1 / 13

MRI expert group – Where do we stand?

MRI expert group – Where do we stand?. 7th meeting – Brussels – 14-15 November 2011 Waddah Saab – RTD.H.2. Objectives of the expert group.

maxima
Download Presentation

MRI expert group – Where do we stand?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MRI expert group – Where do we stand? 7th meeting – Brussels – 14-15 November 2011 Waddah Saab – RTD.H.2

  2. Objectives of the expert group • Identify important marine research infrastructure gaps and needs, in addition to those in the ESFRI list, e.g. marine research infrastructure with a regional sea dimension. Attention should be paid to gaps in some EU regional seas; • On the basis of funding opportunities identified (e.g. under structural funds), propose mechanisms to link marine research infrastructure needs with funding opportunities; • Develop a conceptual framework and assessment method for valuing the socio-economic impact of Marine Research Infrastructure, which can be used to promote investment in marine research infrastructures by member states and maritime regions; • Advise on governance for EU marine research infrastructures, in particular with a view to ensure their long term sustainability and maximise synergy in their utilisation.

  3. 1- MRI – gaps & issues • Infrastructures needed to acquire and manage marine data for a broad range of uses: science / research, marine environment monitoring and protection, ocean / climate interactions, socio-economic applications… • Remote observation vs. in-situ observations • Physical / chemical / biological / geological observations • Temporal gaps (long term series) and spatial gaps (MED/BS) • Concrete initiatives (ESFRI, non-ESFRI), oceanographic vessels, data management infrastructures… are essentially multi-use infrastructures • There is a need forfull access to and integration of data, across initiatives and parameters measured  data standardisation / improved access to data

  4. 2 - Cost and value of Marine Research Infrastructure (MRI) • MRI are expensive, cost of maintaining and operating them can represent ~ 50% of total marine research budget  crucial to maximise synergies at EU level • Socio-economic value of research infrastructure is not easy to assess, but we can propose a framework to approach it, covering: • Innovation in marine bio-economy, ocean energy, Protection of the marine environment, marine safety, better prediction of climate change impact and management of related risks • However policy decision making process for investments (e.g. structural funds) hardly based on "thorough" socioeconomic valuation • So we need to show how MRI can help respond to societal needs and better convey their socio-economic value, including the protection of ecosystem services, but… • This is more a pragmatic – down to earth exercise than a thorough – detailed exercise

  5. 3- Study on MRI and structural funds • Finalised but recommendations being refined / adjusted in the light of new structural funds regulations • There are unused opportunities for financing MRI with structurak funds in some MS • But obstacles related to: • lack of awareness among research organisations and management authorities of SF • complexity and cost of preparing a funding request • One experiment: a "brokerage event" for EMBRC in February 2012

  6. 4- MRI Projects and Initiatives Projectse.g. Initiatives(can be) Selected Initiatives Obs. Sys. - International - Regional EU- National G E O S S EMECO, TENATSO R/S GMES MarineCore Service ESONET / EMSO In situ E M O D N E T Operational- Public- Commercial SB SB MOON SB Research- ERIC(European Research Infrastructure Consortium) EuroSITES SeaDataNet Euro-Argo ECOOP Indicative data flows: Eurofleets Ships of opportunity Mapping of EU sea beds / habitats LIFEWATCH / EMBRC

  7. Ordering the landscape: starting with the needs Full and Open Exchange Of Data Across Initiatives & Projects E M O D N E T Science Needs - Major User of Data

  8. Ordering the landscape: levels in the data chain

  9. What do we miss in the landscape? A European initiative to help address (which of) these challenges? Move from research based to long term sustained data acquisition Fill some key parameter gaps: biol/chem data, mapping of European sea beds… Ensure full access to data for all users Enable data integration to increase applications and value for users Better respond to societal needs Strengthen innovation capacity in ocean observation Coordinate EU contribution to global initiatives Capacity building in 3rd cies Engage with society / education…

  10. Towards a European Initiative on Integrated Ocean Observation? Several factors push in this direction • Support from the marine scientific community (Ostende declaration), • Initiatives by industries (offshore wind/supergrid, DNV…) • The maturation of ESFRI, with several marine ESFRI projects moving towards ERIC status • Integrated ocean observation responds to policy and societal needs  Agenda 2020 (e.g. offshore wind, supergrid, sustainable transport…) • The EU maritime policy  an integrated perspective of marine observation / resources • The MSFD and the GES of the seas • The JPI « Seas and Oceans », which takes a similar perspective on MS side

  11. But… important issues and challenges How do we further strengthen standardisation of and access to marine data?  Inspire directive? EMODNET? Convergence of European marine observation initiatives? How do we build upon existing infrastructures / initiatives (ESFRI-ERIC / EMODNET / GMES / EUROGOOS / WISE MARINE…), by adding value and not useless complexity? Can we have convergence between needs and investments at local / regional (sea) / European level(s)? Can / should we have a public / private partnership and engage with marine industries in sustained ocean observation?

  12. Broad options • Minimal - Keep and improve the current landscape: • Get financing for EMODNET in 2014-2020 and improve slowly data harmonisation / standards • Get financing for GMES / in situ in 2014-2020 • Get financing for Marine research / observation capacities in « Horizon 2020 » • Continue interactions between them and with JPI "Oceans" • Maximal – A new all encompassing ocean observation initiative with its own structure(s) • Intermediate - Something in between • Upgrade EMODNET ambitions to boost data standardisation of and access to marine data, use it as backbone for European marine observation • Launch in parallel a public-private partnership initiative at European level to support ocean observation and add flesh to EMODNET • Use possibilities enshrined in GMES to further develop the marine component, in cooperation with a EOOS

  13. Next steps • First draft report from this group to be prepared by Commission by 20 January 2012 with key recommendations on MRI / integration ocean observation / funding opportunities / socio-eco assessement… • Finalisation of report by March 2012, followed by another meeting of this expert group • Commission to come up early 2012 with proposals for a convergence between different processes (EMODNET, expert group on MRI, WISE MARINE, GMES) towards agreed vision • Communication(s) in 2012 to enshrine selected approach in an official document

More Related