODNET and Copernicus marine in situ exists, it should be improved to better monitor the EOOS especially for better planning of the EOOS implementation as well as fostering open data for the EOOS observing systems. Although, the networks falling under the scope of EOOS should reinforce their data and metadata policy to comply with the FAIR principles. Essential feedback loops between networks and metadata & data aggregators should be set up to continuously improve the quality of the metadata delivered by the networks.

Metadata must be considered as the fundamental element to report about any OOS. High-quality and large diversity of those elements are essential to deliver the OOS monitoring efficiently and accurately, and reporting services that Europe deserves to better implement and pilot the development of the EOOS.

How the EU can help

There is no legal EU instrument that regulates ocean observing. Applicable rules appear in different instruments (such as for environmental protection or disaster risk reduction); some binding and some not. The regulation of ocean observing often depends on the purpose for which one collects ocean data. The 2012 Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) states that the EU may set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary to efficiently execute research (TFEU, Art. 187). This could provide a basis for harmonisation of the rules that are applicable to ocean observations, not only between the Member States but also within the Member State, if a domestic institution is mandated to be responsible for ocean observing and its regulation. The following five suggestions in order of priority and achievability could be used to change the current situation.

1. Create an EU level policy or regulation for ocean observing. For harmonising policy and legislation regarding ocean observing, an EU level policy or regulation is required. Considering the EU-wide value of ocean observations (for saving lives with accurate weather forecasting) and that many current policies and legislations are already at EU level, the EU principle of subsidiarity should be applied, as Member States would not be able to address these issues by working individually.

2. Create a “Marine Scientific Research Clearance Office” – a single point of contact – in each Member State to shorten the time needed for clearance. At present, States that want to conduct observations in another State’s exclusive economic zone, must provide detailed information to seek consent at least six months in advance of the starting date of the observing campaign (UNCLOS Art. 248). If the coastal State does not react by the day the project commences, it is understood that the coastal State grants consent (UNCLOS, Art. 252), creating unnecessary unpredictability for planning marine scientific research. This Office could shorten this time to one month.

3. Create a standardised form to request clearance to be used throughout the EU such as proposed by the United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. Many EU Member States’ regulations are consistent with the Law of the Sea Convention but not necessarily consistent with each other as there is no explicit requirement for consistent interpretation and implementation of international rules. A standardised form could be adopted for the purpose of use within the EU. If an on-line form could be created, the applicant would be able to track the progress of the clearance request.

4. Establish ocean observations projects with the participation of Member States with a designated EU organisation. Art. 247 of the Law of the Sea Convention suggests that a coastal State that is a member of organisation, such as the EU, is deemed to have authorised marine scientific research project from that supranational organisation. It is of course open to other organisations to make use of the option in Art. 247, such as existing entities in the European context such as EMODnet, EuroGOOS or EOOS. EU Regulation 508/2014 defined the European marine observation and data network (or ‘EMODnet’) as a ‘network that integrates relevant national marine observation and data programmes into a common and accessible European resource’ (Art. 3(2)(4)). A marine scientific research project of an intergovernmental organisation within the EU could be instrumental in conveying the importance of data being gathered and its value to the coastal State, and can ensure the compliance of the international agreements concerning the inclusion of scientists from coastal States as well data-sharing standards.

5. Expand the harmonisation of the regulation of ocean observing in the EU to all European seas. According to Art. 123(c) UNCLOS, ´States bordering an enclosed or semi-enclosed sea should cooperate […] to coordinate their scientific research policies and undertake where appropriate joint programmes of scientific research´. This step would evidently require cooperation of, and agreement within all littoral states of seas of which parts fall within the scope of EU regulation such as the North Sea, the Baltic Sea, the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea.

The main identified gaps are related to spatial and temporal coverage of data and products of the EOOFS, the data integration and accessibility by various types of users, the uncertainties of projections, the technological challenges, as well as to the engagement of various actors and the communication of results and services to them. The main recommendations to be taken into consideration for addressing all highlighted gaps are detailed in the report for every phenomenon and component of the ocean value chain. These recommendations are not provided just to satisfy the academic interest of the EOOFS community, however, they may have profound implications for multiple sectors and the society as a whole, if taken into consideration. This is due to the fact that the EOOFS is essential for climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, in improving the efficiency of the marine resources’ management, in enhancing the resilience of marine and coastal ecosystems as well as coastal cities and infrastructures against disasters and extreme events, for shipping and navigation safety, and for the scientific advancements and innovations of Europe in the field of marine science that serves the society.

We propose a scoring approach that can evaluate the EOOFS readiness level (RL) in monitoring ocean phenomena, on a regular basis and in a systematic way. We have demonstrated the usefulness of this approach by implementing it based on our assessment and the feedback of the EOOFS community. The main results clearly show that the EOOFS has “Fitness for Purpose” readiness levels (RL 7) in the three main pillars of the value chain (Input, Process, and Output) only for one ocean phenomenon, while 83% of ocean phenomena have RLs varying from 1 (Idea) to 4 (Trial). A deeper analysis of the scoring results reflects that the EOOFS major gaps are predominantly concentrated in two of its three pillars: the coordination and observational elements (Process) and data management and information products (Output) (Figure 1).

In a changing world that is affecting all aspects of European lives, it is crucial to significantly invest and support the EOOFS to better monitor and accurately predict the European Seas, and provide sustained services that can help businesses and improve the resilience of communities and resources.