Oceanography 
March 2011 171 
perception of data providers needs to 
be realigned to ensure the true opera 
tional 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 envi 
ronmental sciences, providers were 
mainly government-funded institu 
tions. More recently, though, academic 
researchers have provided products 
through collaborative research proj 
ects. 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 proj 
ects 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 institu 
tions, such as the University of Bergen, 
on the other hand, provide data products 
that were originally created in collabora 
tive 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 opera 
tional 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 environ 
mental 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 statis 
tics useful: A Third World perspective. 
Environmetrics 17:219-226. 
Pontecorvo, G. 2003. Insularity of scientific disci 
plines 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.