Oceanography
March 2011 171
perception of data providers needs to
be realigned to ensure the true operational
delivery of oceanographic and
environmental products.
The ramifications of these survey
results for operational oceanographic
data providers are difficult to gauge.
Historically, in fisheries and the environmental
sciences, providers were
mainly government-funded institutions.
More recently, though, academic
researchers have provided products
through collaborative research projects.
The former are exemplified by the
German Bundesamts fur Seeschijffahrt
und Hydrographie, which produces freely
available operational data products in
response to its government’s core projects
and legal reporting obligations, such
as the Oslo-Paris Convention (OSPAR)
or EU Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (MSFD). These institutes
do not depend on three- to five-year
project funding, and are therefore able
to continue long-term observations and
modeling efforts. However, rigid budget
constraints permit little flexibility in
user-friendly data distribution, although
some, such as the UK Met Office, see
specific user-targeted products as very
important. Academic research institutions,
such as the University of Bergen,
on the other hand, provide data products
that were originally created in collaborative
projects. Although continuation of
the data provision is less certain, these
products are generally better developed
for the environmental/fishery scientist,
and these providers are quicker to merge
new scientific information into their
products. A closer working relationship
between the different kinds of operational
data providers could be beneficial
for all involved.
Mechanisms or interfaces need to be
found to address marine data users’ lack
of knowledge about and inexperience
with the magnitude of data available
and their delivery from the producers.
Dialogue and education is also needed
to enable users be more specific about
their data requirements and needs. More
communication within the producers’
community could speed up this process.
For any oceanographers wanting to make
their data more useful and functional,
the crucial first step toward scientific
progress is to take the data out of the
drawer and make them easily and freely
available. Producers also need to develop
tools that provide manageable historic
time series. Combining the complexity
of production with the simplicity of
delivery is essential for progress.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge
the contributions of Patrick Gorringe,
Gaétan Vinay, Goran Brostrom,
Sébastien Legrand, and Einar Svendsen
during the working group’s meetings in
Aberdeen, IJmuiden, and Brest. Ш
REFERENCES
Bahurel, R, R Adragna, MJ. Bell, R Jacq,
J.A. Johannessen, P.-Y. Le Traon, N. Pinardi, and
J. She. 2009. Ocean Monitoring and Forecasting
Core Services: The European MyOcean Example.
Paper presented at OceanObs '09 Ocean
Information for Society: Sustaining the Benefits,
Realizing the Potential, September 21-25, 2009,
Venice, Italy.
Bell, M.J., M. Lefèbvre, P-Y. Le Traon, N. Smith,
and K. Wilmer-Becker. 2009. GODAE: The
Global Ocean Data Assimilation Experiment.
Oceanography 22(3):14—21. Available online
at: http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/
issue_archive/issue_pdfs/22_3/22-3_bell.pdf
(accessed December 27, 2010).
Blower, J.D., S.C. Hankin, R. Keeley, S. Pouliquen,
J. de la Beaujardière, E. Vanden Berghe,
G. Reed, F. Blanc, M.C. Gregg, J. Fredericks, and
D. Snowden. 2009. Ocean data dissemination:
New challenges for data integration. Plenary
talk at OceanObs '09 Ocean Information for
Society: Sustaining the Benefits, Realizing the
Potential, September 21-25, 2009, Venice, Italy.
Brasseur, P, N. Gruber, R. Barciela, K. Brander, M.
Doron, A. El Moussaoui, A.J. Hobday, M. Huret,
A.-S. Kremeur, P Lehodey, and others. 2009.
Integrating biogeochemistry and ecology into
ocean data assimilation systems. Oceanography
22(3):206-215. Available online at: http://www.
tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/
issue_pdfs/22_3/22-3_brasseur.pdf (accessed
December 27, 2010).
ICES (International Council for the Exploration
of the Sea). 2009. Report of the Working Group
on Operational Oceanographic Products for
Fisheries and Environment (WGOOFE). ICES
CM 2009/0CC:03, 17 pp.
IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission). 2008. SCOR/IODE Workshop on
Data Publishing, Oostende, Belgium, June 17-19,
2008. IOC Workshop Report No. 207, UNESCO
Paris, 23 pp.
Kjell, G. 2003. Better integration of environmental
and fisheries science for management
advice. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
56(3—4):411 —413.
Nowlin, W.D., and TC. Malone. 2003. Research
and GOOS. Marine Technology Society
Journal 37:42-46.
Lamb, R., and E. Davidson. 2002. Social scientists:
Managing identity in socio-technical networks.
In Proceedings of the 35 th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, January 7-10,
2002, Big Island, HI.
Olsen, D.B. 1988. Multidisciplinary issues in
marine science. Oceanography l(2):42-43.
Available online at: http://www.tos.org/
oceanography/issues/issue_archive/
issue_pdfs/1 2/1.2_olson.pdf (accessed
December 27, 2010).
Polfeldt, T. 2006. Making environment statistics
useful: A Third World perspective.
Environmetrics 17:219-226.
Pontecorvo, G. 2003. Insularity of scientific disciplines
and uncertainty about supply: The two
keys to the failure of fisheries management.
Marine Policy 27(l):69-73.
Sissenwine, M., and S. Murawski. 2004. Moving
beyond “intelligent tinkering'': Advancing an
ecosystem approach to fisheries. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 274:291-295.
Sokal, R., and F. Rohlf. 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed.
WH. Freman and Company, New York, NY,
880 pp.
