complete answers from organisations

name_respondent respondent class country
Ukrainian Independent Maritime Trade Union civil society - Ukraine
Black Sea NGO Network civil society - Bulgaria
Coalition Clean Baltic, CCB (NGO network) civil society - Sweden
Oceana civil society - Spain
Fundacja Nasza Ziemia (Our Earth Foundation) civil society - Poland
Sea-Changers civil society - United Kingdom
Collectif Bar Européen civil society - France
Seas At Risk vzw. civil society - Belgium
The Pew Charitable Trusts civil society - Belgium
Ukrainian Independent Maritime Trade Union civil society - Ukraine
EuroGOOS civil society - Sweden
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission civil society International Organization (UN) France
Ecologistas en Acción civil society NGO Spain
Int. Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities civil society NGO mixed of public society and enterprises Spain
new economics foundation civil society charity / think tank United Kingdom
Asociacion Plataforma"El Chorlitejo" civil society defend the marine environment Spain
BSAG Baltic Sea Action Group (Finnish Foundation civil society environmental foundation Finland
Keen Marine Ltd private Environmental Characterisation United Kingdom
The European Wind Energy Association - EWEA private European industry association Belgium
QUALITAS Remos S.L. private Innovative data & technology intensive solutions Spain
CNPMEM private Private Organization with public interests missi France
Nexans Norway private Subsea High voltage power transmission Norway
Navionics Spa private charts and info for recreational boating Italy
HR Wallingford private coastal engineering United Kingdom
Thetis s.p.a private coastal protection Italy
HIDTMA S.L. private environmental protection Spain
Waste Free Oceans private environmental protection Belgium
North Sea Foundation/Stichting De Noordzee private environmental protection Netherlands
Scottish Fishermen's Federation private fisheries United Kingdom
MRAG LIMITED private fisheries Belgium
Corporacion Maritima LL private legal consultancy, maritime law, R&D Spain
GlycoMar limited private marine biotechnology United Kingdom
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute (NGI) private oil and gas Norway
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers private oil and gas Belgium
POLE MER BRETAGNE private public-private France
ADIS GROUP private public-private France
Renewable Energy Association, Ocean Energy Group private renewable energy United Kingdom
Mainstream Renewable Power private renewable energy Ireland
The slovenian shipaand freight agents associatio private ship and freight agents Slovenia
CONS.A.R. private shipping Italy
Marine Strategy Navigation Group (MSNG) private shipping Netherlands
PCM2U Ltd private software and electronics development United Kingdom
Magic Instinct Software private surveying and mapping France
Ordre des géomètres-experts private surveying and mapping France
Proteus Europe Ltd private surveying and mapping United Kingdom
Comité de Liaison des Géomètres Européens (CLGE) private surveying and mapping Belgium
SOCIB - Balearic Islands Observ Forecast System public European Spain
Eurogeosurveys, Brussels public European Finland
European Marine Board public European Belgium
JPI OCEANS public European Belgium
The European Straits Initiative public European France
UN Group of Experts of the Regular Process public global United Kingdom
International Hydrographic Organization public global Monaco
Argyll and Bute Council public local or municipal United Kingdom
Cyprus Tourism Organisation public national Cyprus
italian coast guard public national Italy
Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for NAture public national Slovenia
Directorate of Fisheries, Bergen, Norway public national Norway
UBO/ France Marine Universities network public national France
German Aquaculture Association e.V. public national Germany
Italian Hydrographic Office public national Italy
Department of Antiquities, Cyprus public national Cyprus
OGS public national Italy
Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management public national Sweden
Norwegian Hydrographic Service public national Norway
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institut public national Sweden
PL Ministry of Transport & Maritime Economy public national Poland
Ministry of Transport of the Republic of Latvia public national Latvia
TNO - Geological Survey of the Netherlands public national Netherlands
Swedish Maritime Adm - Hydrographic Office public national Sweden
BKM public national Germany
koord. Stellungnahme Deutsche Bundesregierung public national Germany
Ifremer public national France
VLA, Associaton of German state Archaeologists public national Germany
DCENR, Geological Survey of Ireland public national Ireland
Hellenic Navy Hydrographic Service (HNHS) public national Greece
Instituto Hidrográfico (IHPT) public national Portugal
General Lighthouse Authorities public national United Kingdom
National Survey and Cadastre public national Denmark
Hydrographic Office, Finnish Transport Agency public national Finland
SHOM public national France
Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment public national Netherlands
Government of United Kingdom public national United Kingdom
Gruppo Nazionale di Oceanografia Operativa public national Italy
Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment public national Spain
Government of Malta public national Malta
Abdelmalek ESSAADI University (FP-larache) public national Morocco
General Directory for Maritime Policy public national Portugal
Senate of Romanian Parliament public national Romania
PLataforma Oceánica de Canarias (PLOCAN) public national Spain
INTER-DEPARTMENT MARINE CO-ORDINATION GROUP public national Ireland
Autorités françaises public national France
Prime Minister's Office, Finland public national Finland
Conisma, University of Rome, Magic Project public national Italy
Regione Emilia-Romagna (DG Envinronment) public regional Italy
OBSERVATORIO AMBIENTAL GRANADILLA public regional Spain
County administrative board of Vasterbotten public regional Sweden
Marine South East public regional United Kingdom
Flanders Marine Institute (VLIZ) public regional Belgium
Marine Scotland, Scottish Government public regional United Kingdom
MAREMED Partnership; ww.maremed.eu public regional France
Consejería Agr. Pesca y Medio Ambiente Andalucía public regional Spain
Azores Regional Directorate for Sea Affairs public regional Portugal
Ministry of Economic Affairs Schleswig-Holstein public regional Germany
Region Västra Götaland, Sweden public regional Sweden
Countryside Council for Wales public regional United Kingdom
English Heritage public regional United Kingdom
GTK - Geological Survey of Finland public sea basin Finland
MedPAN public sea basin France
OSPAR Commission public sea basin United Kingdom
ICES public sea basin Denmark
HELCOM Secretariat public sea basin Finland
North Sea Commission Marine Resource group public sea basin Norway
University of Gdansk research academic (university) Poland
MARE: Marine Research group University of Liege research academic (university) Belgium
Department of Earth Science, Univ. of Bergen research academic (university) Norway
Iv. Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University research academic (university) Georgia
Université Nice Sophia Antipolis research academic (university) France
NTNU research academic (university) Norway
Institute of Marine Research research academic (university) Norway
IMARES research academic (university) Netherlands
Fisheries&Conservation Science Group,Bangor Univ research academic (university) United Kingdom
Distretto Ligure delle Tecnologie Marine research private research Italy
AZTI-Tecnalia (Marine Research Division) research private research Spain
SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture Ltd. research private research Norway
SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture Ltd. research private research Norway
Vitrociset SpA - R&D Corporate R&D Center research private research Italy
Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science research private research United Kingdom
SeaDataNet Research Infrastructure (DG-R FP7) research private research France
CNR-INSEAN Italian National Ship Model Basin research public research Italy
Geological Survey of Norway (NGU) research public research Norway
Nederlandse Elasmobranchen Vereniging research public research Netherlands
Finnish Meteorological Institute research public research Finland
Italian Long-term Ecosystem Research network research public research Italy
HCMR/Institute of Oceanography-HNODC research public research Greece
BRGM Marine Geology research public research France
Flanders Heritage Agency research public research Belgium
Thünen-Institute of Sea Fisheries research public research Germany
Institute of Marine Research, Norway research public research Norway
IFREMER & chair of DG/ENV/GES TG ML group research public research France
Alfred Wegener Institute research public research Germany
Deltares, Postbox 177, 2600 MH Delft research public research Netherlands
PANGAEA-AWI-MARUM research public research Germany
Maritime Institute in Gdansk research public research Poland
National Oceanography Centre, UK research public research United Kingdom



Ukrainian Independent Maritime Trade Union
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Ukrainian Independent Maritime Trade Union
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work Ukraine
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? inappropriate
why? Human activities must be divided on some positions like maritime education, maritime economy, maritime law etc
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? yes
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Special determined subjects of collecting such data must be piinted under governmental and EU control
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? yes
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes



Black Sea NGO Network
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Black Sea NGO Network
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) do not know
country where you live or work Bulgaria
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? By investing on national level in the collection of data using common data standards and quality control procedures and adopting clear rules for storage and access to the data.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? appropriate
why? They are the product of some experience over the years.
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? no opinion
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
explain Use should not be limited to narrow specific technical needs but should service wider scientific purposes.
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain To make use easy and open to all kinds of users.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Internet access is essential for the easy access and convenient use of the data by a wide range of users. It should be accessed via EMODnet with registration.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

By providing more generalized information about type of vessel and flag of state.
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? Space observation technologies
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? no opinion
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Changes in sea levels, temperature change patterns, patterns of changes in eutrophication, patterns of occurrence of extreme events - floods, tsunami,
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
explain The process should be supported by member states
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? no opinion
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? General physical parameters, chemical parameters,



Coalition Clean Baltic, CCB (NGO network)
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Coalition Clean Baltic, CCB (NGO network)
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work Sweden
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? - Data should be made available with the best level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data - Data should be made available in formats commonly used, both for easier access and comparisons over time and between Member States and it should not be in PDF formats! - Data should be assembled at one central location but could also be presented at regional level and it should be in English at least in part to explain the data and categories for example
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain Scientific advice about overfishing is not available for some 60 % of fish stocks that have TACs. This is because of lack of information on catches, incomplete surveys or poor sampling. Providing scientific data on fisheries is a Member State responsibility which is currently not being fully met! Since fisheries and fish are a public resource, Member States should have an obligation to make available specific information detailed by the Data collection Framework regulation to all interested stakeholders, including the public. 1. Fishers who are provided with the opportunity to exploit fish stocks have the responsibility of stewarding them responsibly and contributing to their best conservation and management. This includes the sharing of information. Most EU fishers are not required to compensate the public for the opportunity to exploit the resource, fish, e.g. through the payment of an access fee. At the same time management costs are borne by the public through the provision of administration, port facilities, scientific assessment, etc. 2. The costs of fisheries management are by and large borne by the public—in essence, the public subsidises the fishing industries’ use of a public resource. As a result, the public should have the right to access data and information used in fisheries management.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Fish in the sea is a public resource and Member States should provide the public with access to available fisheries data, including data assembled for particular stocks, fleet segments or particular fishing areas. European fisheries are diverse and so informed policy responses are only possible with a corresponding access to quality data, e.g. an evaluation of public aid for the fishing sector is only possible with comprehensive data. The public must be able to follow how and where tax money is being used!
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Again, fish is our common public resource and the public has a right to know who is benefitting from particular stocks and fishing areas.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Public aid should always create public benefits and goods. Research is no exception to this. As a result, data and information assembled within projects which largely depend on public funding should be available to the public.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Fisheries conservation and management should incorporate the latest science on the impacts of climate change (changes in fish migration and distribution, demographics, etc.). Open and transparent access to data will allow to better understand these impacts of climate change and to take adequate safeguard measures. In addition, there is increasing industrial exploitation of marine ecosystems, e.g. off-shore energy, mineral extraction etc., both part of the blue growth strategy. It is important that any such activities and their impacts on marine ecosystems are closely monitored and of course properly assessed before any activities start.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? - EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data; - Member States should have the option to reallocate aid to data collection (http://assets.ocean2012.eu/publication_documents/documents/378/original/20121115_NGO_reaction_Council_GA_EMFF.pdf )



Oceana
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Oceana
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) yes
what is your registration number? OCEAN685122121
country where you live or work Spain
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? A common datawarehouse safeguarded and curated by EEA or JRC, or both would be indeed appropriate. Spatial Data Infrastructures currently operating are not flexible and clear enough for it. The excess in number of these SDIs and many duplicities seem that a sort of central, wider and publicly shared warehouse for the marine spatial information would be more than desirable. Where legislation permits it, data should be made available without any unnecessary delays. Also, it should be made available with the highest level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data with the greatest level of granularity. This data should, as far as possible, be made available in commonly used formats to facilitate comparisons over time and between one Member State, moreover this information should be published in an open access format, e.g. csv, gml, or the widely used shp, among others.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? inappropriate
why? Either combined or divided would present issues and advantages. The assessment thematic group (already existing) could be the one in charge of join and merge the information from the different groups for any interdisciplinary oriented goal, or just perhaps could be desirable to create a new group which would develop this duty.
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? mostly data products
explain At the end of the day, a first step in processed information is time budget for users and therefore stimulates effectiveness on sharing information (i.e. convert all the location information into shapefiles, get all spatial layers into the same coordinate system, convert all bathymetric and oceanographic data in GIS common formats, final or intermediate products in remote sensing, and so forth)
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? yes
why? The more common and less duplicated the platform would be, the more budgeted, less time consuming and less confuse the infrastructure will be.
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
explain That would bring a strong source of scientific arguments for both issues that would help to make assessments and for decision making processes.
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain The high value of this information worth the free re-use. Sharing this data is an important support to environmental conservation and marine knowledge itself. Besides, sharing this information avoids the duplicity of tasks and repetition of budgets for obtaining the same information. Finally making all data collected under DCF directly available would strongly facilitate public access to environmental information – an already challenging tasks sometimes - and would enhance public scrutiny on a public good (e.g. marine data, fisheries, biodiversity etc.)
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain An Internet portal, publicly and freely available, is always desirable for delivering data, in particular fisheries data,. Poorly accessible databases, bad location and unclear content idea or stakeholders should be minimized.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Definitely yes. Public access on systems like VMS guarantee some transparency on activities such as bottom trawling, or big scale fisheries which must be controlled with special effort since the pressures over the marine environment are in most cases unsustainable. Public disposal of this information– taking into account the privacy of personal data – , by stakeholders as well as relevant local and regional authorities can help better understand fisheries impacts and consequently adapt planning/management. Providing sound data is the basis to encourage changes on these activities to more environmentally and sustainable practices.
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? Application of new trends in technology like smart grids, big data, in-memory computing and virtualization, to mention some of them can be a critical advance in the capacity of information store and analytics, also efficiency. At the same time a great step into automatic and standard procedures would be an advantage. All stakeholders, at least public national and EU organizations must proceed the same way, with the same methodologies. Besides, stimulation of private sector to develop more efficient, sinoptical and comprehensive information is needed to leverage marine knowledge. ‘Blue growth’ and ‘blue jobs’ ideas are a good starting point.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Basically, CO2 fluxes and acidification levels (pH), ocean circulations and currents, salinity levels, thermic absortion of seas, sea level rise, ice cover, and photosintetic behaviour or algae masses could be helpful. Also, other indirect measures like the change in the location of marine wildlife populations to higher latitudes are also interesting for this matter.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no
why not? The most efficient way to participate in them would be directly with the information generated within EU existing projects
(17) What could be the role of the Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency? We explain at some points the potential steering role of these agencies to store and deliver the information in a unique portal/infrastructure. Also could be the assessment/evaluation of effectiveness of the process Some transnational projects goes to nowhere because of the absence of a real leader voice among many different interests, methods and point of view. That head role could be also for the EEA or JRC, perhaps with stronger competences in marine issues.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
explain Periodical evaluation of impact and effectiveness would be necessary to stir the data creation in the correct and most effective way. Here, a conservationist and responsible approach would be critical for EU to have a clear position along with marine conservation of natural environment and sustainability.
(19) What mechanism could be envisaged to manage the evaluation and assessments needed to inform the Commission, Member States and Parliament on priorities for EU support? The mechanism would evolve itself with the development of the program. However, public participation and the common criteria in all institutions for evaluate would be an asset. Here, the EEA and the JRC could play an steering role at high level.
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
Under what circumstances? Sharing the information is nowadays a true paradygm and a necessary condition to breakthrough in consistent advances for the spatial knowledge of seabed. Data collected and new information acquired by private entities while should be diffused as widely as possible to improve knowledge. This must be a requirement in projects which make advances in research, such as seismic exploration for offshore mineral exploration for instance.
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? Offering, or delivering information generated by private sector would grant, as we said before, transparency of private activities across the seas, as well as a kind of return to society due to benefits made by companies from the exploitation of ocean natural resources. Public authorities very often receive data from seabed exploration from companies prospecting for offshore hydrocarbons for instance. The sharing of data could be a requirement in the licensing procedure as such.
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? A partnership that gives to the private sector the right to use the data, but with obligation to share it entirely with the general public through public authorites. This should be made mandatory, and in particular when using EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data



Fundacja Nasza Ziemia (Our Earth Foundation)
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Fundacja Nasza Ziemia (Our Earth Foundation)
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) do not know
country where you live or work Poland
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? - Where legislation permits it, data should be made available without any unnecessary delays; - Data should be made available with the greatest level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data with the greatest level of granularity; - Data should, as far as possible, be made available in commonly used formats to facilitate comparisons over time and between one Member State and another. - Data should be published in an open access format, e.g. cvs (currently, some Member States choose to publish certain data, such as funding under the EU Fisheries Fund, in pdf format which makes analysis restrictive); - Data should be assembled at one central location (e.g. not at the regional level); - Information about the dataset itself, including descriptions of categories, information how to use the databank, etc., should be displayed in major EU languages (and at least in English).
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain In the EU, scientific advice about overfishing is missing for over 65 percent of fish stocks for which there are total allowable catches. In most cases this is because of missing information on catches, incomplete surveys or poor sampling. Providing scientific data on fisheries is a Member State responsibility which is currently not being fully met (See COM(2011) 298 final: Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on Fishing Opportunities, chapter 4.1.). Since fisheries are a public resource, Member States should have an obligation to make available specific information detailed by the Data collection Framework regulation to all interested stakeholders, including the public. 1.Fishers who are provided with the opportunity to exploit fish stocks have the responsibility of stewarding them responsibly and contributing to their best conservation and management. This includes the sharing of information. Most EU fishers are not required to compensate the public for the opportunity to exploit the resource, fish, e.g. through the payment of an access fee. At the same time management costs are borne by the public through the provision of administration, port facilities, scientific assessment, etc. 2.The costs of fisheries management are by and large borne by the public—in essence, the public subsidises the fishing industries’ use of a public resource. As a result, the public should have the right to access data and information used in fisheries management.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Fish is a public resource and Member States should provide the public with access to available fisheries data, including data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas. European fisheries are diverse and so informed policy responses are only possible with a corresponding access to quality data, e.g. an evaluation of public aid for the fishing sector is only possible with comprehensive data.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

How can confidentiality concerns be resolved? Fish is a public resource the public has a right to know who is benefitting from particular stocks and fishing areas.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Public aid should create public goods. Research is no exception to this. As a result, data and information assembled within projects which largely depend on public funding should be accessible by the public.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Fisheries conservation and management should incorporate the latest science on the impacts of climate change (changes in fish migration and distribution, demographics, etc.). Open and transparent access to data will allow to better understand these impacts of climate change and to take adequate safeguard measures. In addition, there is increasing industrial exploitation of marine ecosystems, e.g. off-shore energy, mineral extraction etc., which is the stated objective of the blue growth strategy. It is important that any such activities and their impacts on marine ecosystems are closely monitored.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data; Member States should have the option to reallocate aid to data collection (http://assets.ocean2012.eu/publication_documents/documents/378/original/20121115_NGO_reaction_Council_GA_EMFF.pdf )



Sea-Changers
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Sea-Changers
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) do not know
country where you live or work United Kingdom
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? Where legislation permits it, data should be made available without any unnecessary delays; Data should be made available with the greatest level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data with the greatest level of granularity; Data should, as far as possible, be made available in commonly used formats to facilitate comparisons over time and between one Member State and another. Data should be published in an open access format, e.g. cvs (currently, some Member States choose to publish certain data, such as funding under the EU Fisheries Fund, in pdf format which makes analysis restrictive); Data should be assembled at one central location (e.g. not at the regional level); Information about the dataset itself, including descriptions of categories, information how to use the databank, etc., should be displayed in major EU languages (and at least in English).
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain In the EU, scientific advice about overfishing is missing for over 65 percent of fish stocks for which there are total allowable catches. In most cases this is because of missing information on catches, incomplete surveys or poor sampling. Providing scientific data on fisheries is a Member State responsibility which is currently not being fully met (See COM(2011) 298 final: Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on Fishing Opportunities, chapter 4.1.). Since fisheries are a public resource, Member States should have an obligation to make available specific information detailed by the Data collection Framework regulation to all interested stakeholders, including the public. 1. Fishers who are provided with the opportunity to exploit fish stocks have the responsibility of stewarding them responsibly and contributing to their best conservation and management. This includes the sharing of information. Most EU fishers are not required to compensate the public for the opportunity to exploit the resource, fish, e.g. through the payment of an access fee. At the same time management costs are borne by the public through the provision of administration, port facilities, scientific assessment, etc. 2. The costs of fisheries management are by and large borne by the public—in essence, the public subsidises the fishing industries’ use of a public resource. As a result, the public should have the right to access data and information used in fisheries management.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Fish is a public resource and Member States should provide the public with access to available fisheries data, including data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas. European fisheries are diverse and so informed policy responses are only possible with a corresponding access to quality data, e.g. an evaluation of public aid for the fishing sector is only possible with comprehensive data.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Fish is a public resource the public has a right to know who is benefitting from particular stocks and fishing areas.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Public aid should create public goods. Research is no exception to this. As a result, data and information assembled within projects which largely depend on public funding should be accessible by the public.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Fisheries conservation and management should incorporate the latest science on the impacts of climate change (changes in fish migration and distribution, demographics, etc.). Open and transparent access to data will allow to better understand these impacts of climate change and to take adequate safeguard measures. In addition, there is increasing industrial exploitation of marine ecosystems, e.g. off-shore energy, mineral extraction etc., which is the stated objective of the blue growth strategy. It is important that any such activities and their impacts on marine ecosystems are closely monitored.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data; Member States should have the option to reallocate aid to data collection (http://assets.ocean2012.eu/publication_documents/documents/378/original/20121115_NGO_reaction_Council_GA_EMFF.pdf )



Collectif Bar Européen
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Collectif Bar Européen
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work France
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? Les données devraient être publiques et accessibles au plus grand nombre
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain D'importantes décisions pouvant limiter les conséquences de la surpêche ne sont pas prises à cause d'un manque d'information sur les stocks, et les conséquences sont très graves. Comme les poissons sont un bien public, les données qui les concernent doivent être publiques.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Encore une fois, les ressources de la mer étant un bien commun, les données de qui les pêche doivent être publiées.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Les ressources publiques alimentent des projets qui doivent donc être visibles pour le public.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? Les allocations de l'UE à travers le FEAMP doivent être soumises à la condition que les données de la pêche soient transparentes. Il s'agit de ne plus allouer de subventions sans retour d'information.



Seas At Risk vzw.
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Seas At Risk vzw.
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) yes
what is your registration number? 95261732139-73
country where you live or work Belgium
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? Member States need to cooperate on a regional level to agree on sampling procedures, data collection routines, and storage mechanisms. The commission must overview this process to align these procedures among all regional approaches to make data interoperable among the regions. All data should be stored in an easily accessible file format allowing for the extraction of data from all regional approaches without impediments to enable an easy cross-evaluation. If it is not possible beforehand either for the Commission to supervise the different regional approaches or for the Member States in the regions to agree on the necessary measures, a centralised approach such as the current Data Collection Framework (DCF) for fisheries data should be developed. Any storage of data, access procedures and guidelines necessary for the use of the data need to be documented in clear language in several, if not all European languages.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? appropriate
why? If all data that will be collected can be clearly attributed to these seven thematic groups, they are sufficient and will serve their purpose. In case it is not clear to which thematic group certain data sets should be attributed, they should appear in both thematic groups including a reference to the other thematic group. Once a certain amount of data has been collected, the work of end users of the Marine Knowledge database could be facilitated by providing certain combinations of sub-data sets in the main menu of the data base interface.
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? mostly raw data
explain Data from EMODnet should always be available as raw data. To facilitate the work and needs of the end users, digital map layers could be increasingly provided based on popular maps derived from access data in the interface on the different datasets. To submit ideas for additional map layers the interface could provide an inbox for suggestions.
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
explain One possibility could be if the activity of ships were tracked.
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain It should be available for re-use but allowing for sufficient time to the original providers. Currently, regulation EC 199/2008 (DCF) specifies that data shall be made available upon request for scientific analysis to support policy development and to RACs within 1 respective 2 months, while for the purpose of scientific publications Member States may withhold data after being requested for up to 3 years to protect the professional interest of the data collectors (Art. 18 - 20). All periods granted to the respective data owners are valid and should be respected; the ‘moving wall’ of access of 1 and 2 months are appropriate. The present DCF is currently under review and will be replaced by a multiannual program (2014-2020). Article 37 and 38 of the Commission proposal for a new basic regulation COM(2011) 425) outline some aspects of the new program. If the new program can deliver the same quality and be consistent with the data collected under the current DCF, it will provide sufficient long-term stability to fisheries data time series. Unfortunately, the Council in its General Approach on COM (2011) 425 has already deleted the demand to collect data for [ecosystem based] fisheries management from the original Commission proposal in June 2012 which potentially reduces the utility of some aspects for the future program.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Currently stock assessments are regularly hampered by lack of data availability. Furthermore, access to data on fleet segments would help assessing overcapacity. A similar portal has been developed in 2012 by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (see link below) . This portal can be used as a template and expanded based on needs and submissions from end users. https://fishreg.jrc.ec.europa.eu/web/datadissemination/tables
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Control data should be made available. Currently VMS data is not easily accessible; if it could be accessed more easily, better scientific models on fishing patterns could be developed on a larger spatial scale that includes the movement of vessels.
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? Focus should be to serve MSFD monitoring needs as the MSFD provides the framework for managing maritime activities and for achieving Good Environmental Status.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Yes, but this should not have implications regarding the performance of the project (e.g. making it impossible for certain entities to develop or participate in research projects because the obligation to publish data in the required format requires too much of an additional workload). Additionally this is interlinked to Question 7 that protects the professional interest regarding data that are collected and will provide the basis for scientific publications.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
why? In principle this would be a very good development, reducing reporting burden and increase data availability. However it requires good standardization and it depends on which authority will take over the examination and verification of the raw data. Mechanisms need to be developed to guarantee that data ‘pulled’ by the competent authority once but is revised by the data collection body afterwards is updated in the central or regional data storage with sufficient speed.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? yes
what measures? Other existing data collection such as the Data Collection Framework Regulation (EC 199/2008) should contribute to the collection of ocean data within its guidelines that could potentially be expanded in its current ongoing revision.
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< If priorities need to be set for marine observation programs, EU support for data collection should focus on parameters that contribute to improving the environmental status of European seas, fill gaps in existing (regional) data sets, and provide several thematic groups at the same time with new data. Additionally, EU financial support should aim at improving marine spatial planning.
(17) What could be the role of the Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency? Data could be stored in established and recognized entities such as the European Environment Agency and its Topic Centre Inland Coastal and Marine Water (who are already running the Water Data Centre WISE). The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission should contribute research into innovative data collection technologies and methodologies. If this means too much of an increased workload for the organisations and responsibilities are given to different entities, at least experience should be drawn from the work done regarding the Data Collection Regulation and Data Collection Framework in the last years. Other entities involved in collecting maritime and marine data such as EMSA or ICES should be consulted as well to apply the best available practice to any new program.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
explain Observation and sampling strategies should be evaluated periodically and upgraded if applicable. During this process the continuation of time series has to be assured. This applies not only for each sea-basin, but for the overall strategy that should be controlled by the Commission.
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
Under what circumstances? Any data provided by private companies should only be made publicly available provided that is has been subject to independent data quality control.
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? Yes, but ideally these should not be the only data available for the monitored parameters. If these are the only data, they need to be confirmed by e.g. exemplary research surveys or cross-checked with additional data which should be subject to independent data quality control.
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? Public Private partnerships (PPP) have increasingly been proven unsatisfactory for public authorities, especially in financial terms (see link below). To include PPP in this initiative should be critically reconsidered. The possibility mentioned under point 7. in the Green Paper (“…companies share the expenses of running the European Marine Observation and Data Network in return for a say in the setting of priorities…”) should not be considered at all. Priorities should be set by the policy maker and be based on environmental considerations. http://www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/factsheetPPPs_EN.pdf



The Pew Charitable Trusts
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation The Pew Charitable Trusts
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) yes
what is your registration number? 46834536998-79
country where you live or work Belgium
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? • Where legislation permits it, data should be made available without any unnecessary delays; • Data should be made available with the greatest level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data with the greatest level of granularity; • Data should, as far as possible, be made available in commonly used formats to facilitate comparisons over time and between one Member State and another. • Data should be published in an open access format, e.g. cvs (currently, some Member States choose to publish certain data, such as funding under the EU Fisheries Fund, in pdf format which makes analysis restrictive); • Data should be assembled at one central location (e.g. not at the regional level); • Information about the dataset itself, including descriptions of categories, information how to use the databank, etc., should be displayed in major EU languages (and at least in English).
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain In the EU, scientific advice about overfishing is missing for over 65 percent of fish stocks for which there are total allowable catches. In most cases this is because of missing information on catches, incomplete surveys or poor sampling. Providing scientific data on fisheries is a Member State responsibility which is currently not being fully met (See COM(2011) 298 final: Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on Fishing Opportunities, chapter 4.1.). Since fisheries are a public resource, Member States should have an obligation to make available specific information detailed by the Data collection Framework regulation to all interested stakeholders, including the public. 1. Fishers who are provided with the opportunity to exploit fish stocks have the responsibility of stewarding them responsibly and contributing to their best conservation and management. This includes the sharing of information. Most EU fishers are not required to compensate the public for the opportunity to exploit the resource, fish, e.g. through the payment of an access fee. At the same time management costs are borne by the public through the provision of administration, port facilities, scientific assessment, etc. 2. The costs of fisheries management are by and large borne by the public—in essence, the public subsidises the fishing industries’ use of a public resource. As a result, the public should have the right to access data and information used in fisheries management.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Fish is a public resource and Member States should provide the public with access to available fisheries data, including data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas. European fisheries are diverse and so informed policy responses are only possible with a corresponding access to quality data, e.g. an evaluation of public aid for the fishing sector is only possible with comprehensive data.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Fish is a public resource the public has a right to know who is benefitting from particular stocks and fishing areas.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Public aid should create public goods. Research is no exception to this. As a result, data and information assembled within projects which largely depend on public funding should be accessible by the public.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Fisheries conservation and management should incorporate the latest science on the impacts of climate change (changes in fish migration and distribution, demographics, etc.). Open and transparent access to data will allow to better understand these impacts of climate change and to take adequate safeguard measures. In addition, there is increasing industrial exploitation of marine ecosystems, e.g. off-shore energy, mineral extraction etc., which is the stated objective of the blue growth strategy. It is important that any such activities and their impacts on marine ecosystems are closely monitored.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? • EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data; • Member States should have the option to reallocate aid to data collection (http://assets.ocean2012.eu/publication_documents/documents/378/original/20121115_NGO_reaction_Council_GA_EMFF.pdf )



Ukrainian Independent Maritime Trade Union
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Ukrainian Independent Maritime Trade Union
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) do not know
country where you live or work Ukraine
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? There must be pointed responcible bodies on national level
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? inappropriate
why? The group on human activites must be divided so as the volume of such activities is too wide (maritime law, maritime economy etc)
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? yes
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Those standards must be pointed bu the EU Commission
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Information on maritime trade traffic, on volume of the fish and other biology resources, on maritime pollution and maritim biological divercity
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? yes
what measures? international programs initiated by EU with participation of non-EU European countries
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< The JPIESO may play such role, but the main criterias for volume of EU programme support is the reality of program tasks, possibility of reaching the real measured scientific, ecological and economic program results.
(16) How could the governance of EMODnet and GMES evolve to better accommodate the need for long term sustainability? Such governance must be done according to the ISO standards and commot standards of program management. Also the partners for project granting must be shosen rightly representing all geografic and economy maritime areas of Europe
(17) What could be the role of the Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency? Those bodies must adopt common adenda and programme of action on middle-term period
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
explain The observartions must be composed in a such way that let collect information useful for various reseasches during middle-term period. Also such observations must be done in a reasoinable terms and data covering that middle-term period
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
Under what circumstances? There cant be done effective public reseasch using the confidential information that is not avalaible for the external experts
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? gidrology, meteorology, pollution
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? Te triparty dialoge (states, maritime trade unions and matitime business) for decision the maritime social (labour and business) problems, inerational conferenses under EU egis for national NGO for decision of the ecological problems, public&private grant sistem for academic structures
(23) You have now finished the questionnaire but there may be some other points that you wish to raise. This is your opportunity. You may even append a document. The important problem for maritime researches is the problem of development the global maritime labor market and implementation the modert standards of maritime labour sch as MLC 2006



EuroGOOS
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation EuroGOOS
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) do not know
country where you live or work Sweden
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? The model of national and regional data centres which are networked at a European level following agreed (European or International) standards has proved efficient and should be strengthened in the future. EuroGOOS through its regional systems (ROOSs) has developed the concept of regional data assembly centres and portals that interconnect national facilities for near real time data exchange. European initiatives such as EMODnet should encourage Member states to increase the availability of data through strengthening of their national networks and infrastructures.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? appropriate
why? There is no need for further division since the risk of fragmentation is high. The combination of geology and hydrography is considered valid since there is a significant overlap of tasks and methods and in many cases the groups are unified.
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? mostly raw data
explain The ocean is dynamic and digital maps should be produced with appropriate acknowledgement of the relevant temporal variability. Production of digital map layers should represent a rather small effort of EMODnet compared with the main task of provision of access to increasing number of raw data of know quality and standards. One exception could be the provision of very high resolution bathymetric maps of the European seas.
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? yes
why? Although using a common platform would be beneficial for users of these two infrastructures, their different characteristics (GMES being more service oriented, EMODnet having a wider scope and range of parameters etc.) might lead to complex solutions that could obstruct rather than facilitate the access to products. However, recognizing the need of convergence between the two initiatives this issue should be further explored at a technical level and transitional solutions could be implemented (e.g. single entry point / portal).
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
explain Despite the need of having a separate climate component of GMES, the marine service should indeed provide products for climate change and environmental protection. In fact, environmental protection and climatic variability are among the areas of benefit of the GMES Marine Service and the second phase of the relevant implementation project (MyOcean2) is putting additional effort on the production of long time scale model re-analysis and re-processed data sets. A stronger link with EMODnet could facilitate this process through sharing of effort and easier access to archived data.
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain The principle of open and free access should also apply to fisheries data.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain The development of a portal, similar to those of EMODnet, for fisheries data is indeed recommended. This would underpin and enhance the implementation of an open data policy while it would also ease the end users by providing a uniform platform for access to all types of marine data. Indeed in several countries, fisheries and marine environmental data are handled by the same infrastructures.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Efforts should be made to implement the principle of open access to these data too, assuming there is no confrontation with national or European legislation.
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? There is a need to increase the EU support to marine observations at both operational and research level. There are several spatial, temporal and parameters gaps that need to be filled by new investments in both existing and new observing systems. EU can specially focus on observations in European sea areas that are not covered by national obligations / observing systems. Although research framework programs have been used up to now to support marine observations, there is a need to use more sustained long term funding and EMODnet, together with GMES, provide this opportunity. Of course additional research is needed for development and testing of new observing systems and Horizon 2020 should take that into consideration. The support to relevant ESFRI infrastructures, such as EuroARGO, needs to continue while other relevant infrastructures (fixed open sea moorings, gliders, ferry boxes) are now mature and should be supported to move to an ESFRI stage. The concept of an integrated Ocean Observing System for Europe should be further developed to provide the umbrella for Operational and Research oriented observations, including those necessary for climate change monitoring, as a co-responsibility between EU and Member States. To that end, EuroGOOS is ready to play an active role in collaboration with other stakeholders (EMODnet, GMES, JPI Oceans, Marine Board etc.).
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? EuroGOOS fully supports such a provision that would force all EU funded research projects to properly archive and provide access to their marine observations, preferably using national and international infrastructures such as NODCs. We also argue that this should be done with the minimum possible delay in order to maximize the benefits and impacts of these observations.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
why? The “pull” process could be functional when the environmental data available through EMODnet start exceeding a certain threshold. This is today the case for physical data but not for chemical and biological observations that are still difficult to access. Member States should encourage their agencies to improve this situation by adopting and open and free data policy for all marine observations.
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? The impacts of climate change on marine and coastal systems are numerous and interconnected, thus affecting their physical and biogeochemical characteristics at various temporal and spatial scales. Therefore, the relevant monitoring and information provision should cover a very wide spectrum of marine and coastal data and should be provided to policy and decision makers in a comprehensive way, similar to the periodic environmental assessment reports.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? yes
what measures? If properly supported, the two initiatives could be important contributions to the international GOOS and GEOSS programs, combined with the national investments, which are coordinated, to a large extend, by EuroGOOS members. However the issue of long term sustained funding of EMODnet and GMES at a level that allows new observations to fill existing gaps is not yet solved. EuroGOOS encourages the European Commission to work with the Member States for a secured future of the two initiatives.
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< The EU should support observation programs that contribute to European and International policies and conventions (e.g. MSFD, UNFCCC) and relevant initiatives (GOOS, GEOSS) especially in sea areas beyond Member States’ territorial waters and EEZs. It should also support observations needed for relevant EU flagship initiatives and services such as the GMES Marine Service.
(16) How could the governance of EMODnet and GMES evolve to better accommodate the need for long term sustainability? To secure the sustainability of EMODnet and GMES their funding should be associated with long term financial planning instead of being supported through research programs. Such planning and decision-making should involve the EC and the Member States at appropriate levels (Council, Parliament etc.), but also the national agencies that operate the observing systems and are much closer both to users and their requirements as well as to operations and the relevant science and technology developments.
(17) What could be the role of the Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency? Both JRC and EEA can be regarded as Users of EMODnet and its products. An active role could be envisaged for both of them in possible “Advisory” or “Evaluation” bodies associated to the governance scheme of EMODnet.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
explain A regular evaluation process is indeed needed since observing requirements and strategies are rapidly evolving. EuroGOOS offers to support this process through its pan-European (office) and regional capacities (ROOS communities).
(19) What mechanism could be envisaged to manage the evaluation and assessments needed to inform the Commission, Member States and Parliament on priorities for EU support? A combination of external expertise and a permanent “Users” or “Implementation” committee is recommended. This combination could meet the needs for a) scientific and technical evaluation of existing systems and available technologies and b) alignment with the evolving requirements of pan-European, regional and national Users linked to relevant policies and societal needs.
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
Under what circumstances? All types of marine environmental data used for licencing purposes should be made publicly available under an open and free data policy. The private sector is a major user of marine observing and forecasting systems and benefits from new investments at national and EU levels. It is, therefore, expected to also become an important contributor to this effort that will ultimately lead to better products for all users of Marine information services.
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? Since all offshore activities have (minor or major) impact on the marine environment, they should all be accompanied by appropriate monitoring of the wider area of activities. The open and free policy should apply to these data too, in order to improve the present situation of limited access to such data e.g. those collected by offshore oil extraction companies.
extra files uploaded yes



Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) do not know
country where you live or work France
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
what type of organisation International Organization (UN)
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? They should preferably store these at their National Oceanographic Data Centres (NODCs) which are part of the IOC's International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE) programme.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? appropriate
why? Would agree with merging geology and hydrography.  Otherwise they make sense. However the paper makes no mention in reference to EMODnet on the authority or data quality related to data ingested and made available.  How does one advise a user about the appropriate data for his/her use? The paper also makes no mention of global activities, for example the GEO/GEOSS common infrastructure (which Europe DG Research supports strongly); but also other global data interoperability efforts. Similarly the document does not look beyond the EU borders and no attention is given to international programmes/organizations.
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
explain The document does not define the term "raw data". This may be understood that as the data immediately after collection, to data that have undergone quality control. Access to raw data (as in not quality controlled) are probably of limited use to end users or even intermediary users (eg coastal managers) because they have not been quality controlled and are therefore not reliable to reflect reality. Map layers may be of use for intermediary users but not to end users (decision makers, public). There has to be a balance for the different user audiences.
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? yes
why? why only for a selected number of physical parameters? And why separate space data from in situ data in separate systems?
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
explain this will help the "take once use many times" part of the vision in section 1
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? no opinion
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? no opinion
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? no opinion
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area?  - small, stable, low-power in situ sensors for a growing range of ocean variables  - improved platforms: fixed, drifting, autonomous strengthening: through collaboration with the international community and interacting with systems outside the EU
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Public funds should provide public benefit in addition to the knowledge gained, and data availability may have uses unknown to the original data-gatherer. It is thanks to the long-term management and storage of observations that climate change research has been possible. The lack of an "obligation" has at times resulted in the total loss of decades of observations. This can represent the loss of millions of Euros and these data are also irreplaceable. A cultural change is required in the academic environment that makes researchers appreciate the importance of data management, storage and dissemination beyond their own immediate benefit. Data publication/citation will provide incentives to scientists and to the data&information management community and may be a solution. IOC/IODE, WMBL WHOI, BODC and SCOR are implementing a project in this regard.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
why? A multi-disciplinary data portal (with some on-the-fly) data product generation ability will allow a more flexible response to questions and issues that are of immediate and urgent importance.
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? The ocean is a complex environment of which the behaviour cannot be reduced to a few variables. The impact of human activity on global warming is still largely unknown in terms of the medium to long-term effects. At the local scale sea level rise is obviously a factor. Increased sea water temperature obviously has an impact on species composition and biodiversity at the local and regional scale as well (and alien species may become common species in a given region). However as witnessed recently in North East USA the impact of large storms and their frequency can have immediate and devastating consequences. Whether these storms will increase in frequency and strength is not a local but global question that needs to be addressed at the global scale. Reduction of carbon emission is equally an issue that has to be resolved at the global scale. This information is being developed by the IOC-WMO-UNEP-ICSU Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) and Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) through workshops and regional fora.  Clearly sea level, temperature, and ocean acidification trends and projections will be important, as will be information about vulnerabilities of ecosystems and human systems, and adaptation options.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? yes
what measures? First - EMODnet and GMES have not engaged with GOOS to a great extent except regionally through EuroGOOS. A leadership role within the global GOOS programme would be welcome. EMODnet is not as far as I am aware very connected to GEOSS, although GMES is. Interoperability within Europe does not guarantee interoperability with a global system.  And this interoperability will bring benefits to Europe through the provision of non-European data that may have impact on forecasts or the health of European seas. Also the international oceanographic data and information exchange (IODE) programme of the IOC is not a partner in Emodnet (although the NODCs are partners in Emodnet either directly or through SeaDataNet). This lack of linkage may result in parallel and incompatible networks.
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< Growing recognition that global in situ ocean observations will improve information for European stakeholders should be encouraged. We would also encourage improved JPI Oceans involvement in GOOS.
(16) How could the governance of EMODnet and GMES evolve to better accommodate the need for long term sustainability? It is important that the structures established for long-term sustainability embrace the research community and private enterprise to continue to allow for innovation and avoid stagnation. A clear link to international efforts as partners is also encouraged in the governance. It is observed that the EU is supporting some projects that promote multilateral linkages between EU data systems and those in other regions such as USA, Australia, etc. This can have immediate benefits but it creates "preferential" partnerships while ignoring existing global networks such as IODE, ICSU/WDS, etc.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
explain The GOOS Framework for Ocean Observing (doi:10.5270/OceanObs09-FOO) develops a common systems framework and language for guiding support of observing programmes, through definition of requirements for different scientific and societal issues, based on an assessment of feasibility and impact, a focus on Essential Ocean Variables allowing for observing system innovation, and a cycle of assessment of whether the observing system including coordination of observations and of data and information streams is fit-for-purpose against the requirements.  Improved European engagement in GOOS is again invited.
(19) What mechanism could be envisaged to manage the evaluation and assessments needed to inform the Commission, Member States and Parliament on priorities for EU support? On a European level EuroGOOS provides such a mechanism, and for engagement with global observations that also have impact for European stakeholders, GOOS offers a mechanism.
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
Under what circumstances? When these data are that are essential for application to the preservation of life, beneficial public use and protection of the ocean environment, the forecasting of weather, the operational forecasting of the marine environment, the monitoring and modelling of climate and sustainable development in the marine environment.
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? But a publicly-supported brokering framework needs to be developed to limit burden on private companies and maintain their competitivity. Much work has been done on selecting “essential variables” under GOOS, and that is detailed in the GCOS Implementation Plan and the Coastal GOOS Strategy  (GOOS Report 125) and Implementation Plans (GOOS Report 148). In addition EuroGOOS has done user surveys on essential variables.



Ecologistas en Acción
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Ecologistas en Acción
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) do not know
country where you live or work Spain
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
what type of organisation NGO
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? • Where legislation permits it, data should be made available without any unnecessary delays; • Data should be made available with the greatest level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data with the greatest level of granularity; • Data should, as far as possible, be made available in commonly used formats to facilitate comparisons over time and between one Member State and another. • Data should be published in an open access format, e.g. cvs (currently, some Member States choose to publish certain data, such as funding under the EU Fisheries Fund, in pdf format which makes analysis restrictive); • Data should be assembled at one central location (e.g. not at the regional level); • Information about the dataset itself, including descriptions of categories, information how to use the databank, etc., should be displayed in major EU languages (and at least in English).
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain In the EU, scientific advice about overfishing is missing for over 65 percent of fish stocks for which there are total allowable catches. In most cases this is because of missing information on catches, incomplete surveys or poor sampling. Providing scientific data on fisheries is a Member State responsibility which is currently not being fully met (See COM(2011) 298 final: Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on Fishing Opportunities, chapter 4.1.). Since fisheries are a public resource, Member States should have an obligation to make available specific information detailed by the Data collection Framework regulation to all interested stakeholders, including the public. 1. Fishers who are provided with the opportunity to exploit fish stocks have the responsibility of stewarding them responsibly and contributing to their best conservation and management. This includes the sharing of information. Most EU fishers are not required to compensate the public for the opportunity to exploit the resource, fish, e.g. through the payment of an access fee. At the same time management costs are borne by the public through the provision of administration, port facilities, scientific assessment, etc. 2. The costs of fisheries management are by and large borne by the public—in essence, the public subsidises the fishing industries’ use of a public resource. As a result, the public should have the right to access data and information used in fisheries management.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Fish is a public resource and Member States should provide the public with access to available fisheries data, including data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas. European fisheries are diverse and so informed policy responses are only possible with a corresponding access to quality data, e.g. an evaluation of public aid for the fishing sector is only possible with comprehensive data.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Fish is a public resource the public has a right to know who is benefitting from particular stocks and fishing areas.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Public aid should create public goods. Research is no exception to this. As a result, data and information assembled within projects which largely depend on public funding should be accessible by the public.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Fisheries conservation and management should incorporate the latest science on the impacts of climate change (changes in fish migration and distribution, demographics, etc.). Open and transparent access to data will allow to better understand these impacts of climate change and to take adequate safeguard measures. In addition, there is increasing industrial exploitation of marine ecosystems, e.g. off-shore energy, mineral extraction etc., which is the stated objective of the blue growth strategy. It is important that any such activities and their impacts on marine ecosystems are closely monitored.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? • EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data; • Member States should have the option to reallocate aid to data collection (http://assets.ocean2012.eu/publication_documents/documents/378/original/20121115_NGO_reaction_Council_GA_EMFF.pdf )



Int. Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Int. Forum for Sustainable Underwater Activities
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work Spain
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
what type of organisation NGO mixed of public society and enterprises
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? Setting up processes for proper stewardship of data that ensures not only save archiving, but also cataloguing using standards and technology that allows fast retrieval of data through automated processes. It would be desirable that the EU stablishes those standards as soon as possible and with all parties agreement, in order to facilitate an homogeneus set of information, easily accessible with a single system. We must understand that the sea has no borders and it would not be useful and agile to have info in different formats.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
explain Raw data may be needed for some interested parties to create its own map layers (regarding his own interests) and data products can be very helpful and time saving for others. If only one of both options had to be chosen raw data is, in our opinion, the most appropriate.
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? yes
why? All actions focused on gathering data in as few platforms as possible are welcomed as everything is more accessible. In addition, many information provided from GMES will be necessary when working with EMODnet data, so this common platform would facilitate the process.
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain Fish are a public resource and any data that has to do with them (including its fishing) should be also public and available without any requirement to obtain authorisation.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain It could be inside EMODnet.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? no
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? yes
what measures? More structured and open access to European marine observations and data.
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< One possible criteria could be to determnie whether they benefit or not the hole EU.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? Any that are feasible and related to common public domain (temperature, salinity...)
(23) You have now finished the questionnaire but there may be some other points that you wish to raise. This is your opportunity. You may even append a document. The acomplishment of the data collection framework regarding fisheries data should be more strenghthened as nowadays few countries give their data on time.



new economics foundation
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation new economics foundation
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work United Kingdom
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
what type of organisation charity / think tank
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? • Where legislation permits it, data should be made available without any unnecessary delays; • Data should be made available with the greatest level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data with the greatest level of granularity; • Data should, as far as possible, be made available in commonly used formats to facilitate comparisons over time and between one Member State and another. • Data should be published in an open access format, e.g. cvs (currently, some Member States choose to publish certain data, such as funding under the EU Fisheries Fund, in pdf format which makes analysis restrictive); • Data should be assembled at one central location (e.g. not at the regional level); • Information about the dataset itself, including descriptions of categories, information how to use the databank, etc., should be displayed in major EU languages (and at least in English).
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain In the EU, scientific advice about overfishing is missing for over 65 percent of fish stocks for which there are total allowable catches. In most cases this is because of missing information on catches, incomplete surveys or poor sampling. Providing scientific data on fisheries is a Member State responsibility which is currently not being fully met (See COM(2011) 298 final: Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on Fishing Opportunities, chapter 4.1.). Since fisheries are a public resource, Member States should have an obligation to make available specific information detailed by the Data collection Framework regulation to all interested stakeholders, including the public. 1. Fishers who are provided with the opportunity to exploit fish stocks have the responsibility of stewarding them responsibly and contributing to their best conservation and management. This includes the sharing of information. Most EU fishers are not required to compensate the public for the opportunity to exploit the resource, fish, e.g. through the payment of an access fee. At the same time management costs are borne by the public through the provision of administration, port facilities, scientific assessment, etc. 2. The costs of fisheries management are by and large borne by the public—in essence, the public subsidises the fishing industries’ use of a public resource. As a result, the public should have the right to access data and information used in fisheries management.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Fish is a public resource and Member States should provide the public with access to available fisheries data, including data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas. European fisheries are diverse and so informed policy responses are only possible with a corresponding access to quality data, e.g. an evaluation of public aid for the fishing sector is only possible with comprehensive data.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Fish is a public resource the public has a right to know who is benefitting from particular stocks and fishing areas. Fishing effort (its intensity and distribution) is of public interest because of its impact on fish populations, a public resource. The EMODnet usefully makes public geological and hydrological data for independent assessment, as well as for public interest as legitimate stakeholders. Transparency and availability of the data held by the VMS is critical for assessing effort regimes and the effectiveness of fisheries management in meeting public benefit objectives such as sustainability and food security.
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? The focus should be to improve catch selectivity, reduce environmental and ecosystem impacts and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). However, the cost effectiveness should account for the value of the fish resources themselves which are typically granted for free to fishers, with no compensation to the public.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Publicly-funded research should be made freely available to the public. This includes proper archiving and access to the observations and raw data collected in user-friendly formats (e.g. Excel, CSV), rather than simply processed data or summary statistics. This ensures full transparency in research findings derived from public funds, as well as accountability of research to the funders. Moreover, the information itself is of value to the management of fish resources, which are in turn publicly-owned. This implies that research observations should be made public for the benefit of the management of public resources.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Fisheries conservation and management should incorporate the latest science on the impacts of climate change (changes in fish migration and distribution, demographics, etc.). Open and transparent access to data will allow to better understand these impacts of climate change and to take adequate safeguard measures. In addition, there is increasing industrial exploitation of marine ecosystems, e.g. off-shore energy, mineral extraction etc., which is the stated objective of the blue growth strategy. It is important that any such activities and their impacts on marine ecosystems are closely monitored.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? • EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data; • Member States should have the option to reallocate aid to data collection (http://assets.ocean2012.eu/publication_documents/documents/378/original/20121115_NGO_reaction_Council_GA_EMFF.pdf ) Sharing of data can be a term introduced to fishing licences.



Asociacion PlataformaEl Chorlitejo
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Asociacion Plataforma"El Chorlitejo"
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work Spain
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
what type of organisation defend the marine environment
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? • Where legislation permits it, data should be made available without any unnecessary delays; • Data should be made available with the greatest level of detail available and not arbitrarily aggregated. Any aggregation of data should be in addition to the publication of raw data with the greatest level of granularity; • Data should, as far as possible, be made available in commonly used formats to facilitate comparisons over time and between one Member State and another. • Data should be published in an open access format, e.g. cvs (currently, some Member States choose to publish certain data, such as funding under the EU Fisheries Fund, in pdf format which makes analysis restrictive); • Data should be assembled at one central location (e.g. not at the regional level); • Information about the dataset itself, including descriptions of categories, information how to use the databank, etc., should be displayed in major EU languages (and at least in English).
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain In the EU, scientific advice about overfishing is missing for over 65 percent of fish stocks for which there are total allowable catches. In most cases this is because of missing information on catches, incomplete surveys or poor sampling. Providing scientific data on fisheries is a Member State responsibility which is currently not being fully met (See COM(2011) 298 final: Communication from the Commission concerning a consultation on Fishing Opportunities, chapter 4.1.). Since fisheries are a public resource, Member States should have an obligation to make available specific information detailed by the Data collection Framework regulation to all interested stakeholders, including the public. 1. Fishers who are provided with the opportunity to exploit fish stocks have the responsibility of stewarding them responsibly and contributing to their best conservation and management. This includes the sharing of information. Most EU fishers are not required to compensate the public for the opportunity to exploit the resource, fish, e.g. through the payment of an access fee. At the same time management costs are borne by the public through the provision of administration, port facilities, scientific assessment, etc. 2. The costs of fisheries management are by and large borne by the public—in essence, the public subsidises the fishing industries’ use of a public resource. As a result, the public should have the right to access data and information used in fisheries management.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain Fish is a public resource and Member States should provide the public with access to available fisheries data, including data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas. European fisheries are diverse and so informed policy responses are only possible with a corresponding access to quality data, e.g. an evaluation of public aid for the fishing sector is only possible with comprehensive data.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

How can confidentiality concerns be resolved? Fish is a public resource the public has a right to know who is benefitting from particular stocks and fishing areas.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Public aid should create public goods. Research is no exception to this. As a result, data and information assembled within projects which largely depend on public funding should be accessible by the public.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Fisheries conservation and management should incorporate the latest science on the impacts of climate change (changes in fish migration and distribution, demographics, etc.). Open and transparent access to data will allow to better understand these impacts of climate change and to take adequate safeguard measures. In addition, there is increasing industrial exploitation of marine ecosystems, e.g. off-shore energy, mineral extraction etc., which is the stated objective of the blue growth strategy. It is important that any such activities and their impacts on marine ecosystems are closely monitored.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< No answer
(16) How could the governance of EMODnet and GMES evolve to better accommodate the need for long term sustainability? No answer
(17) What could be the role of the Joint Research Centre and the European Environment Agency? No answer
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(19) What mechanism could be envisaged to manage the evaluation and assessments needed to inform the Commission, Member States and Parliament on priorities for EU support? No answer
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? • EU financial support, e.g. under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, should be made conditional upon the transparent sharing of data; • Member States should have the option to reallocate aid to data collection (http://assets.ocean2012.eu/publication_documents/documents/378/original/20121115_NGO_reaction_Council_GA_EMFF.pdf )
(23) You have now finished the questionnaire but there may be some other points that you wish to raise. This is your opportunity. You may even append a document. We believe that fishing is sustainable, should not allow the trawl and damaging the environment, as evidenced by an attached them artisanal fishing in Gran Canaria, which should be a pilot for the European Union, that if putting the necessary tools to fishermen so they can have a good management and planning of resources, at the same time not allowing the importation of other species outside Europe since perjucio go catch our fishermen and their product would still be expensive and the population would reject favoring the importation of species of underdeveloped countries and a good price, but not quality.I can not send the file as it weighs more than 1MB, will try to send it anywhere to take this into account.



BSAG Baltic Sea Action Group (Finnish Foundation
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation BSAG Baltic Sea Action Group (Finnish Foundation
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work Finland
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  civil society
what type of organisation environmental foundation
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? mostly data products
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

no opinion
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? no opinion
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? no opinion
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes



Keen Marine Ltd
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation Keen Marine Ltd
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work United Kingdom
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  private
principal area of activity other
specify Environmental Characterisation
size of organisation micro (<10 employees)
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? By working together. Member states need to decide among themselves what is important data to collect, manage and archive. Data management systems should be locally administered but globally coordinated and should eventually reside (or link) to a commonly accessible node. This implies the standardisation of data formats which in turn implies standardisation of data collection methodology. Safe data storage means multiple copies and procedures for regular maintenance of the data archive, coordinated between replicate data repositories.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? inappropriate
why? Current thematic groups represent traditional disciplines and lack inter-disciplinary focus which is the best way to approach integrated environmental systems. The environment doesn't recognise these themes as separate and the EMODN should not as well. The EMODN should be doing much more to force the synthesis of these perspectives or important relationships in the real world will be lost.
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? roughly equal
explain Some users will want to have access to raw data to experiment with new ways of abstracting information from it. They should be enabled and encouraged to do this. Summary data, or data products as they are now called, presuppose some downstream use for that format. This is appropriate where that use is well defined and useful to those who access it - generally those users need a synoptic view or need the summary data because they lack the time or skills to interpret/process the raw data. Raw data should always be available to those who which to access it, even if only to verify the outputs of the summation routines (which are sometimes less than perfect and can be misleading) but also because the opportunity to gain new insight lies in having this access.
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? yes
why? Of course. This should be self evident. This increases access to data over a common platform, that's a good thing, that means a wider audience for the output of all that data collection effort.
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? yes
explain The question should really be rephrase to why would you want to exclude them? I suspect the answer lies in commercial sensitivities. The first priority should be the protection of the resource so an even stronger rephrasing of this questions might be should the data products be made available to operational services where this leads to inappropriate exploitation of marine resources?
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? yes
explain I believe that once the data has been assembled under the framework it should be available for any purpose by legitimate users. How to control that, if indeed it needs to be, I take as the actual point of the question. Perhaps the providers of data should decide prior to collecting it whether the data is of a sensitive nature and if it is appropriate for submission to the Data Collection Framework. If it is sensitive, then it should not become part of the Framework allowing all data within the Framework to be available for any purpose. Further, any data collected under the auspices of the Data Framework, should as a matter of course become universally accessible.
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? yes
explain This would allow for better calibration of fisheries models in terms of setting initial conditions as well as providing a clearer view of the state of the fishery allowing more targeted and effective policy. Is the fear that publication would lead to rogue exploitation? Then monitor and police fisheries better, don't hide the very information that will allow informed decisions on management.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

By completely removing confidentiality.
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? The EU can strengthen it's position by investing in, and supporting, emerging technologies. Many new ideas do not arrive fully formed and often the real benefit comes out as a result of pursuing an eccentric dream. The original idea may come to nothing but important benefits emerge along the way. Integrated distributed networks I predict will become increasingly important particularly when used in conjunction with other technologies such as remote sensing (which often suffers from ground truthing issues). Consideration should be given to ways of supporting open source, community based initiatives as a well spring of innovation and ideas that tap a diverse stream of talent (both emerging and established) not necessarily constrained by conventional wisdom. This has the potential to provide quantum leaps of innovation for no other reason than no one told them it was impossible.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Assuming these are publicly funded research projects then following a sufficient period for first publication, data outputs must become part of the public data repository. Fundamentally because it allows peer review and reanalysis, beyond the handful of academics who might review the paper prior to publication.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(13) What information on the behaviour of our seas and coasts can best help business and public authorities adapt to climate change? Accurate, quality controlled, and reliable information, particularly archived over a long time period for the future determination of historical trends.
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< The principle criteria should be does a new initiative do something better, or in a different way, to what is already being done. Does it present an opportunity to make better use of existing data collection systems through combining and integrating their output? Will it augment, or possibly replace a less efficient or less comprehensive system. The EU should always keep part of it's funding for "blue skies" research that tests new ideas and assumptions, and occasionally it should support things that look really crazy just in case it might work. Recent initiatives in the use of biomimicry and robotics for control systems might, at first glance, seem a bit weird but at the bottom of that is a requirement to first understand underlying mechanisms which may not turn out to be what was first imagined. This first imagination serves only as an entry point for determining the true nature of a biological mechanism. (Often one as envisaged by engineers rather than biologists) Self deploying and repairing systems for autonomous observation platforms for instance are likely to arise from biomimetic research leading to robust, long deployment, observation systems for the open ocean.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
explain Absolutely, however the process needs to be linked to agreed metrics first and in this sense these metrics should form part of the original agreement of support for any observation program. A regular process to assess the appropriateness of the metrics might also be a good idea as new technologies might offer the ability to supersede what was previously the most effect means of sampling an ocean basin. I would counsel a certain degree of conservatism in this process too or the process becomes a slave to the next new thing which may not provide quite so many benefits as first claimed. In some respects some of the glider networks are only just starting to be used appropriately after the initial flush of enthusiasm subsides and they are applied to what they are really good at rather than being seen as a universal tool for everything.
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
Under what circumstances? The license to abstract a resource for private benefit presupposes that the resource is in public ownership, and also protects the private company by giving them an exclusive (and protected under law) right to conduct those activities. Data provided by private companies to gain a license is important for setting a baseline against which to judge the effects of their activities and it is in the public interest (insofar as it is their resource which they are allowing the private company to exploit under license) to have that data available. Under what circumstances? Under circumstances relevant to the exploitation of the resource and the protection of the adjacent environment and for monitoring of compliance with licensing conditions both during and after the activity.
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? yes
what parameters might be monitored? This depends entirely on their activity, but as a minimum I would suggest sediment mobility, wind and wave climate, meteorological parameters, scour around any structures, currents, and any relevant potential pollutants that might arise as a result of their activities (hydrocarbons, heavy metals, etc)



The European Wind Energy Association - EWEA
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation The European Wind Energy Association - EWEA
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) yes
what is your registration number? 19920706471-21
country where you live or work Belgium
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  private
what type of organisation European industry association
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? yes
what reasons? commercial sensitivity; allowing time to publish
explain The private sector is producing a large amount of data. If it is good that data collected become publically available, their release should nevertheless be done in timely manner and under specified timescales agreed with the developers who collected and paid for them. This will ensure that commercial sensitivity is maintained and commercial agreements not affected. Data collected from public funded research should be made easily and freely accessible.
(2) How can Member States ensure that the data they hold are safely stored, available, and interoperable? Data should be readily accessible and updated at regular interval to be useful and interoperable. Common formats should be used (.csv, .txt, .xcl for data and metadata) There are a number of issues and principles that must be taken into account to approach the design of user-interfaces and requirements / restrictions to users: • The data structure of the database with the level of integration of GIS element should be defined in close dialogue with (key-) users (authorities, consultants and project holders). An agreement and commitment will be necessary to ensure that the system is used. • The system must be designed to ensure an easy user-interface. The system should not impose (significant) extra work-load (=costs) compared to present data handling. Furthermore, if it is too difficult to enter data into the system, the system will not be much used and data will be missing. Loss of data due to difficulties of entering into the platform cannot be acceptable. • It is recommended to have a person/institution responsible for the database, as well as support for users and data-entry validation. The best system would be a single well-structured and continuously updated national database held by a governmental institution. • One data submission should be suitable for multiple purposes in one Member State so that developers do not deal with two separate data submissions under two separate systems. However, the main difficulty in using data from public authorities is usually not their accessibility (delays and costs are acceptable) but their quality. Data may be limited in terms of period-time (meteo, hydrographical data), extent (bathymetry, geological), resolution or reliability (bathymetric surveys, hydro data). Common standards would help to address this.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? no opinion
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? no opinion
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? no opinion
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? no opinion
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? no opinion
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? yes

how can confidentiality concerns be resolved?

Yes. At the moment, Vessel Monitoring System data is differently available in the Member States. In the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, it is easily accessible while charts are only provided in Belgium. In France, it is hard to access the data.
(10) What should be the focus of EU support to new marine observation technologies? How can we extend ocean monitoring and its cost effectiveness? How can the EU strengthen its scientific and industrial position in this area? EU efforts should concentrate on ensuring data quality for specific use rather than only focusing on data collection. The main difficulty usually lies in the quality of data available. Common standards would encourage collaboration and strengthen the EU’s scientific and industrial position.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Yes and especially if it is an EU-funded project. However, the IP rights and method should be protected.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? no opinion
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
Under what circumstances? Under what circumstances? The data collected pre, during and post construction by private companies should be made publically available, provided that there are no additional costs or administrative burden incurred, and that their release remains subject to certain commercial conditions. To be useful, data should be readily accessible and updated on a regular basis, quarterly to annually, depending on their type. Common standards should be in place, with formats such as .csv, .txt, .xcl. Furthermore, data fed into the system should only be released in accordance with specified timescales agreed with the developers that collected and paid for the data. As a matter of fact, releasing data after the license granting might still be sensitive and affect the commercial terms of any deal or partnership. The granting of the license cannot be the only critical point to evaluate data sensitivity and the terms of releasing should be carefully envisaged with the developers and subject to commercial conditions. Why? Better data sharing could lead to cost reduction for offshore wind projects, provided that these projects are developed in an area where there is data overlap. There could be a beneficial exchange of physical data (oceanography, bathymetry, sediment and geological) as these do not expire within a short time. As to biological and to some extent chemical data, it is likely that the private sector will not be able to extract them from the database as they might quickly become outdated. Nevertheless, the access to marine database will mainly help developers to inform the baseline conditions and provide temporal and spatial context.
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? no
why? The offshore private sector is already providing a large amount of marine data. While it is good to make these data available for public use, it would not be reasonable to request that the industry further contributes to wider monitoring of the sea. Furthermore, the present scope seems to cover all requirements. Rather the Member States’ monitoring efforts should ‘fill in the gaps’ and tie together the various sources of data (to the extent they are suitable for the purpose). The industry nevertheless remains positive in offering its sites if sampling from existing structures can help realising that and if it does not interfere with the function and operation of the structures.
(22) What public-private partnership models can maximise incentives for industry to share data and investments in data as well as benefits to all stakeholders? The offshore wind industry is aware that data sharing (on some topics) would benefit the private as well as the public sector. Better data sharing could lead to some project cost reduction through better planning. In the case of a PPP, we would advise to make the cooperation effective and incentivise it through relevant membership fees put in place to ensure that data quality is checked. The Joint Cetacean Protocol could also be a good example of a framework, established by the public sector and allowing developers to input and obtain useful data.



QUALITAS Remos S.L.
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation QUALITAS Remos S.L.
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) no
country where you live or work Spain
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  private
principal area of activity other
specify Innovative data & technology intensive solutions
size of organisation small (<50 employees)
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? no
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? appropriate
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? mostly raw data
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? no
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? no
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? no
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? no
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? yes
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? yes
what measures? Data (both raw and processed) should be interoperable, accessible and free of restrictions and cost on use, availabe in real-time, not only to the public sector but also to all individuals and private companies. This is the only way to facilitate growth and a sustainable job-creating blue economy. Societal benefits would be multiplied by giving access to data this way. Present practice is limiting access to data in realtime in an unjustified and inadmissible way to private companies which is against all European Environmental Data Policies harming by this European Economy directly.
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< Data (both raw and processed) should be interoperable, accessible and free of restrictions and cost on use, availabe in real-time, not only to the public sector but also to all individuals and private companies. This is the only way to facilitate growth and a sustainable job-creating blue economy. Societal benefits would be multiplied by giving access to data this way. Present practice is limiting access to data in realtime in an unjustified and inadmissible way to private companies which is against all European Environmental Data Policies harming by this European Economy directly.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? yes
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available? yes
(21) Should licenced offshore private sector actors be obliged to contribute to wider monitoring of the sea where this is feasible? no
(23) You have now finished the questionnaire but there may be some other points that you wish to raise. This is your opportunity. You may even append a document. Data (both raw and processed) should be interoperable, accessible and free of restrictions and cost on use, availabe in real-time, not only to the public sector but also to all individuals and private companies. This is the only way to facilitate growth and a sustainable job-creating blue economy. Societal benefits would be multiplied by giving access to data this way. Present practice is limiting access to data in realtime in an unjustified and inadmissible way to private companies which is against all European Environmental Data Policies harming by this European Economy directly.



CNPMEM
back to list of respondents

question answer
name of organisation CNPMEM
Are you replying on behalf of your organisation or individually? on behalf of organisation
are you registered in the EU transparency register? (for those answering on behalf of organisation) yes
what is your registration number? 23837746977-09
country where you live or work France
Type of organisation? Even if you are replying on an individual basis, we would like to know where you are coming from. if you are in employment then this should be the type of organisation you work for. If a large proportion of a public body's work is research, it should be classified under "research".  private
what type of organisation Private Organization with public interests missions
size of organisation -
(1) Are there any reasons why there should be exceptions, other than those related to personal privacy, to the Commission’s policy of making marine data freely available and interoperable? yes
what reasons? commercial sensitivity
explain - Certaines pêcheries sont constituées d’un nombre très restreint de navires, ce qui permettrait de les différencier facilement, rompant ainsi le secret commercial ; - Mauvaise utilisation ou interprétation des données que pourraient avoir certaines personnes, qui ne connaissent pas très bien le secteur de la pêche.
(3) Are the seven thematic groups of the European Marine Observation and Data Network the most appropriate? Should some be combined? (e.g. geology and hydrography) or should some be divided? inappropriate
why? Le domaine de la pêche est si vaste et complexe, qu’il faudrait sub-diviser le groupe « Activités humaines » selon leur type : - pêche (professionnelle et plaisancière) ; - extraction de granulat ; - énergies marines ; - tourisme ; - transport maritime ; - défense... étant donné qu’elles n’ont pas les mêmes impacts sur le milieu marin.
(4) What should be the balance in EMODnet between providing access to raw data and developing digital map layers derived from the raw data across seabasins? mostly data products
explain Tout dépend de la diffusion des données qui sera effectuée. S’il s’agit de donner un accès le plus large possible (grand public), il faut privilégier une diffusion des données globalisées par bassin maritime et/ou Etat membre (et ne pas diffuser les données brutes, que le grand public n’aura pas forcément la capacité à interpréter).
(5) Should a common platform be set up to deliver products from both GMES and EMODnet? no opinion
(6) Should the GMES marine products and service also be tailored for use by those studying climate change and environmental protection as well as those needing a near-real-time operational service? no opinion
(7) Should data that are assembled under the Data Collection Framework for a particular purpose such as a fish stock assessment be available for re-use without the requirement to obtain authorisation from the original providers of these data? no
explain Pour des questions de qualité de la donnée, la collecte de données est toujours cadrée par un protocole et un plan d’échantillonnage. Pour ce faire, des hypothèses sont émises. Le fait de ré-utiliser les données alors qu’elles ont été collectées dans un but initial précis pourrait causer des biais dans la seconde interprétation des résultats. En outre, il conviendrait de demander le consentement des producteurs (obligation étant donné qu’il s’agit de données individuelles).
(8) Should an internet portal similar to those for EMODnet be set up to provide access to fisheries data held by Member States, as well as data assembled for particular stocks, particular fleet segments or particular fishing areas? If so, how should it be linked to EMODnet? no
explain Sur site internet http://www.emodnet-chemistry.eu/portal, portail EMODNet sur la chimie des océans, il est précisé qu’il s’agit d’une version provisoire, que les résultats n’ont pas encore été validés par les experts régionaux. Une information visible par le grand public ne doit pas apparaitre sans avoir été validée préalablement, surtout lorsqu’il s’agit d’une donnée sensible. Les mises en garde du type « version provisoire » ne sont pas suffisantes, mieux vaut n’afficher que les résultats validés.
(9) Should control data, such as that derived from the Vessel Monitoring System that tracks fishing vessels, be made more available? no
why not? Les données VMS relèvent du contrôle des pêches. Il s’agit de données individuelles qui révèlent la présence exacte des navires et les lieux de pêche qu’ils fréquentent. On peut considérer qu’il s’agirait d’une violation du droit commercial.
(11) Should there be an obligation for research projects to include a provision ensuring the archiving and access to observations collected during the research project? yes
why? Ceci permettrait de mieux gérer la diffusion des données. L’obligation devrait être plus large et imposer que les professionnels soient informés du projet avant sa mise en œuvre, pour pouvoir discuter de l’accès aux données.
(12) Should the ‘push’ process whereby marine environment reports are delivered be progressively replaced by a ‘pull’ process, whereby data are made available through the internet and harvested by the competent authority using technology developed through EMODnet? no opinion
(14) Are any additional measures required, over and above existing initiatives such as EMODnet and GMES, to enable Europe to support international initiatives on ocean data such as GOOS and GEOSS? no opinion
(15) What criteria should be used to determine EU financial support of observation programmes other than those that it already supports? Can you provide examples? Could the Joint Programming Initiative for European Seas and Oceans play a role?< La participation de la profession au comité de pilotage, au protocole et au plan d’échantillonnage du programme d’observation devrait être un critère déterminant pour accorder un soutien financier.
(18) Is a regular process needed to evaluate the effectiveness of the observation and sampling strategy for each sea-basin? no opinion
(20) Should data provided by private companies for licensing purposes be made publicly available?