Evolution of Copernicus Marine and Land Services to better handle the coastal zone
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
Evolution of Copernicus Marine and Land Services
to better handle the coastal zone
Summary and main outcomes
of an expert workshop held on December 13 & 14, 2016 in Brussels
February 13, 2017
1Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
Content
1 Context and workshop objectives ................................................................................................... 3
2 Main outcomes and recommendations .......................................................................................... 4
3 Next steps ........................................................................................................................................ 5
4 Annex 1: Workshop objectives, agenda and participants ............................................................... 6
5 Annex 2: Synthesis of discussion item 1 “Satellite observations and satellite data processing for
the coastal zone” ........................................................................................................................... 9
6 Annex 3: Synthesis of discussion item 2 “In-situ observations and data processing for the coastal
zone” ............................................................................................................................................. 11
7 Annex 4: Synthesis of discussion item 3 “Monitoring of pressures on the coastal environment
(land & marine)” . .......................................................................................................................... 14
8 Annex 5: Synthesis of discussion item 4 “Coastal Marine analysis and forecasting systems
(interfaces, coupling, harmonization, coproduction). Physics, Biogeochemistry, Waves” ........... 17
9 Annex 6: Synthesis of discussion item 5 “Hydrology and modelling of river basins (run offs,
nutriments)” .................................................................................................................................. 18
2Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
1 Context and workshop objectives
The workshop was organized by EEA and Mercator Ocean as a first step to analyse mid-term (2018-
2020) and long term (post 2021) priorities for the evolution of the Copernicus Marine (CMEMS) and
Land (CLMS) service to better address user needs in the coastal zone.
A large part of Copernicus Marine and Land users and applications are in coastal areas. Coastal users
are relying on Copernicus Marine and Land services and Copernicus satellite observations usually
through a large range of intermediate public/private coastal downstream services. After more than
5 years of operation of the Marine and Land precursors and operational Copernicus services, the
interfaces and boundaries between the core and the coastal downstream services should be revised:
What should be best done at European level as part of core services? What should be left as
downstream services? How the interfaces core/downstream should be improved?
Landscape of stakeholders, services, users and applications in the coastal area is complex and
answering these questions is not an easy task. It will require time and interactions with many actors
and stakeholders (e.g. national/regional/local authorities in charge of coastal monitoring, private
sector, DG MARE/Emodnet, ESA/Coastal TEP, etc).
The workshop was a first step to address the complex issue of users/services in the coastal areas and
interfaces between core/European and downstream services. Several Marine and Land Copernicus
service coastal experts, representatives of coastal monitoring systems, representatives of the private
sector and PIs of European projects related to coastal services participated to the workshop.
The workshop was structured as follows (see agenda in annex 1). The first day was focused on a
review of existing downstream coastal services from both the marine and land perspectives.
Presentations given by marine and land experts gave an overview of existing public and private
coastal services and applications and their present and future (2018 to 2025) requirements regarding
coastal information to be provided through Copernicus Marine & Land services. Day 2 dealt with 5
discussion topics related to CMEMS and CLMS evolutions to better handle the coastal areas and
coastal applications: 1/satellite observations and satellite data processing for the coastal zone, 2/in-
situ observations and data processing for the coastal zone, 3/monitoring of pressures on the coastal
environment, 4/coastal marine analysis and forecasting systems, 5/ hydrology and modelling of river
basins.
The session on Day 2 was intended to outline the most important aspects that will be further
analysed in future dedicated meetings. The main guidelines for the discussion were as follows:
1. Revisit the boundaries between core/downstream
a. What could be best done at European level ?
b. What could be left as downstream services ?
c. How the interfaces core/downstream could be improved ?
2. New needs and new Marine and Land products & services for the coastal zone
a. Users requirements
3Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
b. Feasibility/Maturity/Readiness
c. Core versus Downstream
As a preamble and in front of the number of topics to address on coastal zone, it was proposed to
consider the 4 following drivers to classify and also justify the activities:
European policies and Directives (with all the obligations linked to, monitoring of pressures).
Market as a driver (define core service which fosters downstream activities).
Risk management (also in a broad context such as climate change).
Ecosystem service assessment (broader societal benefits such as the preservation the natural
capital).
2 Main outcomes and recommendations
Improving the monitoring and forecasting of coastal zones building on Copernicus Marine and Land
services and making the best use of existing and future Copernicus satellite observations is both
needed and feasible. This requires both a significant evolution of Copernicus Marine and Land core
European services and a strengthening of the links with downstream coastal monitoring activities
organized both in the public (member states) and private sectors. The workshop identified several
important gaps or areas of improvements. A series of short-term/mid-term actions and
recommendations were identified. They take into account the necessary delineation between core
and downstream activities. This is detailed in the syntheses of each of the five discussion topics in
Annexes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The main recommendations can be summarized as follows:
Better processing (i.e. specific algorithms) of satellite observations is required to improve the
quality of coastal products. This could be organized as part of the evolution of CLMS and
CMEMS from 2018 onwards. This applies, in particular, for CMEMS to ocean colour products
in the coastal zone (Sentinel 3 and Sentinel 2, MSG/SEVERI).
New satellite products to better characterize the state of the coastal zone (e.g. coastline,
coastal erosion) and its evolution (e.g. on seasonal to annual basis) should be proposed.
Improved Digital Elevation Models (DEM) and Bathymetries are basic core requirements for
the coastal zone.
New satellite data/products are also required for the Regional Seas Conventions (e.g.
Barcelona Convention/Mediterranean). Many neighbourhood policies, the MSFD and MSP
Directives rely on the availability of such data.
Based on an analysis of existing capabilities and requirements from other Copernicus services
(in addition of CMEMS and CLMS) (e.g. emergency, C3S), the need to extend the marine and
land service activities to the monitoring and forecasting of all major EU rivers (river outflows,
nutrient and sediment loading) should be analysed. By extension other linkages between
land related and sea related parameters should be explored.
4Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
Similarly, the monitoring, short and long-term prediction of sea level close to the coasts
should be improved. This is required for a wide range of applications (flooding, coastal
erosion, coastal zone management).
Stronger interfaces between CMEMS and downstream coastal marine monitoring systems
should be developed. This includes harmonization and standardization issues (e.g. formats,
quality assessment methods, documentation, data distribution) and of the use of consistent
and improved bathymetry, atmospheric forcing and river inputs.
Pilot studies should be conducted for representative sub-regional/local coastal areas
spanning the relevant fields (physical, biological) of the coastal marine environment (cf
CMEMS User Uptake activities).
Links/interfaces with EMODnet portals and activities (e.g. bathymetry, seabed habitats,
chemistry) should be reinforced.
Products from national/member states coastal monitoring systems could be made available
through CMEMS, CLMS or Copernicus (e.g. DIAS) data portals (coproduction EU & Member
States).
Copernicus could include in the longer run core/common/generic coastal activities to
support the development of coastal downstream services and strong operational interfaces
with the Copernicus Marine and Land services (e.g. short-term/mid-term R&D on modelling,
data assimilation and coupling, satellite observations and products from Sentinels, in-situ
data gathering and processing).
Capacity building and development of best practices are also very important for the coastal
zone monitoring activities developed by member states and local authorities. This is an area
where a European approach would be beneficial.
3 Next steps
The main workshop recommendations should now be elaborated further and discussed with the
Copernicus stakeholders and user communities. Main findings will be presented and discussed
during an open workshop that will be organized by the European Commission, Mercator Ocean and
EEA in Brussels on June 29, 2017.
5Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
4 Annex 1 : Workshop objectives, agenda and participants
Evolution of Copernicus Marine and Land Services to better handle the coastal zone
Workshop to be held in Brussels
(EuroGOOS premises – Avenue Louise 231)
December 13 & 14 (starts at 2 pm and ends the following day at 5 pm)
List of invitees (experts coastal/marine and coastal/land): representatives of national/regional/local
coastal monitoring systems (satellites, in-situ and integrated monitoring systems), PIs of H2020 and
FP7 coastal service projects, private sector (satellite, coastal services and applications).
Mercator Ocean: P.Y. Le Traon, D. Obaton, P. Bahurel.
EEA: H. Dufourmont, A. Meiner, M. Mattiuzzi.
Invited experts Coastal/Marine: G. Coppini (CMCC, national downstream), A. Taramelli (ISPRA,
European directives), G. Nolan (EuroGOOS – EuroGOOS members / coastal in-situ and downstream),
A. Mangin (ACRI – FP7/Coastal + ESA Coastal TEP - private), A. Sánchez-Arcilla ( UPC – H2020/Coastal
– Copernicus Marine Service Evolution H2020 project CEASELESS), G. El Serafy (Deltares, expert /
coastal - Private), E. Stanev (HZG, Germany) (CMEMS STAC), R. Neves (Expert Coastal and Rivers,
Portugal), J. Populus (Ifremer, Emodnet Marine Habitats – cannot attend but will provide inputs).
Invited experts Coastal/Land: E. Mancosu (UMA, Sp), J. Fons (UAB, Sp), M. Prem (PAPRAC, Cr), J.
Ekebom (Metsa, Fi), E. Fitoka (EKBY, Gr), I. Möller (CAM, Uk).
Context and workshop objectives
Both Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS) and Copernicus Land Monitoring
Service (CLMS) are delivering products to a large range of coastal applications and users.
Marine coastal monitoring and forecast services are, in particular, one of the key downstream user
groups for the CMEMS. These systems are often operating at sub-regional and local scales and often
regard CMEMS as critical infrastructure to provide data and boundary condition information, as well
as scientific and technical knowledge. The downstream applications are varied, including reporting
under the MSFD, offshore operations, habitats, aquaculture, and understanding and adapting to
change, including that arising from human activities. The coastal systems are operated in both the
private and public domains, and vary greatly in terms of complexity and sophistication, and in terms
of access to observations for research, testing/verification and operations (local assimilation).
As far as the land service (CLMS) is concerned, coastal zones are a typical type of “hotspot” areas
under the local component, as they experience more man-made pressure (construction activities,
tourism, industrial port areas, water and soil pollution, fish farms…) than the inland areas. Within
the coastal zones, wetlands are very valuable, yet a threatened type of natural systems. In fact, 70%
of wetlands are already lost to draining, land filling and pollution. At the same time the level of
ecosystem services, including for adapting to climate change impacts are relatively higher in coastal
6Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
wetlands, that in other coastal areas. In conclusion, coastal zones are in high demand but vulnerable,
but coastal wetlands are most valuable and most threatened ecosystems of coastal realm (together
with coastal dune and shingle systems). The objective for a coastal service from a land monitoring
perspective is to monitor and understand the trends in spatial extent of vulnerable coastal
ecosystems, to understand anthropogenic pressure on the condition of such systems, as well as the
interactions with shallow coastal waters.
Coastal services have been considered as downstream services that should be operated at
national/regional or even local levels by both public and private actors and not as a core European
service. After more than 5 years of operation of the Marine and Land precursors and operational
Copernicus services, it is timely to revisit the interfaces between the core and the coastal
downstream services and identify what could be best done at European level, what should be left as
downstream services and how the interfaces core/downstream could be improved.
The objective of this workshop is to start a discussion on this issue with Marine and Land Copernicus
service experts, representatives of national/regional/local coastal monitoring systems,
representatives of the private sector and PIs of European projects related to coastal services. The
outcome should be a vision paper that should then be discussed during a wider / open conference
and should guide the long term evolution of the Copernicus Marine and Land services (post 2018 or
more likely post 2021).
Workshop Structure
1. Welcome, workshop objectives and expected outcomes (P.Y. Le Traon / H. Dufourmont)
2. CMEMS, CLMS and coastal services: state of play and main issues for evolution of CMEMS
and CLMS
a. CMEMS and coastal services : P.Y. Le Traon (15’)
b. CLMS and coastal services : H. Dufourmont (15’)
3. Downstream coastal services (Marine and Land): status and perspectives
A series of presentations given by Marine and Land experts. Presentations should provide an overview
of the present situation (existing public and private coastal services and applications) and their
present and future (2018 to 2025) requirements regarding coastal information to be provided
through Copernicus Marine & Land Services. They should also provide inputs (when relevant) to the 5
agenda items identified in point 4/ below. Presentations to be provided before the meeting
(December 9 at the latest).
i) Marine coastal services including interfaces with core service and applications
(1) EuroGOOS and Rooses prespective : G. Nolan and G. Coppini (20’)
(2) Coastal modeling and coastal services- private sector perspective: A. Mangin and G.
El Serafy (20’)
(3) Needs from European regulations (MSFD, MSP) and implications: A. Taramelli (20’)
(4) H2020 Copernicus service evolution: CEASELESS project perspective : A. Sanchez-
Arcilla (20’)
(5) Marine Habitats mapping and modeling (Emodnet) : J Populus (20’)
ii) Land coastal services: Examples of use cases based on core land cover/use services.
(1) Data requirements for environmental monitoring in coastal areas (A. Meiner, 20’)
(2) UNEP/MAP policy requirements, instruments and their data needs (M. Prem, 20’)
(3) The Finnish marine inventory programme VELMU: a way to get data for ecosystem
based management of MPAs and MSP (J. Ekebom, 10’)
7Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
(4) SWOS modifications in the ecosystem MAES typology (E. Fytoka, 20’)
(5) Coastal protection function provided by natural coastal foreshores (I. Möller, 20’)
4. Options for CMEMS and CLMS evolutions to better handle the coastal areas and coastal
applications (focus on activities that could be better done at European level: what is needed,
what can be done, how to do it including issues on boundaries between core/downstream
and coproduction at European level and national levels ?)
5 items are identified. One Chair/one Rapporteur per item. Chair introduces and drives the
discussion. Rapporteur to provide a brief summary (1 page) one week after the workshop.
• Satellite observations and satellite data processing for the coastal zone (Chair: M.
Mattiuzzi, Rapporteur : A. Mangin)
• In-situ observations and data processing for the coastal zone (Chair G. Nolan,
Rapporteur: E. Mancosu)
• Monitoring of pressures on the coastal environment (land & marine) (Chair: A. Meiner,
Rapporteur: J. Fons).
• Coastal Marine analysis and forecasting systems (interfaces, coupling, harmonization,
coproduction). Physics, Biogeochemistry, Waves. (Chair: G. Nolan, Rapporteur: E.
Stanev)
• Hydrology and modelling of river basins (run offs, nutriments) (Chair: R. Neves,
Rapporteur: M. Mattiuzzi)
5. Next steps
1/, 2/, 3/ should be covered on Day 1 (afternoon) and 4/, 5/ and 6/ on day 2.
Background papers
CMEMS High level Strategy Service Evolution
CMEMS R&D Service Evolution Roadmap
EuroGOOS position paper (She et al., 2016)
Copernicus Coastal Service : the FP7 Space projects prospective (Mangin et al., 2014)
EEA & ETC/ULS: Tailoring of a LC/LU nomenclature for Coastal Zone Monitoring in
combination with Copernicus marine monitoring services (2016)
Background documents are available at:
https://eea1-
my.sharepoint.com/personal/matteo_mattiuzzi_eea_europa_eu/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?fold
erid=0534361a8c36347babba15034bf6ec109&authkey=AUL9eQJ20vDQ0z8WEC7Iqss
8Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
5 Annex 2: Synthesis of discussion item 1 “Satellite observations and satellite data
processing for the coastal zone” (Chair : M. Mattiuzzi, Rapporteur : A. Mangin)
For the discussion, M.Mattiuzzi proposed to consider a coastal zone service from the point of
view of monitoring objectives:
Unit Monitoring objectives Characteristics
Spatial Temporal Satellites
Resolution Resolution
Land Use and Land Status and change VHR (HR, in case LR (HR in case Copernicus
Cover monitoring of LC/LU. E.g.: of products such of products Contributing
CLC, Urban Atlas, Riparian as: phenology or such as: Mission (CCM)
Zone, Natura 2000 soil moisture) phenology or
Sentinel 1,2,3
soil moisture)
Marine Waters Monitoring of physical & HR-LR VHR (daily or Sentinel 2, 3, 6
biological properties. E.g.: better?)
Sentinel 1
SST, Salinity, HAB, …
Copernicus
Contributing
Mission (CCM)
Winds and Waves Monitoring of physical HR-LR VHR (daily or Sentinel 1 (SAR)
properties. better?)
Sentinel 3 & 6
CFOSAT
Copernicus
Contributing
Mission (CCM)
Rivers River characteristics VHR VHR (daily or Sentinel 3 & 6,
better?) Sentinel 2,
Fresh water discharge,
Sentinel 1
SWOT (post
2021)
Coastal Erosion Morphology status and HR-MR LR (yearly Sentinel 1
change snapshot?) (Interferometry)
Atmospheric Pollution Ppm LR VHR HR-MR (?)
Sentinel 4, 5, 5P
Based on this introduction the following comments were made:
As the needs for satellite data for coastal marine activities is generally more dynamic in
terms of temporal resolution (than on land), AM presented the type of user’s needs that
could be investigated for satellite data (punctual for an event, regular for a dynamic
monitoring or combined through sensors and models as presented by A. Taramelli).
Initial (more obvious) requirements are on intertidal areas (salted marsh) & lagoons. They
deal with water discharge + sediment load and nutrient + topography + soil moisture. The
latter is not operational (although LCS is providing a humidity indicator).
Experts in the room can be considered as representative intermediate users and the
requirements and R&D initiatives expressed in the presentation can be used as good starting
9Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
point for user’s needs wrt coastal zone specificities. It is proposed to classify each of the
topics presented by the experts according to drivers and approach units and indicating their
level of maturity (to be done out of the frame of this meeting).
Each expert was then asked to provide inputs on requirements about satellite data.
A. Taramelli: national/regional operation services require wind, waves and precipitation.
There is also a need for more sentinel data (to evaluate spatial and temporal variability –
trends analysis is also mentioned by GES). High resolution wind modelling that assimilates
SAR data is also required. On land side, specific products would be needed, e.g. phenology,
soil moisture…
P.Y. Le Traon: Improved ocean colour products are needed for the coastal zone. New high
frequency turbidity data (using Meteosat/SEVIRI) are also relevant for CMEMS applications.
I. Möller: the main topic is the stability of the coastal zone and the biology mapping on the
intertidal zones (at least one low tide clear image to explore and classify phenology); this
might require a large number of Senitnel-2 to get clear views and catch seasonality.
G. Coppini: better products available from Ocean Colour for BGC data assimilation in Coastal
Zone – better products for sea level – availability of data for coastal erosion as a core service.
Water quality is also a strong need (this is related to the need for better BGC data to be
assimilated in BGC models).
A. Mangin: not to forget the link to establish between SWOS project (http://swos-service.eu)
and CLMS (wrt sentinel data use and nomenclatures for land classification) to support the
delineation of a core activity on the Land service side.
M. Prem: Availability of high resolution information of manmade structures along the
coastline, such as hard coastal defence (breakwaters, groins etc.), marinas and ports,
impervious surfaces within 100m from the coastline. Satellite data should provide, as much
as possible, information to respond to policy requirements such as MSFD, MSPD, ICZM
Protocols.
10Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
6 Annex 3: Synthesis of discussion item 2 “In-situ observations and data processing for
the coastal zone” (Chair G. Nolan, Rapporteur: E. Mancosu)
a. Introduction
The current system of dataflow for in-situ observations was described for both CMEMS and CLMS. In-
situ data are fundamental requirements of both the marine and land services. In the marine case
data are routed from the Regional Operational Oceanographic Systems (ROOS) and Global
international Networks (e.g. Argo and Euro-Argo) to the Copernicus In-Situ Thematic Assembly
Centre (INS-TAC), the EMODnet web portal and to the NODCs, National Oceanographic Data Centres
(for long term archive). In the land service the focus is more on satellite observations with the in-situ
data catalogued at member state level. National Reference Centres monitor and store data and are
involved in the validation of products from the land service providers, often in industry. From the
land side at EU level there is not a high pressure to collect and provide access from a common
platform since the attention is more focused on the satellite data and the cataloguing of in-situ data
is carried on by Member States.
b. Discussion
G. El Serafy: EMODnet portal (from the chemistry data part) is a data collector/provider;
what could be improved within a Coastal service is to improve the data hosted (as going into
better spatial high resolution). In addition, what will be very important to the coastal service
are the inputs from the rivers (essential input) and an attention to providing as downstream
service data in time-series format (monitoring data) which are the basis for assessment as
evolution analysis (trends, changes) for different type of users (governments, farmers…).
P.Y. Le Traon: The CMEMS In-Situ TAC is providing coastal in-situ data that are useful both for
core (CMEMS) and downstream coastal services; what is needed is to identify new in-situ
data relevant for coastal services.
G. El Serafy: NGO groups to provide data on biodiversity, which at the moment are more
oriented to the terrestrial part, but could be part of the coastal domain and have a direct link
to the in-situ measurement component.
G. Nolan: The aim is to create an end-to-end In-Situ observation system that embraces
different specific needs as physics, chemistry, biology, ecology in relation with the coastal
areas, identified after a stakeholders’ consultation, as a joint operation. This discussion
should bring out the gaps identification about thematic and spatial resolution.
E. Stanev: Should the estuaries data make part of this? At the moment different studies are
running on these particular areas, and are quite of interest for monitoring and in-situ data.
G. Nolan: At the moment this kind of data are archived, by national institutes, and most
probably there will be no need to bring this at European level responsibility. Could be not
practical as an operational service due to the quality insurance issues.
P.Y. Le Traon: Key question about what service and data should be centralized at EU level and
what should be left to Member states.
11Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
G. Coppini: There is also a requirement for atmospheric data, which are already collected by
Copernicus and in-situ TAC together with the WMO in order to populate the Copernicus
CMEMS; at the same way another requirement should be applied to atmospheric models
required to force coastal models.
G. Coppini: River run off is a case of relevant data that could be retrieved working within the
European Copernicus framework. For other types of data such as nutrients loads, which are
more sensitive data, Member States should be directly involved as currently done with the
EIONET where MS are fully engaged for the reporting system.
H. Dufourmont: The Land service and the access to in-situ monitoring products is composed
by two main components. On one hand side, what our server providers are producing in
terms of land monitoring products, where it is the call for tenders foreseen that the server
provider himself is trying to get access to the in-situ data that is needed to build a certain
product or service. On the other hand, is a force building from a network (EIONET) and in
particularly to the NRC (National reference centre) of Land Cover deeply involved in the land
monitoring service. Their involvement has been realized with different scenarios. One case
shows the NRC (Corine case) theirself, producing and ensuring to enter in contact with
national authority that are managing in-situ data. A second case, as for the High Resolution
Layers, where the industry is producing the products but the NRC are responsible to validate
the products, and this should include the access to the in-situ data through the competent
authorities; Last case, and most complicate scenario, is when a product started without any
involvement of the NRC (Urban Atlas case, started in 2006 on request from DG REGIO in
agreement with DG growth); the issue comes when EEA started to taking over the
management of the UA and present this product during the NRC meetings, the reaction was
not good, the NRC complained about their not involvement at the early stages and
consequently on the fact that their requirement were not matching with the product; so
many efforts were needed in order to convince the NRC to cooperate to validate this
product. The lesson learnt, is that the NRC are needed to be on-board from the early stages
(right from the outset) and try to foresee some tasks where they can not only provide access
to the in-situ data but start doing some verification even helping in the product delineation
(as done in the riparian zone or N2000 products). Ensuring the buy in from the countries to
guarantee the in-situ access.
A. Meiner: Member States have the reporting obligations (Water Directive, Habitat Directive)
in every 6 years that is made available for EEA via EIONET; in this time frame the EEA has the
time to analyse the data and publish the assessment; one objective is feedback helping the
Member States to make their reports better, but another service could be some
interpolation of reported data and generating data in between of two reporting dates. This
could provide a more complete service and an understanding of the data trends - and maybe
allows including the satellite data i.e. from Copernicus. The interaction between the
reporting years could be opening the door to the national authority responsible for in-situ
data - reporting and assessment is done on the basis of much more information and usually
this is not provided and is difficult to get because of a lack of direct obligation to make is
available.
G. Coppini: EIONET, EURAMET, are examples of operational framework that included the
Member States capabilities, so the need is to provide a service, or improve the existing
services involving the Member State (provide in-situ data), having in mind the limits of
related capabilities.
12Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
G. Nolan: What we can do at European level, to get access to usually inaccessible data (e.g.
DEM), what dataset or initiative we should target to be included in the development of a
Coastal service? What could be done at European level that make sense as taking data
responsibility, cooperate with data providers, and additionally wins to take over in-situ data?
J. Ekebom: An example could arrive from the acquisition of sensors (cheap sensors), and their
disposition in a network at high density along the coast, will improve the information since of
their combination with the other data (e.g. local).
I. Möller: Example of a practical solution is the intention to create an on-line tool that from
one side gives access and makes possible the use of the Copernicus services to the end users
and from the other side encourages them to upload their country in-situ data which could
improve the prediction or just the validation of the foreshore protection service. In the UK,
this will include the UK Environment Agency which is collecting in-situ data on the ground,
such as LIDAR, aerial photography; this could directly feed the system; the cooperation
between the core services and downstream services should be investigating further.
H. Dufourmont: From the presentations could be noticed as the LIDAR data seems quite
important from many topics and despite their importance their availability among the
countries is not wide spread. This bring out another issue, the need of a common action to
improve the access (if has been marked as essential and at the same time troublesome to
really get access), not to a single service, but towards a cross-services; other point is the
DEM, at the moment the Hydro-DEM is freely available as it is part of the Copernicus, but
finally is not precise enough for the Coastal service. Could be an option to suggest to the
commission, about the extreme need for a really high resolution DEM all along the coast line;
this will be needed also to solve the issue on ortho-rectification of the satellite image from
the contribution mission where different DEMs have been used leading to serious problems
once the images are superposes; this is something that goes over the pure coastal need, but
need urgently to be addressed in the broader Copernicus contracts; same issue also holds for
the bathymetry.
J. Ekebom: talking about downstream, but with a special focus to users and customers, to
better customize a services by space and time, an additional attention could be toward the
smartphone signal; to get information where people are, to inform them or to develop an
infrastructure for where the people are, with specific attention to tourist; just pure
informative (quick access), without the need to download the data, but just retrieving
information. In the specific, the owner of the signal should provide to us the signal data in
order to develop some voluntary services e.g. Japanese tourist comes to Finland, what are
the services we should provide them? At least knowing where they are, it could be provided
a service for the places where they are, to provide understanding on what the signs mean, or
safety measures just with an application (option to combine signal data within our data) and
finally we have costumers.
Summary
In order to proceed on the definition of In-situ observations and data processing for the coastal zone,
some common points were identified. Firstly, the need of a seamless web portal where in-situ data
(coming from Land /Marine) could be hosted and improved (core service), and distributed
(downstream services). The platform could be based on existing capabilities (e.g. the EMIS platform
presented by JRC, CMEMS in-situ TAC, Emodnet data portals) and should embrace different
observation variables as physical, ecological, biological, atmospheric, chemical, river inputs, in time
13Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
and space in order to perform time-series analysis. A joint operation with stakeholders coming from
the different areas will be considered in order to get the understanding of the most appropriate
needs. Recent initiatives to develop a sustainable European Ocean Observing System (EOOS) could
be useful in providing the cross-disciplinary in-situ measurements required for a Copernicus Coastal
Service as it develops.
Secondly, the need to engagement of Member States, as is happening in the EIONET network, where
the Member States are not just providing validation through in-situ data but are involved in early
stages on the definition of the products. This will ensure an easier accessibility to in-situ local and
sensitive datasets, and consequently a best tuning of the services. In the specific, a series of
operations in the time-frame among two reporting periods could be envisaged, as interpolation,
combination with satellite images. These kind of operations could reinforce the cooperation within
the MS and make them in a position to share additional data respect what is purely mandatory, also
through options to direct upload their data into the platform from the end user side (as it has been
tested in some UK case). It has been also suggested to think about different type of inputs to feed
the system as a network of sensors (as an extension of the FI case) or get use of smartphone signals
and generate services.
Finally, specific inputs, like LIDAR, are considered key input for a Coastal service, and at the same
time could be considered very relevant for other services. Thus there is a need to bring out such
cross-service context where there are both conditions of essential data and the accessibility is not
easy, and request for a cross-service access, instead of single access service; in the same line also
data as DEM and Bathymetry, which are basic requirements for a coastal service.
7 Annex 4: Synthesis of discussion item 3 “Monitoring of pressures on the coastal
environment (land & marine)” (Chair: A. Meiner, Rapporteur: J. Fons).
Andrus Meiner introduced the topic highlighting the following elements:
• The list of pressures on the coast could be very long. However, there is already a number
of protocols and policies that highlight the most relevant ones.
• Pressures could be identified/characterised along four domains which require different
approaches:
o Land (terrestrial part of coast e.g. up to 10 km inland from shoreline)
o Transitional waters (according to the nomenclature of Water Framework Directive)
o Coastal waters (according to the nomenclature of Water Framework Directive)
o Marine waters (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)
• Land pressures are initiated by certain socio-economic drivers that result in pressures to
the sea. Nomenclature used in Copernicus Land monitoring products is well suited to
capture and characterise these drivers and pressures.
• Pressures on ecosystems, as defined by MAES (2016), are characterised by five main
drivers: habitat change, climate change, invasive species, over-exploration, and pollution
and nutrient enrichment. Except invasive species, the rest of pressures are relevant for
Copernicus monitoring.
14Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
• MSFD, Annex III, table 2, already provides a list of pressures on marine environment.
These pressures can be ranked for each regional sea.
• MSFD identifies 11 descriptors of good environmental status. Each of them is to be
measured by several parameters (indicators) that link to pressures.
• Finally, when considering the link between pressures on land and on water it should be
considered that terrestrial and aquatic nature domains are different and, consequently,
processes have different pace (dynamics).
After the introduction the following questions were addressed:
I. Möller asked about the position of coast on the four domains identified at the beginning of
the presentation (land, transitional waters, coastal waters and marine waters – slide 2).
Coast is not explicitly mentioned.
o A. Meiner explained that Member States have agreed on not to differentiate the
coast as separate ecosystem. Coast is more a geographic location (zone),
characterised by the proximity to the sea. Therefore any analysis focussed on the
coast will select those components that are present in this geographic delimitation
(e.g. coastal ecosystems).
P.Y. Le Traon asked about monitoring gaps on pressures that could be filled in with
Copernicus.
o A. Meiner suggested to look where the countries are weakest in reporting. This could
provide an idea on gaps and where help could be needed. On the land side
traditionally there is good reporting on land use change, but weak on the intensity of
land use. This is relevant because while land use may be unchanged, increased land
use intensity may cause land degradation. Therefore, there is a need to better link
with soil information in order to have an idea on the land use intensification.
I. Möller asked if pressures and land use intensity includes changes on agricultural practices
(e.g. grazing pressure that results in ecosystem change).
o A. Meiner explained that current land cover nomenclature is so fine that changes in
certain classes provides a hint on the process (land cover flow) behind. This could be
complemented with agricultural statistics.
G. Coppini asked about the reason to focus in pressures on coastal areas. Is there the same
data on land compared to water/marine?
o A. Meiner explained that pressures that result in habitat area change are relatively
easy to determine from land cover change. Pollution and nutrient enrichment is
more difficult to capture from land cover information. This leads to the point that
not everything could be addressed from Copernicus satellite information and,
therefore, the need to combine with different information sources e.g. in situ
measurements and/or modelling.
E. Fitoka highlighted the existing connection between the coastal zone with the catchment in
terms of processes. Therefore, the extensions of the coastal area to the catchment should be
considered.
o A. Meiner explained that the link is evident, but there is a need to focus on the part
of catchment in the coastal area focusing on specific characteristics of e.g. estuaries
15Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
or deltas. The obvious links are the fluxes coming from upstream catchment on the
inland (e.g. sediments) and need to be integrated.
I. Möller asked about the impacts. Why the focus is on the drivers and pressures and not the
link with the impacts?
o A. Meiner explained that monitoring pressures is more straightforward, while
impacts need to be proven. Every pressure can potentially lead to a number of
impacts. Detailed projects and studies can demonstrate certain cause and effect
relationships that could be taken as a general reference for the potential impact.
Monitoring pressures is also helpful for management since it can help to take
action in advance. Where information on impacts is available and certain, it
should be always used.
16Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
8 Annex 5: Synthesis of discussion item 4 “Coastal Marine analysis and forecasting
systems (interfaces, coupling, harmonization, co-production). Physics,
Biogeochemistry, Waves” (Chair: G. Nolan, Rapporteur: E. Stanev)
There are different categories of interfaces, such as between institutes, communities,
providers, etc. The maximization of use would need facilitating the communication between
end users and intermediate users, which ensures the best use of products. It can also
promote good practices. Furthermore, clarity on what is needed as service and its cost is
needed.
The seamless approach has to lead and determine the developments in the coastal/transition
zones. CMEMS should: (1) enforce developers to do better-quality forecasting, and (2)
support the consolidation of forecasting capabilities.
R. Neves proposed to use the “Google approach” as an interface to connect core and
downstream services. Such an approach could facilitate the distribution of local solutions.
However, there is a concern that this approach would not be quality-selective and could
allow the distribution of everything. R. Neves stressed that (1) the market will define the
development, (2) the market has to be created if absent, and (3) active contacts between
producers and users will facilitate producing market-oriented services (the trust between
end users and intermediate users could play an important role). The opinion that the market
has to be considered as the only (major) driver was not fully shared by everyone.
There was a consensus that future joint actions in the coastal zone should demonstrate high
standards. G. Coppini stressed that high quality can ensure added value of services.
G. El Serafy stressed that the free use of data is a substantial element interfacing coastal and
downstream services. In this field it is important that the user defines what he wants to use.
The harmonization of coastal services could play an important role to foster/control future
downstream developments.
Future joint actions have to consider the interconnection between core and downstream
services. There has to be mutual interest for common development from both sides and
promoting good practices of feedback between downstream and core services are essential.
One example is the improvement of boundary conditions for CMEMS. Another one is the
better interpretation and evaluation of products, which is beneficial for both sides.
A consensus exists also about the need of research at European level through common EU
R&D projects; one aim of that is promoting best practices and ensuring high standards and
harmonization.
The following regions have been identified as important playgrounds for cooperation
between marine and land Copernicus services: tidal flats, morphodynamic active zones and
rivers. Such areas can stay in the core of the common developments of land and marine
services and related downstream products. Downscaling and coupling of rivers and coastal
ocean will improve not only coastal but also regional services.
The role of National agencies needs further consideration. Some of them produce core
services. Many of them can be considered as intermediate users. The role of Commissions
such as HELCOM, OSPAR as partner and facilitator needs to be further clarified.
17Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
9 Annex 6: Synthesis of discussion item 5 “Hydrology and modelling of river basins (run
offs, nutriments)” (Chair: R. Neves, Rapporteur: M. Mattiuzzi)
Every discipline looks at a catchment from a different perspective focussing on for the topic
relevant aspects and neglecting others not of specific relevance. The presentation continues
with examples from different disciplines entering a bit into detail on the different
perspectives on the 'same water'.
The importance of cross boundary monitoring is underlined by the example of river discharge
monitoring (flow production, sediment transport,…) and due the transboundary location of
river basins.
For open ocean, monitoring rivers are not of central importance (no detailed monitoring
required), but if it is important to near coast ocean monitoring. For such areas river discharge
is very important (e.g. 80% of the N present in the near coast water comes from the rivers).
P.Y. Le Traon: countries have different solutions for river monitoring and modelling. Should
we promote a better more harmonized solution for Europe?
R. Neves: Yes, we should promote. As the first thing we should do is to use in each country
the system that is there. For the simplest model the river discharge, such models transform
the rain into river discharge. Such models do not calculate the nutriments as nutriments are
empirical. However, these models have many years of experience; therefore, we should use
this (probably due the fact that models are well assessed).
P.Y. Le Traon: At the level of Copernicus Marine Service we are running global and regional
systems; they are done by different groups and they are all using different solutions (as a mix
of models, natural system, climatology); we see a need of improving this, of course based on
what exists, not to reinvent everything. We have to make the best use of the capacity on
national level, improve it and harmonize it at European level.
G. Coppini: If CZ is becoming a service, we need to put together the community of river
modelling and ocean modelling. Even from a modelling point of view, we have very sparse
and different solutions. There does not seem to be an organized community, situation is very
heterogeneous.
A. Meiner: Rivers (not in terms of LC/LU from the CLMS Riparian Zones) are not covered by
any of the existing Copernicus services. The discharge points at the outlets of the river are
completely legitimate part of the CZ. Rivers probably have to be covered by a cooperation of
services. We could argue that rivers are a very important part, which is missing at the
moment. As a strategic objective to reduce the monitoring burden of the MS, Copernicus
should be gradually evolved to replace the (in situ) manual sampling or monitoring.
G. Coppini: From the Coastal Copernicus we need to see how the river information can be
useful for the coastal dynamics model. It could be that it comes a product from the CZ, but
we need to focus on how we are making the two components (land and marine) interacting
together.
M. Prem: There are some very useful models that are used to trigger specific actions in the
MSP (e.g. model for flooding).
18Copernicus Environment Monitoring Service
E. Fytoka: Possibilities for prediction? This would be highly relevant for the Climate Change
impact.
R. Neves: Yes, model inputs can be modified accordingly. It is possible to adapt models to
different scenarios by manipulating inputs like precipitation, air temperature... so it is
possible to assess the difference.
I. Möller: Vegetation can be monitored via satellite data (talking about model inputs and the
different behaviours between vegetated and non-vegetated).
19You can also read
