(9 June 2016) Neil Holdsworth, ICES EMODnet Chemistry II ( ) WP5 Analysis and Recommendations

EMODnet Chemistry II ( ) WP5 Analysis and Recommendations WP description: objectives Engage with MSFD stakeholders and align/revise chemical portal and products through dialogue identify key users and report on the effectiveness of the system in meeting the needs of end-users provide a summary feedback to the products work package (WP3) To establish efficient tools to obtain users feedback

October 2015 Expert Workshop (Oostende) EMODnet Chem experts + 3 of the 4 RSC’s Objective: define the improvements needed to support MSFD process Outcomes: – Video tutorial for portal – Labelling products better – Labelling of data (research/monitoring) – Access to regional buffers for MSFD users

2015/2016 MSFD-EMODnet steering ActionWho?What increase the visibility of EMODnet products and promote their use/uptake for MSFD implementation EMODnet Secretariat, central and thematic portal teams How to videos; BSC interaction; workshop Oct 2015 Consider case studies to investigate flows of environmental data between selected Member States, Regional Conventions and pan-European marine data and information systems to develop synergies and avoid duplication Secretariat, RSC’s and DG MARE ICES-EMD data contaminants data flow; EIONET data flow specification labelling of data as research versus monitoring data (Explored but will be for next phase) Regional Sea Conventions to encourage contracting parties who have not submitted data to EMODnet to do so where possible without duplicating efforts Regional Sea Conventions ?

Event Horizon 2018 MSFD reporting 2017 RSC Assessments

2016 No WGDIKE in Spring No WISE-Marine progress (no data team at EEA) Commission focused on revision of MSFD descriptors decision and measures of GES RSC’s focused on (short term goals) for IA

RSC Indicators as of December 2015

-(200) became 100 regional indicators -(28) to 13 equate to D5 Eutrophication -(47) to 24 equate to D8/D9 Contaminants -Most are under development, developed but not adopted or no information

2016 D5 Eutrophication – D5 OSPAR: Using EMECO (sort of); Country based assessment – D5 HELCOM: Using EUTRO-OPER (HEAT); Regional based – D5 BARC/UNEP/MAP: IMAP agreed, contractors start in 2016

2016 D8 Hazardous Substances – D8 OSPAR: Using OSPAR Contaminants assessment tool; Regional assessment – D8 HELCOM: Will use Operational CHASE; Regional based – D8 UNEP/MAP: IMAP agreed, contractors start in 2016

Phase III seeding work Who: OSPAR, DGMARE and EMD Chem To discuss the potential of a more direct involvement of RSC’s in the next round of EMODnet RSC’s and EMODnet -general willingness to explore opportunities to fill -OSPAR agreed that what they would like to see is the egg coming before the chicken in the EMODnet projects i.e. move from generic products to focused products for specific uses -specific T&C budgets/workshops will be worked into the tender specs to follow development of products that are required in the RSC’s For data product: very heterogeneous possible end- users, need to better understand who needs what EMD CHEM 3 rd Year SWOT For data product: very heterogeneous possible end- users, need to better understand who needs what EMD CHEM 3 rd Year SWOT

Break out session – 3 groups -Look at specific questions as posed in the tender specification -Think about the phase III activities -Giordano, Dick and Neil will facilitate and 3 breakout groups -Main points report back to plenary at end of morning

Break out questions – Room Dick (data input) (1) main barriers to the provision of data (WP1) – scientific (uncertainties in measuring or obtaining indicator for required parameters), institutional (willingness of bodies to share data), legal (rules limiting access to data), commercial (cost of data), information technology (formats, standards, information systems) and financial (effort required to prepare data). (6) performance of the portal technology (WP4) (5) priorities and effort required for improving the accuracy, precision and coverage of the data (WP5, WP1, WP3) collated including a description of how an appropriate data quality assurance and control system can be established in terms of speed of response, user-friendliness.

Break out questions – Giordano (Products) (2) challenges to rendering data interoperable (WP3) including different measurement techniques, different baselines, different standards, different nomenclature etc. It will be indicated what steps that might be taken by data holders or the portal operator to improve interoperability. (3) challenges to producing contiguous data over a maritime basin (WP2) from fragmented, inhomogeneous data and how to overcome these challenges. (4) fitness for purpose of the data for measuring ecosystem health (WP3, WP2) of the maritime basin and what might be done to overcome any shortcomings.

Break out questions – Neil (mix) (2) challenges to rendering data interoperable (WP3) including different measurement techniques, different baselines, different standards, different nomenclature etc. It will be indicated what steps that might be taken by data holders or the portal operator to improve interoperability. (3) challenges to producing contiguous data over a maritime basin (WP2) from fragmented, inhomogeneous data and how to overcome these challenges. (5) priorities and effort required for improving the accuracy, precision and coverage of the data (WP5, WP1, WP3) collated including a description of how an appropriate data quality assurance and control system can be established in terms of speed of response, user-friendliness.