Global Ocean Science Report PDF

Global
Ocean
Science
Report
The Current Status
of Ocean Science
around the World
United Nations Intergovernmental Sustainable
Educational, Scientific and Oceanographic Development
Cultural Organization Commission Goals
Published in 2017 by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization
7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France
© UNESCO 2017
ISBN 978-92-3-100226-7
© UNESCO 2017
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO)

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/).
By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound
by the terms of use of the UNESCO Open Access Repository
(http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en).
The present license applies exclusively to the textual content of

the publication. For the use of any material not clearly identified as
belonging to UNESCO, prior permission shall be requested from:
publication.copyright@unesco.org or
UNESCO Publishing, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP France.
Original title:
IOC-UNESCO. 2017. Global Ocean Science Report - The current status
of ocean science around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds), Paris, UNESCO
Publishing.
More Information on the Global Ocean Science Report at

https://en.unesco.org/gosr
The complete report should be cited as follows: IOC-UNESCO. 2017.

Global Ocean Science Report - The current status of ocean science
around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds), Paris, UNESCO Publishing.
The designations employed and the presentation of material

throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the
authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not commit
the Organization.
Graphic Design: UNESCO
Cover design and typeset: Aurélia Mazoyer
Cover photo: © robert_s/Shutterstock.com
Printed in UNESCO printshop, Paris, France
CLD 679.17 Rev 2

Global
Ocean
Science
Report
The Current Status UNESCO
Publishing
of Ocean Science United Nations
around the World

Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization
Acknowledgements
IOC-UNESCO wishes to express its gratitude to Thomson Reuters for providing the data on publications used throughout the Global
Ocean Science Report. IOC also wishes to thank the Governments of Norway, the Republic of Korea, Monaco and the Philippines
for their financial and in-kind support. IOC-UNESCO extends its thanks to the Instituto Español de Oceanografía for giving Mr Luis
Valdés the liberty to continue working on this report.
Thanks goes also to the whole IOC Secretariat for its continuous invaluable support throughout the production of the report, in
particular Patrice Boned, Simonetta Secco, Salvatore Aricò, Vinicius Lindoso and Yosub Kim. In addition, IOC-UNESCO expresses
it gratitude to the colleagues at UNESCO, who provided advice and guided IOC during the preparation of the Global Ocean Science
Report, colleagues working in the Sector for External Relations and Public Information, the Documents Section of the Conferences
Division and the translation services.
Report team
Director of the publication
Vladimir Ryabinin, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
Coordinating Editor
Luis Valdés, Instituto Español de Oceanografía, C.O. de Santander, Spain
Assistant Coordinating Editor
Kirsten Isensee, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
Authors
Martha Crago, Dalhousie University, Canada

Henrik Oksfeldt Enevoldsen, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
Hernan E. Garcia, NOAA NESDIS National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), USA
Lars Horn, The Research Council of Norway
Kazuo Inaba, Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Lorna Inniss, UN Environment (UNEP)
Kirsten Isensee, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
Bob Keeley, Retired from the Canadian Government in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
Youn-Ho Lee, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Republic of Korea
Jan Mees, Flanders Marine Institute, Belgium
Greg Reed, International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE) programme
Seonghwan Pae, Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology Promotion, Republic of Korea
Linda Pikula, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Central Library, USA
Peter Pissierssens, International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE) programme
Lisa Raymond, Marine Biological Laboratory Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (MBLWHOI) Library, USA
Martin Schaaper, UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS)
Alan Simcock, Joint Coordinator of the United Nations Group of Experts of the Regular Process (World Ocean Assessment)
Ariel H. Troisi, Servicio de Hidrografía Naval (SHN), Argentina
Luis Valdés, Instituto Español de Oceanografía, C.O. de Santander, Spain
2 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

Editorial board
Allan Cembella, Alfred Wegner Institute, Germany

Alexandra Chadid Santamaria, Comisión Colombiana del Oceano, Colombia
Martha Crago, Dalhousie University, Canada
Lars Horn, The Research Council of Norway
Kazuo Inaba, Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Claire Jolly, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Space Forum / Ocean Economy Group
Youn-Ho Lee, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Republic of Korea
Jan Mees, Flanders Marine Institute, Belgium
Susan Roberts, National Academies Ocean Studies Board, USA
Martin Schaaper, UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS)
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO secretariat
Henrik Oksfeldt Enevoldsen, Head of IOC-UNESCO Science and Communication Centre on Harmful Algae
Kirsten Isensee, Project Specialist, IOC-UNESCO
Seonghwan Pae, Assistant Programme Specialist, IOC-UNESCO (2014–2016), Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology
Promotion, Republic of Korea
Peter Pissierssens, Head, IOC-UNESCO Project Office for IODE
Statistical support
Science-Metrix, Science and Technology Evaluation

UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Copy Editor
Harriet Harden-Davies, Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, Australia
External review
John Field, Marine Research Institute, South Africa

Adi Kellerman, Kellermann-Consultants, Germany
Ann-Katrien Lescrauwaet, Flanders Marine Institute, Belgium
Niall McDonough, European Marine Board, Belgium
Leonard A. Nurse, CERMES, University of the West Indies, Barbados
Ian Perry, Fisheries and Oceans Canada
Neville Smith, Australia
Ed Urban, Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research; University of Delaware, USA
Wendy Watson-Wright, Ocean Frontiers Institute, Dalhousie University, Canada
Internal review
Thorkild Aarup, Head Tsunami Unit, Technical Secretary of GLOSS, IOC-UNESCO

Salvatore Aricò, Head of Ocean Science Section, IOC-UNESCO
Patrice Boned, Publications Officer, IOC-UNESCO
Robbert Casier, Marine Programme, World Heritage Centre, UNESCO
IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 3

Table of
contents
3
Report team 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of figures/boxes/tables 6
RESEARCH CAPACITY AND
Foreword 12
INFRASTRUCTURE 55
Peter Thomson, President of the 71st session of the
United Nations General Assembly 3.1. Introduction 57
Peter M. Haugan, Chairperson of the Intergovernmental 3.2. Human resources 55
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 3.3. Ocean science institutions, marine
laboratories and field stations 63
Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO
3.4. Research vessels and other research
Preface 14 infrastructures/equipment 66
Vladimir Ryabinin, Executive Secretary of the IOC 3.5. Conclusions 76
Executive summary 17
4
1 THE FUNDING FOR OCEAN SCIENCE 81
4.1. Introduction 83
INTRODUCTION 35 4.2. National governmental funding for ocean
1.1. Motivation for a Global Ocean Science Report 37 science 83
1.2. The Global Ocean Science Report as a 4.3. International/regional funding mechanisms
collaborative action towards science for used for ocean science 88
sustainable development 38 4.4. Funding of ocean science by the private
1.3. Mandate, objectives and outline 39 sector: possible synergies 92
4.5. Philanthropy: non-profit and private
foundations/organizations 93
2
4.6. Looking ahead 94
DEFINITIONS, DATA COLLECTION AND

DATA ANALYSIS 42
5
2.1. Preparation process 45 RESEARCH PRODUCTIVITY AND
2.2. Definitions and classification of ocean SCIENCE IMPACT 99
science in categories 45
2.3. Data resources and analysis 47 5.1. Measuring global ocean science through
publications 101
2.4. Visualization 51

8
5.2. Global analysis of research performance 101
5.3. Research profiles 112
5.4. Collaboration patterns and capacity
development 118
CONTRIBUTION OF OCEAN SCIENCE
TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF OCEAN AND
6
COASTAL POLICIES AND SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT 171
OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA, INFORMATION 8.2. The development of the interface between
MANAGEMENT AND EXCHANGE 127 marine science and policy 173
8.3. Institutional arrangements for marine science 174
8.4. The science/policy interface in action 175
6.2. Data management 131
8.5. Looking ahead 181
6.3. International cooperation on oceanographic
data/information management and exchange 132
Annexes
6.4. Marine information management 135
6.5. National capacity assessment for data and
information management 137
Annex A • Contributors 190
7
Annex B • Acronyms and abbreviations 196
Annex C • Global Ocean Science Report questionnaire 202
Annex D • GOSR data and information management
survey 2016 214
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Annex E • International scientific conferences 221
SUPPORTING OCEAN SCIENCE 147 Annex F • Bibliometric indicators (2010–2014) 223
7.1. Introduction 149 Annex G • IODE regional grouping 276
7.2. International organizations and processes
relevant to ocean science and management 150
7.3. UN-Oceans and UN constraints to lead
ocean science and policy assessment 157
7.4. The importance of NGO action in realizing
international goals 160
7.5. A race for the ocean: The expansion of
international organizations 160
7.6. Final remarks 162

List of figures/
boxes/tables
List of figures Figure ES8. N

ational strengths (specialization index)
in ocean science categories (for African
nations accounting for at least 300
Figure ES1. O
cean science categories considered in publications in the time period 2010–2014)
the Global Ocean Science Report. 19 compared to the world average. 29
Figure ES2. A
verage number of national ocean science Figure ES9. C
omparison of average relative impact
researchers (headcount, HC) employed per factors (ARIF) in articles produced by:
million inhabitants (2009–2013). 24 single author versus multiple authors,
and authors all from the same country
(domestic) versus multiple counties
Figure ES3. T
he proportion (% total) of female
(international). 30
researchers in ocean science and in R&D. 24
Figure ES10. The data and information products

Figure ES4. H
istogram of ship-based time series
provided to clients by data centres. 31
sorted by their span in years (2012 status).
The Continuous Plankton Recorder
(CPR) time series are plotted separately, Figure ES11. Clients and end users of data, products or
highlighting the significant contribution to services provided by data centres. 31
the longer time spans. 25
Figure ES12. The percentage of data centres which do
Figure ES5. a
) Number of nationally maintained not restrict or do restrict access to certain
research vessels (RV), classified into data types, to data collected in certain
four different ship size classes: local/ geographic areas, during a certain period
coastal ≥ 10 m to < 35 m, regional ≥ 35 m of time, or apply any other restrictions. 31
to < 55 m, international ≥ 55 m to < 65 m,
global ≥ 65 m. b) Relative proportion of Figure 2.1. cean science categories considered in
O
the different ship sizes summarizing all the GOSR. 45
research vessels, accounted for in a). 26
Figure 2.2. lobal map indicating the Member States
G
Figure ES6. N
ational expenditure in ocean science that responded to the questionnaire. 48
as a percentage of national research and
development (R&D) expenditure. 27 Figure 2.3. uestionnaire analysis – response rate by
Q
theme. 48
Figure ES7. P
ublication and citation map of the world.
The area of each country is scaled and Figure 2.4. xample for figure illustrating the
E
deformed according to the number of positional analysis, for the Specialization
ocean science publications or citations Index (SI) and the Average of Relative
received. 28 Citations (ARC) 52

Figure 3.1. verage national ocean science
A Figure 3.8. World distribution of marine stations. 65
researchers (Headcount - HC) employed
per million inhabitants (2009–2013). 58 Figure 3.9. Number of marine stations per country. 66
Figure 3.2. roportion (%) of age cohorts (< 30 years,

P Figure 3.10. N
umber of nationally maintained research
30-39 years, 40-49 years, 50-59 years, ≥ 60 vessels. 67
years) of ocean science researchers. 59
Figure 3.11. N
umber of research vessels maintained
Figure 3.3. he proportion (% total) of female
T by top 20 countries (according to the
researchers in ocean science and in R&D. 59 OCEANIC database), results from three
different sources. 67
Figure 3.4. elative proportion (%) of male and female
R
experts attending international scientific Figure 3.12. a
) Number of nationally maintained
conferences/symposia). 60 research vessels (RV), classified in
four different ship sizes: local/coastal
Figure 3.5. elative proportion (%) of female and male
R ≥ 10 m < 35 m, regional ≥ 35 m < 55 m,
experts attending international scientific international ≥ 55 m < 65 m, global
conferences/symposia with different foci ≥ 65 m. b) Relative proportion of the
(environmental science, ocean science, different ship sizes summarizing all
human health and wellbeing, ocean and research vessels, accounted for in a). 68
climate, marine ecosystem functions and
processes, ocean observation and marine Figure 3.13. P
roportion of seven age classes within the
data, ocean technology and engineering) research vessel fleet for ships ≥ 55 m. 68
for the top 20 countries publishing in
ocean science. 61 Figure 3.14. S
tacked bar chart: Number of research
vessels ≥ 55 m for countries with
Figure 3.6. otal number of institutions/facilities
T minimum two research vessels of this
and universities by country (top 40) size, colour-coded age classes. Diamonds
represented in at least two of the following indicate the average age of all research
list of international conferences. 63 vessels for the respective country. 69
Figure 3.7. ) The relative proportion (%) of ocean

a Figure 3.15. N
umber of days per year of research
research facilities/institutions associated conducted from research vessels for
with one field of science (fisheries, national (left panel) and international
observations, ocean research) for 29 (right panel) investigation by country (2013,
countries individually; b) The total number or the last year with available data). 70
of institutions for 24 countries. 64
Figure 3.16. Map by operating country. 71

Figure 3.17. M
ap indicating the location of operational Figure 4.5. ajor cost factors for the UNOLS fleet for
M
Argo floats in March 2016 (data distributed the time period 2000–2008. 90
within the last 30 days) and list of national
contributions. 72 Figure 4.6. he average daily operating rate by UNOLS
T
class, 2015. 90
Figure 3.18. a
) Number of ROVs operated or developed
by country; b) Number of AUVs operated or Figure 4.7. roportion of main research areas of
P
developed by country; c) Number of gliders conducted EU Framework Programmes
operated or developed by country; d) fisheries research projects (1988–2013). 91
Proportion (%) of ROVs, AUVs and gliders
at the global level compared to total Figure 4.8. rincipal sources of funding for SAHFOS
P
number worldwide (345). 73 in 2014. 92
Figure 3.19. M
arine ecological time series identified by Figure 5.1. roportion of global publication authorship
P
IGMETS (2015). 75 by continent. 101
Figure 3.20. H
istogram of IGMETS participating time Figure 5.2. ublication and citation map of the world
P
series sorted by their span in years where the area of each country is scaled
(status, 2012). The Continuous Plankton and resized according to the number of
Recorder (CPR) time series are plotted ocean science publications or citations
separately, highlighting its significant received. 107
contribution to the longer time spans. 76
Figure 5.3. omparison of economic and scientific

C
Figure 3.21. G
O-SHIP Reference Sections (repeat wealth. Top: National science publication
hydrographic sections). 77 output versus national GDP as an indicator
of national wealth intensity. 111
Figure 4.1. hanges in GERD 2009–2013 (US$): a)
C
GERD of the top 20 countries with the Figure 5.4. ational strengths in different ocean
N
highest financial support; b) % GERD sciences categories. Spider plots show
of the top 20 countries with the highest the Specialization Index (SI) compared
financial support between 2009 and the to the world (2010–2014) for the nations
respective year. 84 accounting for at least 300 publications in
the studied period. 111
Figure 4.2. nnual national ocean science expenditure
A
2009–2013: a) National expenditure for Figure 5.5. ositional analysis for the 40 countries
P
ocean science (excluding USA – 2012 included in the comparison group for
1.25E+10 US$; 2013 1.25E+10 US$). b) ocean science output, 2010–2014. 113
% change compared to 2009, or the first
year data available of the national ocean
Figure 5.7. omparison of scores in the average of
C
science expenditure. 85
relative impact factors (ARIF) in: a) articles
produced by one single author versus
Figure 4.3. ercentage of national R&D expenditures
P multiple authors; and b) articles produced
invested in ocean science. 88 by all authors from the same country
versus multiple counties (international). 119
Figure 4.4. roportion of regional, international and
P
national funding resources for ocean Figure 5.8. International collaboration network of
science (2009-2013) for selected countries. 89 selected top publishing a) nations and b)
organizations in ocean science, 2010–2014. 121

Figure 6.1. Increased ocean data sets, examples of Figure 6.13. T
he percentage of data centres which
temperature and salinity profiles stored in restrict/do not restrict access to data. 141
the World Ocean Database. 130
Figure 6.14. T
he percentage of data centres which do/
Figure 6.2. Data management processing chain. 130 do not restrict access to data by region. 142
Figure 6.3. onnections of the co-authors’ country

C Figure 6.15. T
he distribution of data centres that do or
affiliations of about 500 publications that do not apply the IOC Oceanographic Data
cited OBIS and that are recorded in Web Exchange Policy adopted as Resolution
of Science (over 1,000 OBIS –cited papers IOC-XXII-6. 142
are listed at http://www.iobis.org/library,
maintained with support from the library Figure 6.16. D
istribution of data centres that do or do
of the Flanders Marine Institute). 136 not apply the IOC Oceanographic Data
Exchange Policy by region. 142
Figure 6.4. umber of IODE NODCs/ADUs created
N
between 1960 and 2016 (NODCs shown Figure 6.17. Illustration of whether data and
in blue; ADUs shown in grey). Source: information from data centres are
IODE, 2017. 137 contributed to international systems or not
(i.e. data actively sent or made available
Figure 6.5. umulative number of IODE NODCs/ADUs
C to, for example, world data centres, global
created between 1960 and 2016. 137 data assembly centres or other such
international systems). 143
Figure 6.6. he percentage of national data centres
T
involved in three types of collaboration: Figure 6.18. Illustration by region of whether data
national, regional and international. 138 and information from data centres are
contributed to international systems or not
Figure 6.7. bservational data types regularly
O (i.e. data actively sent or made available
collected and managed by national data to, for example, world data centres, global
centres as a percentage of respondents. 138 data assembly centres or other such
international systems). 143
Figure 6.8. he data and information products
T
provided to clients by data centres as a Figure 7.1. uadruple helix model showing the UN
Q
percentage of respondents. 138 architecture for ocean science knowledge
and environmental governance (the list of
Figure 6.9. ervices provided by data centres to
S organizations and entities shown here is
clients as a percentage of respondents. 139 not exhaustive). 151
Figure 6.10. S
ervices provided by data centres to Figure 7.2. aps showing: a) the main FAO Regional
M
clients as a percentage of respondents per Fisheries Management Organizations and
region. 140 regional seas covered by conventions;
and b) the main UNEP Regional Seas
programmes and initiatives. 153
Figure 6.11. C
lients and end-users of data, products or
services provided by data centres. 141
Figure 7.3. N-Oceans elements represented in a
U
non-multidimensional 2D distance plot. 158
Figure 6.12. Illustration of how many of the data
centres surveyed have a national data
policy on the management and sharing of
data. 139

Figure 7.4. cheme of international governmental
S
and non-governmental lead organizations List of tables
intervening in ocean management and
governance clustered according to their Table 3.1. otal ocean science personnel, total ocean
T
technical mandate and the regional or science researchers, % of researchers to
global coverage. 159 total ocean science personnel in 2013. 57
Figure 7.5. ) Number of international organizations

a Table 3.2. otal number and proportion of marine
T
(IGOs and NGOs) created by decade since stations in different regions. 65
1900; and b) number of international
organizations by regions. 161
Table 4.1. verage annual national expenditure
A
2009–2013 on natural science and ocean
Figure 8.1. ajor pathways and origins of invasive
M science, and annual ocean science
species infestations in the marine expenditure as a percentage of annual
environment. 179 natural science expenditure. 85
Table 4.2. ercentage GERD of national GDP and

P
percentage national ocean science
expenditure of GERD for countries that
provided information regarding ocean
List of boxes science expenditure via the GOSR
questionnaire. 87
Box 1.1. 030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

2 Table 4.3. udget allocation for EU fisheries
B
Facts and Figures for Sustainable research projects under FP2-FP7. 91
Development Goal 14 “Conserve and
sustainably use the oceans, seas and
Table 4.4. irect charitable expenses and
D
marine resources for sustainable
programme operating expenses of MBARI
development” (UN, 2015). 38
(US$) donated by the Packard Foundation. 93
Box 4.1. Investments in national research vessel

Table 5.1. umber of published papers and citations
N
fleets 90
received by continent and country in ocean
science for the period 2010-2014. 102
Box 4.2. European fisheries research 91
Table 5.2. anking of the 40 most publishing

R
Box 4.3. Large Marine Ecosystems 92 countries in Ocean Science for the periods
2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014. 108
Box 4.4. ir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean
S
Science – combining national and private Table 5.3. atrix of Pearson correlation coefficient
M
funding sources 92 (r2) between different economic and
bibliometric indicators. 110
Table 6.1. xamples of the many organizations,

E
partnerships and programmes working
with ocean data and information
management. Some of the organizations
mentioned also operate globally. 130
Table 7.1. reas of activity declared by the UN-

A
Oceans organizations in 2014. 158

Table
Annex E. ist of international conferences, divided
L
by major focus, illustrating the percentage
of male and female participants, the
number of participants and countries
represented. 222
Table
Annex F.1. ibliometric indicators by country in ocean
B
science (2010–2014) 224
Table
Annex F.2. ibliometric indicators by country in
B
the Marine Ecosystems Functions and
Processes category (2010–2014) 230
Table
Annex F.3. ibliometric indicators by country in the
B
Ocean and Climate category (2010–2014) 236
Table
B
Ocean Health category (2010–2014) 242
Table
B
Human Health and Wellbeing category
(2010–2014) 248
Table
B
Blue Growth category (2010–2014) 254
Table
B
Ocean Crust and Marine Geohazards
category (2010–2014) 260
Table
B
the Ocean Technology and Engineering
category (2010–2014) 266
Table
B
the Ocean Observation and Marine Data
category (2010–2014) 271

Foreword
© UN
Peter Thomson Irina Bokova Peter M. Haugan

President of the 71st session of the Director-General of UNESCO Chairperson of the
United Nations General Assembly Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission of UNESCO
The ocean is The world ocean is one, interconnected and vast. It covers 70% of the surface
and contains more than 95% of the water of the planet. Grasping such vastness
is challenging. Yet we have to realize that the ocean’s resistance and resilience
vulnerable. It is are not infinite. We can and should no longer assume that the world ocean can
continue absorbing the effects of unsustainable human activities endlessly and
our duty to use it still continue providing its vital services.
The ocean is vulnerable. It is our duty to use it sustainably. This is our responsibility
sustainably. This is our to both current and future generations. We must act now to ensure the sustainability
of the world ocean.
responsibility to both On 5–9 June 2017, governments and stakeholders from across the world gathered
at the United Nations in New York on the occasion of the Ocean Conference,
current and future dedicated to the support of Sustainable Development Goal 14 (SDG 14) under the
2030 Agenda.
generations. Today, there is a sense of urgency and responsibility – indeed, a moral imperative –
to ensure inter-generational equity in our interaction with the global commons, of
which the world ocean is one. We urge the integration of ocean matters, including
the social and economic dimensions of how people use and migrate through the
world’s ocean. Understanding the ocean as a system requires untangling its
complexity through research and sustained observations, supported by adequate
infrastructures and investments. In short, our understanding of the ocean and its
contribution to sustainability largely depends on our capacity to conduct effective
ocean science.

The 2030 Agenda is driven by 17 Sustainable Development Goals that are all interlinked. The Agenda is
universal and speaks to both developing and developed countries. The Agenda calls for sustainability of
our climate system and biodiversity while promoting food security, health, job creation and prosperity
to leave no one behind.
In this context, the world ocean and the related SDG 14 are central to the 2030 Agenda. The ocean
will need to continue feeding humankind, support industry and provide solutions to diseases through
the discovery and application of new biomolecules. Silently but steadily it will continue stocking ‘blue
carbon’ by absorbing carbon dioxide, and help mitigate the impacts of climate change, both through
its coastal ecosystems as well as in the open ocean.
However, this capacity of the ocean is not endless. We now have the obligation to maintain its ecological
integrity.
Action starts with vision: the ocean has a central role in supporting life on earth and humankind’s
well-being. This is the vision of SDG 14, to ‘Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine
resources for sustainable development’, and this is the vision guiding all our actions.
The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO plays a vital role in promoting, with
determination and efficacy, regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology
and innovation. We foresee that the Global Ocean Science Report will become the mechanism on which
countries and other relevant stakeholders will rely to orient investments in ocean science and related
cooperation for the benefit of the ocean and all humanity.
Irina Bokova
Director-General of UNESCO
Peter Thomson
Peter M. Haugan
President of the 71st session of the
Chairperson of the Intergovernmental
United Nations General Assembly
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO

Preface
Vladimir Ryabinin
Executive Secretary of the IOC
The Commission The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO was

founded in 1960 with the aim of promoting cooperation in oceanography for a
bridges ocean science better understanding of the ocean. From studies focusing on physical properties
of the ocean, including in relation to its interaction with the atmosphere, the
capacity and needs Commission’s work has evolved to encompass studies on pollution and ocean
health, the development of sustained observations, including in relation to ocean
in developed and hazards such as tsunamis, and the provision of platforms for the collection of, and
access to, data and information in a freely accessible manner for all.
developing countries,
Nowadays, the 148 Member States of the Commission conduct a rich portfolio of
including by mobilizing scientific activities aimed at further elucidating the role of the ocean in mitigating
climate variability and change, the likely capacity of the ocean to continue
its Regional Subsidiary delivering a critical food security function through healthy marine food webs,
and the contribution of the ocean economy to a prosperous and equitable society.
Bodies in Africa, Asia The outputs of IOC’s work inform relevant policy processes on the ocean and the
law of the sea, and assist countries in sustainable management of their Exclusive
and the Pacific, Latin Economic Zones.
America and the The work of the Commission is focused on international scientific cooperation
and capacity development. The Commission bridges ocean science capacity and
Caribbean, and in the needs in developed and developing countries, including by mobilizing its Regional
Subsidiary Bodies in Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean,
Indian Ocean. and in the Indian Ocean.

The Sustainable Development Goal 14 (SDG 14) and its targets explicitly project IOC Member States’
priorities on the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. IOC has been designated as the
custodian agency for the indicators related to Target 14.3, which deals with the need to monitor ocean
acidification as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its absorption by the ocean;
and Target 14.a., which focuses on developing adequate capacity in ocean science, including through
the transfer of marine technology. This latter target constitutes the focus of this report.
In 2015, the IOC Assembly decided to launch a Global Ocean Science Report (GOSR), the main aim of
which was to systematically assess the status and trends in ocean science capacity.
What are the key elements of ocean science, including workforce, research expenditure, infrastructure
and publications globally? What is the current level of human capacity, technology, investment and needs
of nations in ocean and coastal science, observations and services? How can countries collaborate in
ocean science operations in the context of their planned investments in this area?
The GOSR intends to identify and quantify these key elements. The report provides decision-makers
with a tool to identify gaps and opportunities to advance international collaboration in ocean science
and technology, so as to meet societal needs and to promote the contribution of ocean research to
address global challenges related to sustainable development.
In doing so, the GOSR acts as a mechanism for assessing and reporting progress towards the attainment
of SDG Target 14.a., for which, until present, no global mechanism has been available. Therefore, the
first edition of the GOSR provides the crucial initial baseline.
It is in this context that IOC Member States are discussing the proposal of an International Decade of
Ocean Science for Sustainable Development (2021–2030), preferably under the auspices of the UN.
The intention is to create a global partnership in ocean science, seek solutions for sustaining benefits
from the ocean, share knowledge and enhance interdisciplinary marine research, leading to economic
benefits for all Member States, especially Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed
Countries. Making a step towards comprehensive quantitative knowledge of the world ocean is an
absolute must for its sustainable management and achievement of the 2030 Agenda goals.
Vladimir Ryabinin
Executive Secretary of the IOC

Executive
summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope
and
purpose
© istockphoto.com/mevans

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The ocean is the largest ecosystem on our planet, regulating organization and capacity and develop options to optimize
change and variability in the climate system and supporting the the use of scientific resources and advance ocean science
global economy, nutrition, health and well-being, water supply and technology by sharing expertise and facilities, promoting
and energy. The coastal zone is home to the majority of the world capacity-building and transferring marine technology. As
population; dependency on the ecosystem services provided the first consolidated assessment of global ocean science,
by the ocean is likely to increase with population growth. The the GOSR assists the science-policy interface and supports
ocean was once thought to be a vast and indefinitely resilient managers, policy-makers, governments and donors, as well
compartment of the Earth system, able to absorb practically all as scientists beyond the ocean community. The GOSR offers
pressures of the human population, from resource exploitation decision-makers an unprecedented tool to identify gaps and
to fisheries and aquaculture development to marine transport. opportunities to advance international collaboration in ocean
However, according to the First World Ocean Assessment,1 our science and technology and harness its potential to meet
civilization is running out of time to avoid the detrimental cycle societal needs, address global challenges and drive sustainable
of decline in ocean health that will have dramatic repercussions development for all.
on the ability of the ocean to keep providing the support we
There is no commonly accepted definition of ocean science;
need. To achieve global sustainability and adequate stewardship
the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea does
of the ocean, as called for in the United Nations 2030 Agenda
not provide a definition of marine scientific research. For the
for Sustainable Development (2030 Agenda), ocean science is
purpose of this report, ocean science is considered to be a
crucial to understand and monitor the ocean, predict its health
combination of disciplines classified into eight categories
status and support decision-making to achieve Sustainable
that cover integrative and interdisciplinary strategic research
Development Goal 14 (SDG 14) ‘Conserve and sustainably
areas often recognized as high-level themes in national and
use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable
international research strategies and policies (Figure ES1). This
development’.
classification enables global comparisons and interdisciplinary
analyses in line with the 2030 Agenda.
Ocean science definition applied in the Global Ocean Science Report2
Marine ecosystems functions and processes
Ocean science, as considered in this report, includes all research
Ocean observation and marine data
disciplines related to the study of the ocean: physical, biological, Ocean and climate
chemical, geological, hydrographic, health and social sciences,
as well as engineering, the humanities and multidisciplinary Ocean health
research on the relationship between humans and the ocean.

Human health and well-being
Ocean science seeks to understand complex, multiscale socio-
ecological systems and services, which requires observations and
Blue growth
multidisciplinary and collaborative research.
Ocean crust and marine geohazards
The IOC-UNESCO Global Ocean Science Report (GOSR) aims Ocean technology
to provide a status report on ocean science. It identifies
Figure ES1. Ocean science categories considered in the Global
and quantifies the elements that drive the productivity
Ocean Science Report.
and performance of ocean science, including workforce,
infrastructure, resources, networks and outputs. The report is
The report draws on a range of information sources. In addition
intended to facilitate international ocean science cooperation
to tailored questionnaires developed for the GOSR, ocean
and collaboration. It helps to identify gaps in science
science output data (bibliometrics) by Science-Metrix and
supplementary resources (e.g. web-based assessments and
1 Group of Experts of the Regular Process, under the auspices of the United
Nations General Assembly and its Regular Process for Global Reporting reports produced by intergovernmental organizations) were
and Assessment of the State of the Marine Environment, including compiled to form the data set for the GOSR analysis
Socioeconomic Aspects. 2016. The First Global Integrated Marine
Assessment: World Ocean Assessment I. UN.
2 This definition was presented by the Expert Panel on Canadian Ocean
Science in the report Ocean Science in Canada: Meeting the Challenge,
Seizing the Opportunity, Council of Canadian Academies, 2013.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key
findings
© istockphoto.com/Mlenny

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Global ocean science is ‘big science’. Conducting 8. Ocean data centres serve multiple user communities with
ocean science requires numerous staff and large and a wide array of products. At the global level, the main type
costly equipment such as ships, ocean installations and of data archived by ocean data centres is physical data,
laboratories located on the coast. These resources are followed by biological and then chemical data. Less than half
distributed around the world comprising, for example, 784 of ocean data centres provide data on pollutants or fisheries.
marine stations, 325 research vessels and more than 3,800 The top three ocean data/information products provided by
Argo floats. ocean data centres are metadata, geographic information
system (GIS) products and raw data access. Ocean data
2. Ocean science is multidisciplinary. Most ocean science
centres provide three main services: data archival, data
facilities work across a broad range of issues (39%), whereas
visualization and data quality control.
others specialize in observations (35%) or fisheries (26%).
9. Science-policy interactions can occur through many
3. There is more equal gender balance in ocean science than
avenues. Current ocean science policy and science
in science overall. Female scientists represent on average
diplomacy focuses on prioritizing scientific research areas
38% of the researchers in ocean science, about 10% higher
and steering the production and use of knowledge to address
than science overall.
societal needs and prepare nations for future challenges at
4. Ocean science expenditure is highly variable worldwide. national, regional and global scales.
According to available data, ocean science accounts for
10. National inventories on ocean science capacity exist
between 0.1% and 21% of natural science expenditure and
only in a few countries. The multidisciplinary nature of
between < 0.04% and 4% of total research and development
ocean science complicates efforts to establish reporting
expenditure. From 2009 to 2013, ocean science expenditure
mechanisms to map ocean science capacities; the
varied among regions and countries; some increased
organization of national, academic, and federal capacities
their annual expenditure on ocean science, while others
for marine research varies greatly.
significantly reduced it.
5. Ocean science benefits from alternative funding. Private

funding, including philanthropy in some cases, provides What is true for the ocean, its resources and ecosystem
supplemental support for ocean science and enables the services, is also true for ocean science capacities:
development of new ocean science technologies. you cannot manage what you do not measure.
6. Ocean science productivity is increasing. Ocean science

is expanding in magnitude and scope, resulting in greater To foster ocean-based sustainable development, a baseline is
scientific output. When comparing the time periods 2000– needed of where and how existing ocean science capacities are
2004 and 2010–2014, China, Iran, India, Brazil, Republic being used to empower society, sustain the environment and
of Korea, Turkey and Malaysia show the strongest relative generate knowledge to support ocean management and develop
growth in scientific output. China has become a major useful products, services and employment. The GOSR offers a
source of new publications, with the USA, Canada, Australia tool to help address this gap. It identifies and quantifies the key
and European nations (UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy) elements of ocean science at the national, regional and global
continuing as top producers of ocean science publications. scale, including workforce, infrastructure and publications.
7. International collaboration increases citation rates.

Generally, North American and European countries have
a multiplying factor or impact factor (ratio of citations to
publications) higher than countries from other parts of
the world. The extent to which a country is engaged in
international collaboration influences its citation rates. On
average, publications that are co-authored by scientists
from many countries are cited more often than publications
for which all the authors are from the same country.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Call for
action

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Facilitate international ocean science cooperation.

Increasing international cooperation will enable all countries
to engage in ocean research, develop communication and
publication strategies, and ultimately increase global
scientific output and impact.
2. Support global, regional and national data centres for

effective and efficient management and exchange of
ocean data and promote open access. The adoption and
implementation of internationally-accepted standards and
best practices for the management and exchange of data
will result in more effective and efficient global, regional
and national ocean data centres. Benefits from existing
and future ocean research would be enhanced through the
adoption and implementation of data policies that support
open access.
3. Explore and encourage alternative funding models.

Government funding for academic research is limited, and
competition for grants can be expected to remain high in the
future. International collaborations in the form of joint ocean
science projects and expeditions, shared infrastructure and
new technology development will reduce the costs of field
expeditions and enable countries to strengthen their range
of scientific expertise.
4. Enable ocean science-policy interactions through

diverse avenues. The changes in the global ocean pose a
multitude of challenges to understanding ocean functions
and translating scientific knowledge to support global ocean
stewardship. Given the plethora of organizations involved
in ocean management, strong coordination mechanisms
to enable science-policy interactions would help prepare
society to respond to global ocean change.
5. Align national reporting mechanisms on ocean science

capacity, productivity and performance. Reporting
mechanisms to assess and track developments in the
technical and human capacities in ocean science worldwide
are indispensable to evaluate investments, monitor
changes and inform policy- and decision-makers. Aligning
reporting mechanisms would support the collation and
interpretation of global ocean science metrics. This would
enable developments in ocean science to be traced and
opportunities and challenges in global ocean science to be
identified.
© istockphoto.com/sturti

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Facts and figures
Who is doing ocean science?

Ocean science depends on skilled individuals and a broad array
of infrastructure. Technological advances and international Female scientists comprise on average 38% of the
collaboration to transfer marine technology are key to leveraging researchers in ocean science, about 10% higher than
investigation and observation of the global ocean. The ‘human the global share of female researchers. However, gender
resources’ that drive ocean science are concentrated in certain balance differs significantly between different categories
countries and vary worldwide by age and gender (Figure ES2). of ocean science and between countries (Figure ES3).
The number of researchers per capita varies substantially Croatia

among countries around the world (> 300 to < 1 per million Ecuador
inhabitants). Argentina
Suriname
Angola
364 Thailand
Norway (FTE)
74
Belgium Spain (IEO)
Finland Dominican
Germany Republic
Australia Kuwait
Croatia
France Finland
Mauritius Italy
Italy
Mauritania Romania
USA (FTE) Norway
Republic of Korea (FTE, researcher)
Trinidad and Tobago Belgium
Guinea Russian
Kuwait Federation
Suriname Australia
Chille
Thailand Mauritius
Colombia
Canada (DFO) India
Benin Republic of Korea
Spain (IEO) USA
Romania (FTE, researcher)
Turkey Chile
Ecuador
Morocco Colombia
Dominican Republic Benin
Argentina
Angola Mauritania
Russian Federation
(subset Insitutions)
India 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 % of female scientists
Researchers in ocean science (HC) per million inhabitants (average 2009-2013)
Figure ES2. Average number of national ocean science researchers ● Ocean Science (2013) ● R&D (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)
(headcount, HC) employed per million inhabitants (2009–2013). In
some cases, the reported information was not the national average: Figure ES3. The proportion (% total) of female researchers in ocean
for Norway and the USA, data represent full time equivalent (FTE) science (headcounts; grey bars) and in R&D (blue bars). Sources:
ocean research positions; for Canada, HC information was provided GOSR questionnaire (ocean science), 2015; UIS (R&D), 2015.
only for Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO); and for Spain, HC
represents only the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO). Sources:
GOSR questionnaire (ocean science), 2015; UIS (inhabitants), 2015.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What is used for ocean science?

Ocean science institutions and marine laboratories play a
vital role in support of ocean research. They are critical for Marine field stations and laboratories provide access to a
addressing several scientific issues, including studies of range of environments, including coral reefs, estuaries,
the structure and functioning of marine and coastal food kelp forests, marshes, mangroves and urban coastlines.
webs, ecosystem biodiversity and human impacts on coastal Globally, 784 marine stations are maintained by 98
environments. The global landscape of ocean science research countries; the majority are located in Asia (23%), followed
institutions, marine labs and field stations depends on national by Europe (22%), North America (21%), Antarctica (11%),
research focus areas and research organizations. South America (10%), Africa (8%) and Oceania (5%).
Worldwide, many (39%) ocean science research

institutions work across a broad range of issues,
whereas others specialize in more limited themes such
as observations (35%) or fisheries (26%). The USA has
the highest number of research institutions varying in
size (315) – roughly equal to the total number of research
institutions in Europe combined and greatly exceeding the
number of institutions operated in Asia and Africa.
50+
50
45
40
Length of time series (years)
35
30
25
20
15
10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300

© istockphoto.com/Wolfgang Steiner
Number of time series
● Number of time series (all types included) ● Time series (CPR only)
Sustained, ship-based time series, some maintained
Figure ES4. Histogram of ship-based time series sorted by their for more than 50 years, enable investigation of remote
span in years (2012 status). The Continuous Plankton Recorder
(CPR) time series are plotted separately, highlighting the significant
locations, including along the continental shelf and in the
contribution to the longer time spans. Source: IGMETS, 2016. open ocean (Figure ES4).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
a)
USA
Japan
Republic of Korea
Germany
Ongoing investment in research vessels, together with the
Turkey
development and deployment of novel technologies such Canada
as sensors, probes and automated underwater vehicles, France
Italy
help to advance ocean science. Moorings and buoys gather Thailand
vital information about the global ocean and benefit from Norway
Spain
international coordination and collaboration. For example, India
the Argo programme, established in 2000, is maintained by Argentina
Russian Federation
20 countries.
Croatia
Australia
Chile
Globally, at least 325 research vessels are currently in Colombia
operation (Russian Federation, USA and Japan together Finland
Benin
maintain more than 60% of the total), ranging from 10 m Mauritania
to more than 65 m in length, with some built more than Romania
Viet Nam
60 years ago, while others have been in operation for Belgium
less than 5 years. The average age of national fleets Kuwait
varies between < 25 years (Norway, Bahamas, Japan and Trinidad and Tobago
Mauritius
Spain) and > 45 years (Canada, Australia and Mexico). Morocco
More than 40% of research vessels focus primarily on Angola
coastal research, while 20% engage in global research 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

(Figure ES5). Number of research vessels
© Shutterstock.com/Mikhail Varentsov
● Local/coastal ≥10 m <35 m ● Regional ≥35 m <55 m
● International ≥55 m <65 m ● Global ≥65 m
a) b)
USA
Local/coastal ≥10 m <35 m 43%
Japan Global ≥65 m 20%
Republic of Korea
Germany
Turkey
Canada
France Total RV
Italy
Thailand International ≥55 m <65 m 325
Norway 18%
Spain
India
Argentina
Russian Federation Regional ≥35 m <55 m 19%
Croatia
Australia
Chile
Colombia
Finland
Benin
Mauritania
Romania
Viet Nam
Belgium
Kuwait
Trinidad and Tobago
Mauritius
Morocco
Angola
Figure ES5. a) Number of nationally maintained research vessels
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 (RV), classified into four different ship size classes: local/coastal
Number of research vessels ≥ 10 m to < 35 m, regional ≥ 35 m to < 55 m, international ≥ 55 m to
< 65 m, global ≥ 65 m. b) Relative proportion of the different ship
● Local/coastal ≥10 m <35 m ● Regional ≥35 m <55 m
sizes summarizing all research vessels, accounted for in a). Source:
GOSR questionnaire, 2015.
b)
26 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 Local/coastal ≥10 m <35 m 43%
Global ≥65 m 20%
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
How much do countries spend on ocean science?

The GOSR is the first international endeavour to capture To support sustainable development, continuous ocean research
governmental funding of ocean science. This assessment supported by long-term public and private funding will need to
includes the contributions of 29 countries, which responded to be secured. The GOSR provides baseline information on ocean
the GOSR questionnaire by submitting information for the time science funding, which can be used as a starting point for
period 2009–2013. Despite methodological and data collection more directed, tailored investment, new capacity-development
constraints, some key trends in ocean science funding were strategies and enhanced marine technology transfer and
identified. Based on the GOSR assessment, government funding knowledge exchange.
for ocean science remains modest overall. Ocean science
funding, like other scientific domains, is facing sustainability
challenges in a number of countries.
5,0
4,5
4,0
% of national ocean science expenditure to total R&D funding

3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0
Croatia
Norway
USA
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Italy
France
India
Australia
Canada (DFO)
Romania
Republic of Korea
Germany
Colombia
Morocco
Spain (IEO)
Chile
Argentina
Kuwait
Finland
● 2009 ● 2010 ● 2011 ● 2012 ● 2013
Figure ES6. National expenditure in ocean science as a percentage of national research and development (R&D) expenditure for 25 countries
that answered the GOSR questionnaire and provided information regarding national governmental funding for ocean science. Sources: GOSR
questionnaire (ocean science funding), 2015; UIS (R&D funding), 2015.
Ocean science funding varies between < 0.04% and 4% of national research and development funding. Countries with
large dedicated ocean science budgets include USA, Australia, Germany, France and Republic of Korea (Figure ES6).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
How is ocean science performing globally?

The GOSR examines the evolving global picture of ocean
science performance, by individual countries and international The production of global ocean science is increasing.
collaborations, to illuminate how ocean science knowledge is Between 2010 and 2014, more than 370,000 manuscripts
published and shared. Bibliometrics is used as a tool to assess in ocean sciences were published and more than 2 million
the quantity and quality of ocean science research output, articles were cited. There is some relationship between
as indicated by total number of publications and citations. quantity and quality in ocean science performance;
Ocean science performance is analysed according to four however, countries with the largest numbers of
categories: production (amount of research performed), quality publications are not necessarily the most highly cited
(impact of publications), topicality (research areas pursued) (Figure ES7).
and collaboration (amount produced through international
partnerships and institutional connections).
Science-Metrix no. papers

● No info
● 1 - 2,500
● 2,500 - 5,000
● 5,000 - 10,000
● 10,000 - 15,000
● 15,000 - 30,000
● 30,000 - 100,000
Science-Metrix no. citations

● No info
● 1 - 10,000
● 10,000 - 50,000
● 50,000 - 100,000
● 100,000 - 200,000
● 200,000 - 400,000
● 400,000 - 900,000
Figure ES7. Publication and citation map of the world. The area of each country is scaled and resized according to the number of ocean
science publications (top) or citations received (bottom). Different colours indicate a different number of publications (top) or citations (bottom)
(Annex F).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ocean science output is increasing, as measured by number R&D expenditure influences ocean science performance.
and citation of scientific publications in time periods 2000–2004 Countries with high GDP (and high GDP per capita) and R&D
and 2010–2014. The strongest relative growth in ocean science expenditure also show high ocean science performance in
output was seen in China, Iran, India, Brazil, Republic of Korea, terms of publications and citations.
Turkey and Malaysia. China has become a major source of new
publications, with the USA, Canada, Australia and European
nations (UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy) remaining the
top producers of ocean science publications.
Specialization in ocean science varies around the world.

Some regions specialize in certain categories of ocean
science more than others, such as ‘marine ecosystem
function and processes’ in North and South America,
‘human health and well-being’ in Africa (Figure ES8),
‘ocean technology and engineering’ in Asia, ‘ocean and
climate’ in Europe, and ‘blue growth’ in Oceania. National
positional analysis in ocean science by categories shows
that some countries lead in certain categories, such as
Japan and the Russian Federation in ‘ocean crust and
geohazards’.
Africa
Blue growth
5
Human health and 4 Marine ecosystems
well-being functions and processes
3
1
Ocean
technology Ocean
and and climate
engineering
Ocean observation Ocean crust

and marine data and marine geohazards
Ocean health
● World ● Algeria ● Egypt ● Kenya ● Morocco ● Nigeria ● South Africa

● Tunisia ● United Rep. of Tanzania
Figure ES8. National strengths (specialization index) in ocean

science categories (for African nations accounting for at least 300
publications in the time period 2010–2014) compared to the world
average (Annex F). © US-NOAA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ocean science collaboration networks are changing the global architecture of ocean science and are often formed on
a regional basis. International ocean science collaboration is important as it increases citation rates and has a positive
effect on science impact (Figure ES9).
Single author vs. multiple authors Single country vs. multiple countries
0- 0.1 0- 0.1
0.1- 0.2 0.1- 0.2
0.2- 0.3 0.2- 0.3
0.3- 0.4 0.3- 0.4
0.4- 0.5 0.4- 0.5
0.5- 0.6 0.5- 0.6
0.6- 0.7 0.6- 0.7
0.7- 0.8 0.7- 0.8
0.8- 0.9 0.8- 0.9
0.9- 1 0.9- 1
(ARIF)
(ARIF)
1- 1.1 1- 1.1
1.1- 1.2 1.1- 1.2
1.2- 1.3 1.2- 1.3
1.3- 1.4 1.3- 1.4
1.4- 1.5 1.4- 1.5
1.5- 1.6 1.5- 1.6
1.6- 1.7 1.6- 1.7
1.7- 1.8 1.7- 1.8
1.8- 1.9 1.8- 1.9
>=1.9 >=1.9
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
% Articles % Articles
● single author ● multiple authors ● single country ● multiple countries
Figure ES9. Comparison of average relative impact factors (ARIF) in articles produced by: single author (grey bars) versus multiple authors
(dark blue bars), and authors all from the same country (domestic, grey bars) versus multiple counties (international, dark blue bars; Annex F).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
How do we store and manage ocean science data?

Modern ocean science and the application of new technology organizations, partnerships and programmes working with
and observation tools produces new kinds of data at an data and information compilation, sharing and management.
accelerated rate and in an unprecedented amount. These The GOSR analysis does not reveal any significant differences
recent developments are creating a demand for novel means between regions in terms of user audiences, except for the Asia/
of data management and storage to serve the needs of different Pacific where national researchers are the top clients.
audiences. Regionally and globally, there is a diverse array of
The majority of ocean data products provided by data Globally, 63% of data centres restrict access to ‘certain’
centres are metadata, raw data and GIS products data types and 40% apply a restriction during a certain
(Figure ES10). period of time (Figure ES12).
online access to metadata we do not restrict at all

online access to data we restrict access to
certain data types
online access to library catalogue we restrict access to
online access to e-documents data collected in certain
and e-publication geographic areas
published ocean data we restrict access
(e.g. 'snapshots' of datasets as used for publications) during a certain period
of time (embargo)
GIS products (maps, atlases)
any other restrictions
portals
numerical model data 0% 20% 40% 60 80% 100%
CD-ROM products Figure ES12. The percentage of data centres which do not restrict or
other
do restrict access to certain data types, to data collected in certain
geographic areas, during a certain period of time, or apply any other
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% restrictions (% respondents). Source: IODE survey, 2016.
Figure ES10. The data and information products provided to clients
by data centres, (% respondents). Source: IODE survey, 2016.
The core users of data, products or services provided by

data centres are national and international researchers,
as well as the general public, policy-makers and the
private sector (Figure ES11).
only users in my own institution

national researchers in my own country
researchers in any country
policy-makers of my own ministry
policy-makers in other ministries of my country
policy-makers in any country
(e.g. through UN commitments)
military
civil protection
private sector
(e.g. fisheries, hotels, industry, ...)
school children
general public
other
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure ES11. Clients and end users of data, products or services
provided by data centres (% respondents). Source: IODE survey,
© istockphoto.com/MaslennikovUppsala
2016.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Impact of ocean science: science in policy

The GOSR provides examples of how the needs of policy- International ocean science cooperation is essential to increase
makers can influence the design of tailored scientific research scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer
programmes and how science can influence the development marine technology (i.e. SDG target 14a). Ocean science is
and implementation of marine policy. These examples of the also critical to inform a range of international legal and policy
value of ocean science for addressing environmental challenges developments concerning, for example, climate change and the
could be an inspiration for future efforts. Examples considered conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in areas
by the GOSR include: beyond national jurisdiction. The GOSR offers an overview of
global ocean science capacity and thus provides a tool to achieve
reduced eutrophication of marine waters, e.g. under the
sustainable development and improve ocean health for all.
European Community Nitrates and Urban Waste Water
Directives;
national, regional and global management systems for Ocean science will continue to play a key role in
harmful algal blooms; implementing the 2030 Agenda and achieving the
conservation and sustainable use of the ocean and marine
regulation of ocean fertilization, e.g. under the 1972 resources as set out in SDG 14.
Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
Matter (London Convention) and its related 1996 Protocol
(London Protocol);
regulation of fisheries, e.g. via the total allowable catches

agreed by countries fishing in the North Sea; and
transboundary protection and conservation strategies, e.g.

the Benguela Current Convention.
Ocean science-policy interaction can play a role in the

protection and preservation of the marine environment
and the conservation and sustainable use of marine
resources.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
© istockphoto.com/valio84sl

1
Introduction
© Shutterstock.com/Mikhail Varentsov
1. Introduction
Luis Valdés1 and Martha Crago2
1 – Instituto Español de Oceanografía, C.O. de Santander, Spain
2 – Dalhousie University, Canada
Valdés, L. and Crago, M. 2017. Introduction. In: IOC-UNESCO, Global Ocean Science
Report—The current status of ocean science around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds).
Paris, UNESCO, pp. 34–41.
36 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © Shutterstock.com/deb22

Introduction
Motivation for a Global Ocean Science Report
1.1. Motivation for a Global Ocean operated vehicles and robotics. Advancing scientific research to
Science Report
improve knowledge and understanding of the changing global
ocean requires concerted international cooperation. Talent is 1
a key part of this equation. Programming, sampling, analysing
Ocean science has evolved rapidly in recent years in parallel and performing any scientific task requires the full dedication of
with growing international interest in ocean functionality, thousands of skilled scientists working in marine laboratories
climate change,1 environmental protection and the conservation and in remote regions from the Arctic to the Antarctic and from
of ocean resources. More than ever, the drivers for ocean the coast to the high seas, every single day all year round.
scientific research are connected to the sustainable use of the These researchers collaborate with each other, motivated by
oceans. As such, the main ocean science challenges of our time the desire to work with the very best people in the very best
are interdisciplinary, involving natural and social sciences to facilities, seeking new knowledge to advance their field or to
investigate issues such as ocean acidification, micro-plastics, tackle specific challenges.
hypoxia, blue carbon, blue growth and governance. To guide
new developments, a baseline of the existing capacity of ocean UNESCO advocates that science is a global enterprise; its
science to empower society, sustain the environment and Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission highlights this
generate knowledge for the development of useful products, vision for ocean science. According to the UK Royal Society
services and employment is needed. (2011): ‘there are over 7 million researchers around the world,
drawing on a combined international R&D spend of over US$1,000
To influence and inform action, the interface between science billion and reading and publishing in around 25,000 separate
and policy must be strengthened to increase engagement scientific journals per year’. Although reports on the status of
between science, society and decision-makers. The ability to global science (in general) have been published by UNESCO
make science understandable to those who make decisions (2010, 2015), the OECD (2014) and the Royal Society (2011), this
about the future is critical. Several international instruments has never been attempted for ocean science on a global scale.2
and science-policy interfaces have been formally established
by the United Nations (UN), such as the UN World Ocean The IOC considers that a global compilation of information
Assessment, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity concerning the status of global ocean science is necessary.
and Ecosystem Services and the Intergovernmental Panel Science is a main pillar for sustainable development and science
on Climate Change, which ensure that updated and accurate is also an instrument for peace (UNESCO, 2015). The science
science is appropriately reflected in high-level policy dimension of diplomacy has fundamental significance at a time
discussions (e.g. conferences of the parties of UN treaties, when science has tremendous power to shape the future of
such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the UN humanity and when it is no longer appropriate to design science
Framework Convention on Climate Change). Other science- policy in purely national terms, especially when addressing
policy assessments, such as the UNESCO Science Report and issues affecting the entire planet such as climate change and
the World Social Science Report (UNESCO, 2015; ISSC, IDS and the sustainable management of the ‘global ocean commons’.3
UNESCO, 2016) and reports published by the Organisation for The Global Ocean Science Report (GOSR) aims to identify and
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2014) and quantify the key elements of ocean science, including workforce,
the European Commission (European Commission, 2009), infrastructure and publications. It serves as a resource to foster
highlight patterns of scientific productivity and demonstrate international ocean science cooperation and collaboration
the value of scientific collaboration. These assessments provide and facilitate sharing of expertise and facilities. The GOSR
a basis for understanding and promoting knowledge-sharing supports ocean governance and promotes common scientific
and dissemination, identifying the opportunities and benefits interests in reducing the risks from ocean hazards, developing
of international collaboration and harnessing international scientific capacity and increasing benefits from conservation
scientific collaboration to address global challenges. and sustainable use of ocean resources. By consolidating
Ocean science is ‘Big Science’, involving sophisticated and ocean science issues into one single assessment, the GOSR
costly equipment, such as satellites, research vessels, remote
2 National ocean science reports have been published for Canada (CCORU,
2013) and Belgium (Herman et al., 2013).
1 Climate change is an international priority based on scientific consensus 3 Global commons is a term typically used to describe international,
and States have signed binding agreements to reduce emissions of supranational and global resource domains in which common-pool
greenhouse gases and undertake actions to mitigate the effects of climate resources are found (Ostrom, 1990). Global commons include the earth’s
change (e.g. UNFCCC Conference of the Parties to the United Nations shared natural resources, such as the oceans, the atmosphere and the
Framework Convention on Climate Change, Paris, 2015). Antarctic.

Introduction
The Global Ocean Science Report as a collaborative action towards science for sustainable development
aims to contribute to strengthening the science-policy interface Enhancing conservation and implementing good practices in
for managers, policy-makers, governments and donors, as the management and use of ocean-based resources through
well as broader political and scientific audiences beyond the international law will help mitigate some of the challenges
ocean community. facing our ocean. The conservation and sustainable use of
the ocean is reflected in SDG 14, one of the 17 Sustainable
Development Goals that make up the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development (UN, 2015). SDG 14 establishes a
1.2. The Global Ocean Science framework to sustainably manage and protect marine and
Report as a collaborative action coastal ecosystems and a foundation for better integration of
international science and environmental governance.
towards science for sustainable
development Box 1.1. 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Facts and
Figures for Sustainable Development Goal 14 ‘Conserve and
Sustainable development calls for concerted efforts towards sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
building an inclusive, sustainable and resilient future for people sustainable development’ (UN, 2015).
and planet by harmonizing three core elements: economic
SDG14 Oceans and Seas: Facts and Figures
growth, social inclusion and environmental protection. Science
is a fourth core element, essential to understanding and ## Oceans cover three-quarters of the Earth’s surface, contain 97 % of the
Earth’s water and represent 99% of the living space on the planet by volume
achieving sustainability.
## Over 3 billion people depend on marine and coastal biodiversity for their
Sustainability science has emerged in the twenty-first century livelihoods
as a new academic discipline.4 According to the Proceedings of ## Globally, the market value of marine and coastal resources and industries
the National Academy of Sciences of the USA5, sustainability is estimated at US$3 trillion per year, or about 5% of global GDP
science ‘deals with the interactions between natural and social ## Oceans contain nearly 200,000 identified species, but actual numbers may
systems, and with how those interactions affect the challenge of lie in the millions
sustainability: meeting the needs of present and future generations ## Oceans absorb about 30% of carbon dioxide produced by humans, buffering
while substantially reducing poverty and conserving the planet’s the impacts of global warming
life support systems.’ ## Oceans serve as the world’s largest source of protein, with more than 3
billion people depending on the oceans as their primary source of protein
The ocean, once thought to be a vast, resilient area able to
absorb practically unlimited waste and withstand increasing ## Marine fisheries directly or indirectly employ over 200 million people
human population, fishing and shipping pressures, is now ## Subsidies for fishing are contributing to the rapid depletion of many fish
known to be increasingly vulnerable to human activities. Ocean species and are preventing efforts to save and restore global fisheries and
related jobs, causing ocean fisheries to generate US$50 billion less per
and coastal areas are major contributors to the global economy year than they could
and fundamental to global well-being through direct economic
## As much as 40% of the world oceans are heavily affected by human activities,
activities, provision of ecosystem services, and as home to the including pollution, depleted fisheries and loss of coastal habitats
majority of the world’s population (Box 1.1). In addition, the
ocean drives change and variability in the climate system,
influencing rainfall and desertification, even far from coasts.
While the SDGs are not legally binding, governments are
Global sustainability and stewardship need to be underpinned
expected to take ownership and establish national frameworks
by good understanding and monitoring of the global ocean.
to achieve the goals and have the primary responsibility to
follow up and review progress through national, regional and
global level analyses. This will require quality, accessible and
4 This new field of science was officially introduced with a ‘Birth Statement’ at
the World Congress ‘Challenges of a Changing Earth 2001’ in Amsterdam, timely data collection and strengthened cooperation among UN
organized by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the International agencies and Member States.
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), the International Human
Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP) and the The GOSR aims to serve as a tool to achieve SDG 14 by providing
World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). The IOC is the parental
body for WCRP and also provided support to core projects within the now a status report on global ocean science. The GOSR seeks to
concluded IGBP, some of which now continue as part of Future Earth. enable States to optimize the use of scientific resources,
5 http://sustainability.pnas.org/page/about (Accessed 17 November 2016). promote capacity-building, transfer technology and facilitate

Introduction
Mandate, objectives and outline
international cooperation in marine research and management The ambitious goal of the GOSR is to present an overview of
with due regard to the needs of developing countries. To this end,
the GOSR is framed around the contribution of ocean science
ocean science capacity that exists worldwide, including existing
physical infrastructure and facilities, human resources, financial
1
to sustainable development concepts. These are grouped into investments, scientific productivity and scientific collaboration
seven categories plus one overarching theme,6 as follows: at national and international levels. The GOSR aims to:
Marine ecosystem’s functions and processes I. Deliver an overview of where and by whom ocean science
Ocean and climate is conducted, as well as its quality and impact on national
and international governance;
Ocean health
II. Improve our knowledge of the human and institutional
Human health and wellbeing
capacity of IOC Member States in terms of marine research,
Blue growth observations and data/information management;
Ocean crust and marine geohazards III. Deliver a global overview of performance on key fields
Ocean technology and engineering of research regarding sustainable development and blue
growth.
Overarching theme: Ocean observation and marine data
By highlighting patterns in the production of ocean science
and the organization of scientific collaboration, the GOSR
provides a basis to understand and promote knowledge sharing
1.3. Mandate, objectives and dissemination, illustrate the benefits of international
and outline collaboration and identify opportunities for international
collaboration to address ocean challenges more effectively.
As part of its voluntary commitment to the Rio+20 United
The use of scientific methods in the evaluation and presentation
Nations Conference on Sustainable Development and the
of results was a guiding principle during the preparation of
SDG 14 targets, the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
the report. The GOSR findings and assessments were made
Commission of UNESCO plays a leading role in facilitating
based on relevant data and objective information. A holistic
the development and implementation of a global strategy to
and balanced approach to scientific input and stakeholder
build national and regional capacity in ocean affairs in order
to advance sustainable ocean management at all levels. IOC participation was fostered to avoid bias in the analysis of data.
Member States recognize that the science-policy interface The report is streamlined and progressively structured in eight
requires baselines and assessments of nations’ needs and chapters:
investments in ocean science on a regular basis. However, there
has been no global mechanism for assessing and reporting Chapter 1 introduces the motivation and objectives of the
the level of capacity, investments, performance and needs GOSR
of nations in ocean science, observation and services. In this Chapter 2 discusses the data collection and methodology
regard, the GOSR aspires to be the tool to monitor ocean science
achievements in the light of target 14a7 within SDG 14. The Chapter 3 presents data on global ocean science equipment
feasibility of, and demand for, similar global mechanisms has and human resources
been shown by ongoing national and international initiatives. Chapter 4 examines investment in ocean science
The GOSR was prepared under the auspices of IOC to fulfil this
vision and mandate for ocean science. Chapter 5 analyses research productivity, science impact and
other quantitative indices of performance and international
6 These categories were defined by an expert group and validated by the IOC collaboration
Executive Council in 2014 (Decision EC-XLVII/Dec.6.2).
7 SDG 14, target 14a.: Increase scientific knowledge, develop research capacity Chapter 6 discusses oceanographic information management
and transfer marine technology, taking into account the Intergovernmental and exchange
Oceanographic Commission Criteria and Guidelines on the Transfer of
Marine Technology, in order to improve ocean health and to enhance the
Chapter 7 discusses the role of international supporting
contribution of marine biodiversity to the development of developing countries,
in particular small island developing States and least developed countries. organizations in ocean science

Introduction
REFERENCES
Chapter 8 provides examples of the contribution of ocean

References
science to policy development
The ultimate goal of the GOSR is to support the achievement

of policy goals by providing an overview of the status of global Canadian Consortium of Ocean Research Universities (CCORU).
2013. Ocean Science in Canada: Meeting the Challenge, Seizing
ocean science resources, investments and productivity. The vast
the Opportunity. Ottawa, Council of Canadian Academies.
scale of the global ocean and the complexity of scientific and European Commission. 2009. Global Governance of Science.
policy challenges to achieve sustainable development demands Brussels, Directorate-General for Research, Science,
international collaboration. Ocean scientists have a long Economy and Society.
tradition of working with colleagues across national borders Herman, R., Mees, J., Pirlet, H., Verleye, T. and Lescrauwaet, A.
K. 2013. Compendium for Coast and Sea 2013: integrating
to advance understanding and management of the global ocean
knowledge on the socio-economic, environmental and
commons. The report offers decision-makers an unprecedented institutional aspects of the Coast and Sea in Flanders and
tool to identify gaps and opportunities to advance international Belgium. A. K. Lescrauwaet, H. Pirlet, T. Verleye, J. Mees
collaboration in ocean science and technology and harness its and R. Herman (eds), Marine research. Ostend, Belgium,
pp. 12‑71.
potential to meet societal needs, address global challenges and
drive sustainable development for all. ISSC, IDS and UNESCO. 2016. World Social Science Report 2016,
Challenging Inequalities: Pathways to a Just World. Paris,
UNESCO.
OECD. 2014. Main Science and Technology Indicators. Vol. 2013 (1).
Paris, OECD.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions
for collective action. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University
Press.
Royal Society. 2011. Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific
collaboration in the 21st century. London, Royal Society.
UN. 2015. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly.
25 September 2015. A/RES/70/1.
UNESCO. 2010. UNESCO Science Report 2010: The current status of
science around the world. Paris, UNESCO Publishing.
UNESCO. 2013. UNESCO Medium-Term Strategy 2014-2021. Paris,
UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2015. UNESCO Science Report 2015: Towards 2030. Paris,
UNESCO.

2
Definitions,
data collection
and data
analysis
© Shutterstock.com/Ethan Daniels
2. Definitions,
data collection
and data analysis
Kirsten Isensee,1 Seonghwan Pae,2 Peter Pissierssens,1
Kazuo Inaba,3 and Martin Schaaper4
1 – Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO
2 – Korea Institute of Marine Science & Technology Promotion, Republic of Korea
3 – Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Japan
4 – UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Isensee, K., Pae, S., Pissierssens, P., Inaba, K. and Schaaper, M. 2017. Definitions,

data collection and data analysis. In: IOC-UNESCO, Global Ocean Science Report—The
current status of ocean science around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds). Paris, UNESCO,
pp. 42–53.
44 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © Shutterstock.com/NikoNomad

Definitions, data collection and data analysis
Preparation process
2.1. Preparation process IV. Contribute as co-authors to the drafting process of the
different chapters.
A suite of complementary approaches and methods was used to V. Actively promote the report to potential users and
underpin the information presented and discussed in the Global stakeholders.
Ocean Science Report (GOSR). The chosen methodologies allow
information to be captured about different aspects of ocean
VI. Establish liaisons with international organizations, 2
conventions and panels with interest in the report and which
science, including research funding, human and technical
will benefit from the published results.
capacities and outputs (e.g. publications), as well as supporting
organizations and facilities.
A variety of open source and quality-controlled resources,

together with targeted surveys, were used to collect the data 2.2. Definitions and classification of
and information that provide the foundation for this report. The ocean science in categories
GOSR combines quantitative data such as the number of peer-
reviewed publications, research vessels and the extent of national A definition of ocean science, with further classification into
funding with qualitative data, e.g. the existence of ocean science categories, enables global comparisons and an interdisciplinary
national strategies. Throughout the report ocean science data analysis of ocean science production and performance, in
are compared to information on natural sciences and/or research line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
and development (R&D) in general. This kind of analysis allows especially Sustainable Development Goal 14: ‘Conserve and
to put ocean science in a broader perspective. Cross-references sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for
between independent quantitative indicators as provided in sustainable development’. In the context of the IOC governing
Chapters 3, 4, 5 and 6, based on the methodology described in body mechanism, in 2014, an ad hoc IOC group of experts
this chapter, and findings from Chapters 7 and 8, help the reader (Methodological Expert Group, 2013) and the Editorial Board of
to navigate through the report. the GOSR agreed to focus certain parts of the analysis on eight
Data compilation tools include: 1) tailored questionnaires; major categories recognized as high-level themes in national and
2) peer-reviewed literature, national reports, web-based international ocean research strategies and policies (Figure 2.1).
sources; and 3) bibliometrics based on international literature These categories cover integrative, interdisciplinary and strategic
databases (Section 2.3.2). Access to some types of quantitative ocean research areas.
measurements is limited or unavailable. Currently, national
reporting mechanisms to obtain the type of information Marine ecosystems functions and processes
requested in the GOSR questionnaire (Annex D) are often not in
place. By adopting a standardized approach as developed in the Ocean and climate

first edition of this report, an important step is made towards
systematic reporting on global ocean science. Ocean health
The Editorial Board served as an external and independent

international panel of ocean science experts with experience in
science diplomacy, statistics, and assessments and evaluation.
Blue growth
The Editorial Board gave advice on the structure and content,
drafted chapters and reviewed parts of the report. The main Ocean crust and marine geohazards
tasks of the Editorial Board were to:
I. Provide continued guidance for the successful publication Ocean technology

of the first edition of the GOSR.
Figure 2.1. Ocean science categories considered in the GOSR.
II. Encourage Member States to provide relevant data and
information.
III. Identify appropriate methods of accessing relevant information.

Definitions and classification of ocean science in categories
The Expert Panel on the Canadian Ocean Science Report on marine pollution, alien and invasive species, disruption
(Council of Canadian Academies, 2013) offers the following of ecosystems, marine protected areas, and marine spatial
definition: ‘Ocean Science, ... , includes all research disciplines planning, etc.
related to the study of the ocean: physical, biological, chemical,
Human health and well-being: This category includes research
geological, hydrographic, health, and social sciences, as well as
on the relationship between the ocean and human health and
engineering, the humanities,1 and multidisciplinary research on the
well-being. Human health and well-being covers physical and
relationship between humans and the ocean…Ocean science seeks
social studies on provision of marine ecosystem services, in
to understand complex, multi-scale social-ecological systems and
particular food security as well as recreation, harmful algae
services, which requires observations and multidisciplinary and
blooms, and human-related social, educational and aesthetic
collaborative research.’ The Editorial Board recognizes this
values, etc.
definition as a useful description of ocean science, supporting
the methodology applied for the analysis presented in the Blue growth: This category refers to the research on – and in
report. support of – sustainable use of marine resources, including
the research on economically important species with regard to
food security (fisheries and aquaculture). Blue growth further
2.2.1. Classification of ocean science categories covers studies on the utilization of new energy resources in the
ocean and marine bio-resources, as well as clean technologies,
Marine ecosystems functions and processes: This category
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and desalination, etc.
refers to marine ecosystem’s structure, diversity and integrity
and includes abiotic and biotic characteristics. Marine ecosystem Ocean crust and marine geohazards: This category refers
functions include biogeochemical, chemical, physical and to geological/geophysical marine research, including
biological processes. They are characterized by nutrient cycles, hydrothermal vents, seismology, ocean drilling, movements and
energy flow, exchanges of material, as well as trophic dynamics associated marine hazards (tsunamis, gas/fluid escape above
and structure. All these processes are marked by a variability huge sub-seafloor, rapid sea-level rise, flooding, hurricanes
in – and diversity of – natural dynamics, including seasonal, and extreme coastal weather events), etc.
temporal and spatial differences and perturbations. The report
Ocean technology: Research related to marine innovation and
comprises the following topics under Marine ecosystems
the design and development of equipment and systems for
functions and processes: biodiversity; physical setting; primary
marine science and industries. This category covers studies
production; consumption; sedimentation; respiration; aerobic
on marine engineering, such as the development of marine
and anaerobic processes across the different trophic levels;
energy solutions, satellites and remote-sensing techniques,
biological pump, etc.
Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV), gliders, floats, sensors, new
Ocean and climate: This category refers to research on the measurement devices and techniques, etc. in addition to marine
interaction between the ocean and the atmosphere to provide geoengineering (e.g. solar radiation management and carbon
better predictions of reciprocal changes in the ocean and dioxide removal techniques).
climate system. The ocean and climate category comprises the
Ocean observation and marine data: This category is relevant
following topics: palaeoceanography; ocean warming; ocean
for all categories of ocean science. It includes the collection,
acidification; deoxygenation; sea-level rise; changes in ocean
management, dissemination and use of marine data and
circulation and air-sea interaction, etc. but does not include
information to create knowledge on the seas and ocean. This
studies on extreme weather events.
cross-cutting category underpins all marine and maritime
Ocean health: This category refers to research covering the activities, in particular marine scientific research. However,
condition of the marine environment from the perspective it also covers studies on – and development of – marine data
of adverse and cumulative effects caused by anthropogenic platforms, marine databases, data reporting and management
activities, in particular, changes in biodiversity, genetic diversity, activities.
phenotypic plasticity, habitat loss and alteration in ecosystem
The eight ocean science categories were used to obtain
structure and processes. Ocean health comprises studies
bibliometric data to enable an analysis of ocean science
performance (Chapter 5). According to the definition of the
1 The Editorial Board did not include members with specific expertise in
humanities or social sciences. category, a set of keywords was selected.

Data resources and analysis
2.2.2. Classification of ocean science research fields f. regionally and globally supporting organizations on ocean
science,
In order to facilitate the data acquisition on the research
g. sustainable development, and
facilities, equipment and human resources, three categories
h. non-quantitative information.
of ocean research fields were defined in the GOSR questionnaire
for subsequent analysis (Section 2.2.1.). The quantitative section (A-G) addressed information related 2
Fisheries: Research related to marine fisheries, mariculture to human and technical capacity available in each country. The
(open ocean) and aquaculture (coastal and indoor). non-quantitative section (H) addressed national ocean science
strategies and challenges encountered in order to conduct
Observations: Ocean science related to coastal and open ocean ocean science, as well as national recommendations and ocean
monitoring, data repositories, measurements to track harmful science needs.
algal blooms and pollution, satellite measurements, buoys
and moorings. The IOC Secretariat received 34 national replies to the
questionnaire (23% of IOC membership). The following Member
Marine research/other ocean science: Areas of ocean science, States submitted national information: Angola, Argentina,
which do not fit in the other two categories, such as experimental
Australia, Belgium, Benin, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia,
investigations and process studies.
Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France,
Germany, Guinea, India, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Mauritania,
Mauritius, Morocco, Norway, Republic of Korea, Romania,
2.3. Data resources and analysis Russian Federation, Spain, Suriname, Thailand, Trinidad
and Tobago, Turkey, United States of America and Vietnam
(Figure 2.2). These countries produced about 75% of ocean
science publications during the time period 2010–2014. On
2.3.1. Global Ocean Science Report average, the countries answered 77.4% of the questions. More
questionnaire and IODE survey detail on the proportion of answers received for each theme is
provided in Figure 2.3.
A major tool in the data-gathering process for the report was a
questionnaire asking for national information on ocean science Most of the data requested in the questionnaire cover the period
conducted by IOC Member States. The survey was developed 2009–2013. The information provided was partly verified with
and reviewed in consultation with representatives of Member the national focal points, to address individual inconsistencies,
States in a working group. This survey collected core data and and analysed subsequently.
information to assess indicators and evidence to assess national
Analysing additional sources, e.g. participant lists of
capacity, progress and challenges for ocean science. National
international conferences, national plans and national reports
coordinating bodies for liaison with IOC ensured coordination
served to minimize such uncertainties.
with the community of marine scientists and institutions in
their respective countries and submitted data from January Some of the data presented in Chapter 6 (Oceanographic data,
until November 2015. information management and exchange) is based on the data
obtained from an additional online survey carried out between
In total, the questionnaire compiled information on 41 items,
24 June and 19 September 2016 by the IOC International
which were grouped under 8 themes in a quantitative section
Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE)
from A to G and a non-quantitative section H (Annex D). Some
Programme among national coordinators for data management,
cross-cutting questions address several chapters of the report:
national coordinators for marine information management and
a. ocean science landscape,
Associate Data Unit contact points. Out of 114 contacts, a total
b. research investments, of 78 (69%) data centres responded.
c. research capacity and infrastructures,
The analysis of responses to the questionnaire was conducted
d. oceanographic data and information exchange, within certain limitations. In particular, the qualitative questions
e. capacity-building and transfer of technology, are at risk of being influenced by subjective perceptions.

Figure 2.2. Global map indicating the Member States that responded to the questionnaire (blue).
A. Ocean science landscape

100
2.3.2. Bibliometric data
H. Non-quantitative B. Research investment Bibliometrics refers to the study of patterns in a collection
information 75
of scientific publications in a literature database – namely
50 peer-reviewed articles in academic journals (Pritchard, 1969).
Bibliometric analysis uses a standardized method to compare
25
the publication output of entities such as countries and research
G. Sustainable C. Research institutions. As a measure of output, bibliometric indicators
development capacity and are a proxy measurement of overall research productivity. This
infrastructure
study, presented in Chapter 5, does not intend to conduct a
qualitative evaluation of ocean science between countries, but
presents the information required for an overview of ocean
F. Regionally and D. Oceanographic data science productivity across its scientific categories at the global
globally supporting and information level. They allow the comparison of ocean science output of
organizations exchange
E. Capacity-building and single countries to each other. The analysis is also used to
on ocean science
transfer of technology describe patterns of collaboration and output of organizations.
The bibliometric datasets were provided by Science-Metrix.2

● % Response
The report covers worldwide scientific literature output in ocean
Figure 2.3. Questionnaire analysis – response rate by theme, science from 2010 to 2014. The main source of data was the
calculated based on the total number of responses received to the Web of Science (WoS) by Thomson Reuters,3 which features
questionnaire in general (n=34) peer-reviewed (work evaluated by one or more people of similar
2 http://www.science-metrix.com/
3 https://www.thomsonreuters.com/

competence to the producers of the work) publications from and 2014 are counted in this analysis. To account for different
more than 8,500 scientific journals across 150 disciplines. citation patterns across categories of science (e.g. there are
However, to be as inclusive as possible, the analysis was more citations in biomedical research than in mathematics) and
supplemented by articles in other science journals. In total for differences in the age of publications (e.g. changes in citation
16,314 journals, captured by queries using more than 1,900 patterns over the years), each citation count of a publication is
search terms, were included in the analysis, comprising more divided by the average citation count of all publications of the 2
than 370,000 articles. corresponding document type (i.e. a review would be compared
to other reviews, whereas an article would be compared to
Papers with co-authors from multiple organizations and/or
other articles) that were published in the same year in the
countries were used to identify collaboration networks and to
same subfield to obtain a relative citation count (RC). When
generate figures reflecting patterns of co-authorship among
the ARC is above one, it means that an entity scores better
organizations. The Editorial Board acknowledges that
than the world average; when it is below one, it means that an
collaboration may take many forms other than co-authorship,
entity publishes papers that are not cited as often as the world
including the organization of conferences and meetings, joint
average. Science-Metrix considers that an entity must have at
experiments, sharing data, and other activities not captured by
least 30 publications with a valid RC score in order for the ARC
bibliometric data.
to be calculated, as this can otherwise lead to unreliable results.
The quality of the datasets was validated with precision and
Average of relative impact factors (ARIF): The ARIF is a
recall tests. When deemed necessary, the keywords were
measure of the expected scientific impact of publications
revisited, modified and complemented, and new iterations on
produced by a given entity (e.g. a country or an institution),
precision and recall tests were conducted.
based on the impact factors (IF) of the journals in which they
were published. In this study, Science-Metrix computes and
2.3.2.1 Bibliometric indicators uses a symmetric IF based on the document types that are used
throughout the report for producing bibliometric data. The IF
Number of papers: This is an analysis of the number of
of publications is calculated by ascribing to them the IF of the
publications obtained using full counting. In the full-counting
journal in which they are published, for the year in which they
method, each paper is counted once for each entity (e.g.
are published. Subsequently, to account for different citation
country, organization, researcher) listed in the address field.
patterns across fields and subfields of science (e.g. there are
For example, if a paper is authored by two researchers from
more citations in biomedical research than in mathematics),
the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one
each IF of a publication is divided by the average IF of all papers
from the Chinese Academy for Science and one from the Xiamen
of the corresponding document type (i.e. a review would be
University, the paper is counted – at the institutional level – once
compared to other reviews, whereas an article would be
for NOAA, once for the Chinese Academy for Science, once for
compared to other articles) that were published in the same
the Xiamen University, once for the United States and once for
year in the same subfield to obtain a relative impact factor (RIF).
China at the country level.
In this study, the IF of a journal is computed over five years.
Average of relative citations (ARC): This is an indicator For example, in 2007, the IF of a journal would be equal to the
of the scientific impact of papers produced by a given entity number of citations to articles published in 2006 (8), 2005 (15),
(e.g. a country or an institution) relative to the world average 2004 (9), 2003 (5) and 2002 (13) divided by the number of articles
(i.e. the expected number of citations). All the citations received published in 2006 (15), 2005 (23), 2004 (12), 2003 (10) and
by each publication are counted for the year in which it was 2002 (16) (i.e. IF = numerator [50] / denominator [76] = 0.658).
published and for all the following years up to the most recent The ARIF of a given entity is the average of its RIFs (i.e. if an
publications indexed in the database. For example, for papers institution has 20 publications, the ARIF is the average of 20
published in 2010, citations received in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 RIFs, one per publication). When the ARIF is above one, it means

that an entity scores better than the world average; when it is The limitations of bibliometric analyses fall into three main
below one, it means that an entity publishes in journals that categories. Firstly, all bibliometric indicators are based on
are not cited as often as the world average. Science-Metrix one type of research output, namely peer-reviewed articles
considers that an entity must have at least 30 publications with published in journals. Other forms of research output, which
a valid RIF score in order for the ARIF to be calculated, as this may or may not be peer-reviewed, such as patents, conference
can otherwise lead to unreliable results. presentations, national reports and technical series, are not
Specialization index (SI): The SI is an indicator of research taken into account. Secondly, the results of bibliometric analyses
intensity in a given entity (e.g. an institution) for a given are influenced by the choice of the classification system (ocean
research area (e.g. a field or category), relative to the intensity science divided into eight major categories) applied by the
in a reference entity (e.g. the world, or the entire output as report and by the database used (in this case: WoS – Thomson
measured by the database) for the same research area. In other Reuters). As mentioned, additional journals were identified and
words, when an institution is specialized in a field, it places included in the analysis to account for the multidisciplinary
more emphasis on that field at the expense of other research nature of ocean science and address this limitation. In addition,
areas. In this study, two references have been used: the world in articles that are not written in English, or at least have an
all science and the world in ocean science only. Using the latter English abstract, are not included in the database and are
reference will give specialization centred around ocean science. therefore not part of this study. Thirdly, bibliometric indicators
are also sensitive to the time periods under consideration. Older
The SI is formulated as follows:
papers are naturally more cited than recent publications. These
(XS/XT) effects are minimized by standardized citation metrics relative
SI= to average citations for papers of the same type, the same
(NS/NT)
year, with the same specialty. In addition, new investments in
ocean science are not directly echoed in the scientific output, as
Where:
fieldwork, analysis and publication require a few years before
XS = Publications from entity X in a given research area (e.g. papers
by Germany in ocean health) being properly reflected in the bibliometric analysis.
XT = Publications from entity X in a reference set of papers (e.g. total
papers by Germany)
NS = Publications from reference entity N in a given research area
2.3.3. Additional resources
(e.g. world papers in ocean health)
In addition to the questionnaire and the data provided by
NT = P
ublications from reference entity N in a reference set of papers
Science-Metrix, supplementary resources were used to improve
(e.g. total world papers OR world papers in ocean science)
the data sets available for the analysis within the report.
In case the data sets provided could not fulfil the previously Further information was obtained from published resources,
mentioned criteria, this is indicated, by either N/C (not calculated), e.g. web-based assessments, national and international
or N/A (not applicable). reports, produced by intergovernmental organizations and
international acknowledged partners of IOC-UNESCO. The
2.3.2.2 Potential and limitations relevant references are acknowledged in each chapter.
of bibliometric datasets
Resources assessing and reviewing the national human
Bibliometric analyses build on a globally distributed extensive capacities in ocean science are scarce. This and the limited
dataset, covering the majority of published peer-reviewed information provided through the questionnaire resulted in
articles. The publication of scientific articles in peer-reviewed a need to obtain additional data documenting, for instance,
journals is the cornerstone of research dissemination in ocean gender equality among researchers in ocean science in a
science. Therefore, the different bibliometric indices can be used different way (Chapter 3). For this purpose, lists of participants
as proxies for research activity. Secondly, bibliometric analyses attending international ocean science conferences/symposia
are able to provide information about research productivity from 2009 to 2015 were used. The criteria for international
(i.e. the quantity of journal articles produced), specialization, conferences to be included in this assessment are: 1. Minimum
collaboration activities and research impact (measured through of 50 participants from at least 10 different countries attended;
citations). When used appropriately, citation-based indicators can 2. Experts of the hosting country never exceeded 50% of the
be valid measurements to discuss the impacts of scientific output. total number of participants; 3. Open registration process. The

Visualization
full list of conferences selected for each ocean science category Gross domestic expenditure on research and experimental
indicates the number of participants, countries represented and development (GERD): GERD as a percentage of GDP is the total
the overall gender ratio of experts subscribed for the meeting intramural expenditure on R&D performed in a national territory
(Annex E). or region during a given year, expressed as a percentage of
GDP of the national territory or region (defined by the Frascati
To obtain the number and geographical distribution of marine
stations worldwide (Chapter 3) information was gathered using
Manual (OECD, 2015), adapted by the UNESCO Institute for 2
Statistics). UIS collects data on resources devoted to research
a variety of resources, in particular the World Association of
and experimental development (R&D) through its R&D statistics
Marine Stations (WAMS), local organizations of marine stations
survey. In addition, it obtains data directly from the Organisation
(MARS, NAML, JAMBIO, TMN), the IOC Sub-Commission for
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Eurostat,
Africa and the Adjacent Island States, websites referring to
the Ibero-American and Inter-American Network on Science
marine stations locally and globally, a web-search based on
and Technology Indicators (RICYT) and the African Science,
the search engine (www.google.com, 2016) with the following
Technology and Innovation Indicators (ASTII) Initiative of the
keywords: marine station/ biological/ oceanographic/ fisheries, African Union/NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency
in addition to direct requests to the research community in for countries that participate in the data collections of these
Australia, Brazil, China, Iran, Philippines, Republic of Korea, organizations. Data obtained from the OECD are based on the
Russian Federation, Singapore and Thailand. Marine stations OECD’s Research and Development Statistics database (April
as used in the context of the report are defined as field 2015). Data obtained from Eurostat are based on the Eurostat
stations where scientific research and observation of marine Science and Technology database, as of April 2015. Data
organisms, ecosystems and environments are carried out. received from RICYT are as of April 2015. Data obtained from
Marine stations vary in size, infrastructure and of course the ASTII are based on the African Innovation Outlook I (AU–NEPAD,
marine environment that they are placed in or close to. They 2010) and the African Innovation Outlook II (NEPAD, 2014).5
are further categorized as field stations, large or small, located
near the coastline with at least one permanent member of staff.
Besides their importance for ocean science, marine stations
can also contribute to education, conservation and outreach 2.4. Visualization
activities related to the coast and its ecosystems. A variety of
organizations can manage marine stations, including national Data visualization helps to communicate often complex
and local government, public or private universities, private information in a clear and effective way via statistical graphics,
companies or foundations. plots and information graphics. It enables the audience to see
visual representations of analyses, facilitates the understanding
of data sets and possibly enables the identification of new
2.3.4. Parameters for normalization patterns.
In order to normalize data, improve comparability and allow Positional analysis: Positional analysis graphs visualize the
benchmarking between different countries, some parameters composite performance of institutions (Figure 2.4 below and
were introduced to put absolute numbers of certain parameters Chapter 5). They assist in the interpretation of the strengths
(e.g. financial resources allocated for ocean science, technical and weaknesses of an institution through the use of several
and human resources) into perspective. separate indicators. These graphical representations logically
combine three of the previously mentioned indicators (number
Gross Domestic Product4 (GDP): Sum of gross value added by
of papers, SI and ARC). The SI and ARC are log-transformed
all resident producers in the economy, including distributive
in order to produce a better visual. The position of an entity in
trades and transport, plus any product taxes and minus any
one of four quadrants can therefore be interpreted as follows:
subsidies not included in the value of the products. It is the
primary indicator used to gauge the health and size of a national Quadrant 1: Located at the top right of the graph. Entities
economy. Within the analysis presented, the average annual in this quadrant specialize in the given domain and their
GDP (in US$) of a country during the time period 2009–2013 activities have a high impact, meaning that their papers are
was considered. more frequently cited than the world average in this domain.
4 Definition by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) - glossary 5 http://data.uis.unesco.org

Visualization
Quadrant 2: Located at the top left of the graph, this quadrant Not Specialized World Specialized
is synonymous with high-impact scientific production, but 60
High impact but not Specialized and
the entities are not specialized in the domain. specialized high impact
2 1
Higher Impact
40
Quadrant 3: Located at the bottom left of the graph,
institutions positioned in this quadrant showed an intensity of
ARC (research/technology impact) axis

activity and its impact below the world average in the domain. 20 Relative distance to
the axis reveals degree
of strengh/weakness
Quadrant 4: Located at the bottom right of the graph, this relative to the world
average
quadrant signals specialization in the domain, whereas
World
0
output impact is below the world average.
3 4
Collaboration network: This illustrates the collaborations -20
between authors from different entities (country, institution, Size is proportional to
Lower Impact
the level of activity
etc.). Collaborations are computed in full counting. For
-40
example, for a paper authored by two researchers from
Not specialized and Specialized but
University A, one author from University B and one author low impact low impact
from University C, only one collaboration will be counted for -60
the pair A-B and one collaboration for the pair University of -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
A-C, as well as B-C. The width of the ties between entities is SI (intensity of research/patenting) axis
proportional to the number of collaborations between the two

Figure 2.4. Example for figure illustrating the positional analysis, for
entities and the size (area) of the bubbles representing each the Specialization Index (SI) and the Average of Relative Citations
entity is proportional to the number of articles published by (ARC) as presented in Chapter 5.
the entity. The spatial arrangement of the network is a function
of the number of collaborators and the collaboration intensity
(the more entities collaborate together, the more they will be References
clustered). In this study, the top 40 most publishing countries
in each category are used for country networks and the top
40 most publishing institutions in each pillar were selected AU–NEPAD (African Union–New Partnership for Africa’s Development).
for institution networks. 2010. African innovation outlook 2010. Pretoria, AU–NEPAD.
Council of Canadian Academies. 2013. Ocean science in Canada:
Diffusion cartogram: Diffusion cartograms are used to
meeting the challenge, seizing the opportunity. Ottawa, Council
illustrate the scientific output with regard to the geographical of Canadian Academies.
extent of the countries (Chapter 5, Figure 5.2). The applied
Gastner, M. T. and Newman, M. E. J. 2004. Diffusion based method
diffusion-based method allows the creation of different density- for producing density equalizing maps. Proceedings of the
equalizing maps. The method starts with an inhomogeneous National Academy of Sciences of the United States, Vol. 101,
distribution of the research contribution (citations, number of pp. 7499–504.
publications) and the following diffusion process evolves until a NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency (NPCA). 2014. African
homogeneous equilibrium state is reached. The displacements innovation outlook 2014. Pretoria, NPCA.
are then reinterpreted to generate the cartogram (Gastner and OECD. 2015. Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for collecting and
reporting data on research and experimental development,
Newman, 2004).
the measurement of scientific, technological and innovation
Choropleth map: A choropleth map is a thematic map in activities. Paris, OECD Publishing. doi: http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264239012-en
which areas are shaded or patterned in proportion to the
measurement of the statistical variable being displayed on the Pritchard, A. 1969. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal
of Documentation, 25 (4): 348-349.
map. The choropleth map provides an easy way to visualize how
a measurement varies across a geographic area or it shows the Sarmiento, J. L. and Bender, M. 1994. Carbon biogeochemistry and
climate change. Photosynthesis Research, Vol. 39, pp. 209-34.
level of variability within a region. doi:10.1007/bf00014585
Volk, T. and Hoffert, M. I. 1985. Ocean carbon pumps: analysis
of relative strengths and efficiencies in ocean-driven
atmospheric CO2 changes. Sundquist, E.T. and Broeker,
W.S. (eds), The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric CO2: Natural
Variations Archaean to Present, Vol. 32, pp. 99-110.

3
Research
capacity
and
infrastructure
© iStockphoto.com/nightman1965
3. Research capacity
and infrastructure
Kirsten Isensee,1 Seonghwan Pae,2 Lars Horn,3
Kazuo Inaba,4 Martin Schaaper5 and Luis Valdés6
2 – Korea Institute of Marine Science & Technology Promotion, Republic of Korea;
3 – The Research Council of Norway, Oslo, Norway
4 – Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Japan
Isensee, K., Pae, S., Horn, L., Inaba, K., Schaaper, M. and Valdés, L. 2017. Research

capacity and infrastructure. In: IOC-UNESCO, Global Ocean Science Report—The
current status of ocean science around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds). Paris, UNESCO,
pp.54–79.
56 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © Jan Martin Will/Shutterstock.com

Research capacity and infrastructure
Introduction
3.1. Introduction 3.2. Human resources

The output of ocean science, as defined in Chapter 2, is determined Human resources in ocean science are recruited based on
by the people conducting it, the technical infrastructure available a broad range of criteria, including motivation, knowledge,
in their institutions/laboratories, the financial support they experience, skills and a curiosity to improve knowledge of
receive, and the scientific priorities set by the respective countries the ocean and related processes. Though all these criteria
or donors. This can be specific to ocean science but is often in a are important in understanding the current state of human
broader context of high-level general policy settings in a region resources in ocean science, limited information prevents a
and internationally. The institutional architecture of the ocean comprehensive analysis on training, education level, experience 3
science and technology system and the factors of production are and skills. This section examines the number of employees,
the foundation for successful and competitive marine research. gender equality and age distribution in ocean science.
This chapter examines global ocean science capacity, including
human resources for ocean science, national ocean science
research institutions, related field stations, research vessels
and some specialized technical infrastructure.
Table 3.1. Total ocean science personnel, total ocean science researchers, % of researchers to total ocean science personnel in 2013.1 Source:
Total ocean science Total ocean science % of researchers to total ocean

Country
personnel (HC, 2013) researchers (HC, 2013) science personnel (HC, 2013)
China 38 754 N/A
USA (FTE, researchers, selected institutions) N/A 4 000
Germany 3 328 2 385 72
France 3 000 1 500 50
Republic of Korea 2 415 606 25
Italy 2 170 1 141 53
Norway (FTE, researchers) N/A 1 786
Thailand 1 610 412 26
Australia 1 581 798 50
Colombia 1 267 540 43
Belgium 1 075 830 77
India 971 452 47
Spain (IEO) 630 222 35
Turkey 539 404 75
Chile 464 159 34
Canada (DFO, researchers) 378 305 81
Argentina 335 212 63
Russian Federation (subset of institutions) 307 211 69
Finland 281 180 64
Mauritania 240 70 29
Romania 222 104 47
Croatia 150 110 73
Mauritius 140 34 24
Guinea 136 120 88
Morocco 125 120 96
Trinidad and Tobago 95 20 21
Dominican Republic 94 29 31
Kuwait 90 35 39
Benin 89 67 75
Suriname 75 5 7
Ecuador (FTE) 71 66 93
Angola 55 31 56
1 Table 3.1 ‘Country’ acronyms: DFO-Fisheries and Ocean Canada; IEO-Spanish Institute of Oceanography; Russia subset of institutions – N.N. Zubov State
Oceanographic Institute, Hydrometeorological Scientific and Research Center of the Russian Federation, Arctic and Antarctic Scientific and Research Institute,
Far-Eastern Regional Scientific and Research Hydrometeorological Institute, All-Russian Scientific and Research Institute of Hydrometeorological Information –
World Data Center.

Human resources
Table 3.1 shows the total number of ocean science personnel 364
Norway (FTE)
(including researchers and technical support staff), the total 74
Belgium
number of ocean science researchers, and the proportion of
Finland
ocean science researchers compared to the total ocean science
personnel employed in 28 countries in 2013. The total number Germany
of ocean science personnel ranges from 55 in Angola up to Australia
38,754 in China (Table 3.1). Based on available data, the average Croatia
ratio of scientists to technical support staff is 1:1 (on average, France
46 % of ocean science personnel are researchers). However, Mauritius
it has to be highlighted that some of the records herein only Italy
represent rough estimates (e.g. USA, France) and a subset of the Mauritania
national ocean research institutions (USA, Spain, the Russian
USA (FTE)
Federation, Canada). Also, some data are given as numbers of
Republic of Korea
researchers with no breakdown for technical support staff. In
Trinidad and Tobago
some cases, information submitted only reflects the Full Time
Guinea
Equivalent (FTE) and not the actual number of staff (headcounts,
HC). This illustrates the difficulty in comparing ocean science Kuwait
human resources across countries. Suriname
Chile
Based on the data provided via the GOSR questionnaire
Thailand
(Table 3.1), the average numbers of ocean science researchers
Colombia
per million inhabitants (2009–2013) were calculated for the
respondent countries (Figure 3.1). There are variations among Canada (DFO)
the countries; Norway has a strikingly high number with Benin
364 researchers per million inhabitants, followed by Belgium Spain (IEO)

with 74, while other countries show much lower numbers of Romania
researchers per million inhabitants, ranging from 33 to less Turkey
than 1. Differences in population density, length of coastline and Ecuador
economic importance of marine resources can be assumed to
Morocco
influence the results. Data on human resources are particularly
Dominican Republic
scarce for Small Island Developing States (SIDS), this is likely
Argentina
due to human resource and financial constraints required for
Angola
generating the information.2
Russian Federation
(subset insitutions)
India
2 The presented information deviates between HC or FTE as follows:

Norway and the USA data represent FTE ocean research positions, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Canada provided HC for Fisheries and Ocean Canada (DFO); Spain Researchers in ocean science (HC) per million inhabitants (average 2009-2013)
provided HC for the Spanish Institute of Oceanography (IEO); the Russian
Federation for selected oceanographic institutions (N.N. Zubov State Figure 3.1. Average national ocean science researchers (Headcount
Oceanographic Institute, Hydrometeorological Scientific and Research - HC) employed per million inhabitants (2009–2013).2 (Based on a
Center of the Russian Federation, Arctic and Antarctic Scientific and
subset of the data presented in Table 3.1, researchers employed in
Research Institute, Far-Eastern Regional Scientific and Research
Hydrometeorological Institute, All-Russian Scientific and Research ocean science. Sources: GOSR questionnaire (ocean science), 2015;
Institute of Hydrometeorological Information–World Data Center). UIS (inhabitants), 2015.

Human resources
3.2.1. Distribution of age among ocean 3.2.2. Gender equality in ocean science
science researchers
Twentieth-century science was dominated by men (UNESCO,
A subset of countries also provided information regarding the 2015). Though women have contributed to science since early
age of the employed ocean science researchers (Figure 3.2). On times, this has not always been fairly acknowledged. Studies
the one hand, previous capacity-building efforts in developing of science have described the lack of equality among women
countries presumably resulted in a comparably young and men concerning scientific and technological production, as
researcher community in less developed countries, including well as the existence of obstacles that are specific to women
Benin, Mauritius, Suriname and Trinidad and Tobago. These when accessing relevant positions in academia, industry 3
countries together with Belgium, Colombia, Ecuador and and administration (UNESCO, 2015). Such barriers result in
Morocco reported that more than 50% of the ocean science gender-based biases that reflect the social nature of science
researchers are aged below 40. On the other hand, eight and technology and inform the strategies that can be used to
countries submitted data showing that more than 50% of overcome this inequality.
the researchers are aged over 50: Argentina, Chile,3 Finland,
Guinea, Kuwait, Romania, the Russian Federation and Spain.4
Croatia
Angola Ecuador
Argentina Argentina
Australia
Suriname
Belgium
Benin Angola
Chile (UCN) Thailand

Colombia
Spain (IEO)
Croatia
Dominican
Dominican Republic Republic
Ecuador Kuwait
Finland Finland
Guinea
Italy
India
Italy Romania
Kuwait Norway
(FTE, researcher)
Mauritania
Belgium
Mauritius
Russian
Morocco Federation
Norway Australia
Republic of Korea
Mauritius
Romania
Russian Federation India
Spain (IEO) Republic of Korea

Suriname United States
Thailand (FTE, researcher)
Chile
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey Colombia
Benin
0 20 40 60 80 100 Mauritania
● <30 years ● 30-39 years ● 40-49 years ● 50-59 years ● ≥60 years 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
% of female scientists
Figure 3.2. Proportion (%) of age cohorts (< 30 years, 30-39 years,
● Ocean Science (2013) ● R&D (2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)
40-49 years, 50-59 years, ≥ 60 years) of ocean science researchers.
Source: GOSR questionnaire, 2015.
Figure 3.3. The proportion (% total) of female researchers in ocean
science (headcounts; grey bars) and in R&D (blue bars). Dashed line
3 Data represent information for the Catholic University of the North, Chile. indicates 50% of female contributions. Sources: GOSR questionnaire
4 Data represent information for the Spanish Institute of Oceanography. (ocean science), 2015; UIS (R&D), 2015.
Human resources
Some insights on the proportion of female ocean science Regions

researchers are gained by analysing the data submitted via Norh Pacific Ocean
the GOSR questionnaire (2013) with published data for female North Atlantic Ocean
researchers employed in R&D overall (Figure 3.3). In 2013, on Mediterranean Sea
average, 38% of the researchers in ocean science were women,
Ocean science – major pillars
about 10% higher than the global share of female researchers
Ocean technology and engineering
(UNESCO, 2015). Yet, female participation within ocean science
ranges from 4% to more than 62%, while values for R&D vary
Marine ecosystem functions
only between 18 and 53% for the subset of countries analysed in and processes
this report. Croatia, Ecuador, Argentina, Suriname and Angola Ocean and climate
reported that more than half of the ocean science researchers Human health and wellbeing
are women (Figure 3.3).

Ocean science
An alternative approach for obtaining data for gender distribution
is the identification and classification of participants, in terms Environmental science
of gender and affiliation, attending selected international

conferences/symposia. The following assessment includes data 0 50 100
% of female and male experts
from conferences focusing on ocean science and environmental
science in general and five of the eight ocean science categories ● Female participants ● Male participants
considered in Chapter 2 (Annex E): Human health and well-being;
Ocean and climate; Marine ecosystem functions and processes; Figure 3.4. Relative proportion (%) of male and female experts
Ocean observation and marine data; Ocean technology.5 The attending international scientific conferences/symposia (Annex E).
assessment addresses three regions: the Mediterranean Sea
(data provided by the Mediterranean Science Commission, Although the gender distribution of participants in general
CIESM); the North Atlantic Ocean (data provided by the ocean science conferences/symposia is close to parity (Figure
International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, ICES); 3.4), there are important differences among the various
and the North Pacific Ocean (data provided by North Pacific categories of ocean science. There is a stronger representation
Marine Science Organization, PICES; Figure 3.4). In total, the of men, especially in conferences/symposia focusing on Ocean
gender and the country of their respective research institution technology and engineering and Ocean observation and marine
were identified for more than 15,000 participants. Clearly, the data. There are also differences between regions: gender
geographical distribution of international conferences is not representation of participants to conferences/symposia in the
balanced. Though capacity-building efforts led to more ocean general field of ocean science in the Mediterranean Sea is
science in the southern hemisphere and greater scientific roughly equal, but a higher proportion of conference participants
impact comparing the time periods 2000–2004 and 2010–2014 in the North Atlantic and North Pacific Ocean are men. The
(Chapter 5; Figure 5.2), most of the conferences still take place nationality of researchers attending ocean science conferences/
in the northern hemisphere. symposia also varies between research categories (Figure 3.4).
While females make up between 25–66% of scientific experts

attending international ocean science conferences, the gender
distribution of experts varies greatly between countries 6
and categories of ocean science (Figure 3.5). Ocean science
conferences focusing on Human health and well-being for
example, are attended equally by female and male experts.
In contrast, participants attending ocean technology and
engineering conferences are predominantly men, with the
exception of Sweden and Turkey.
5 No international conferences that fulfilled the GOSR criteria (Chapter 2) for

the topics related to Ocean health, Ocean crust and marine geohazards,
or Blue growth were identified and hence these categories could not be 6 Top 20 countries in ocean science publication for the period 2010–2014
included in the analysis. considered in this analysis (Chapter 5).

Human resources
Environmental science Ocean science
Russian Federation Italy

Turkey Russian Federation
Norway Spain
Italy Netherlands
Sweden Sweden
Germany Germany
Spain Portugal
France
UK
France
USA 3
USA Canada
Portugal Brazil
Brazil UK
Canada Turkey
Netherlands Norway
Australia Australia
China Denmark
Denmark India
India Japan
Japan Republic of Korea
Republic of Korea China
0 50 100 0 50 100
Gender distribution (%) Gender distribution (%)
● Female ● Male ● Female ● Male
Ocean observation and marine data Marine ecosystem functions and processes
Denmark Portugal
France Spain
Italy
Canada
Australia
UK
Brazil
Italy Russian Federation
Brazil Sweden
Netherlands UK
Australia Norway
Canada
USA
France
Germany
Germany
India Netherlands
Spain USA
China Denmark
China
Japan
India
Republic of Korea
Republic of Korea
Norway Japan
Sweden Turkey
0 50 100 0 50 100
Figure 3.5. Relative proportion (%) of female and male experts attending international scientific conferences/symposia with different foci
(environmental science, ocean science, human health and well-being, ocean and climate, marine ecosystem functions and processes, ocean
observation and marine data, ocean technology and engineering) for the top 20 countries publishing in ocean science (Annex F).

Human resources
Ocean and climate Human health and well-being
Portugal Portugal
Australia Italy
Italy Sweden
Sweden UK
Norway Brazil
USA Spain
Brazil France
Netherlands Norway
UK Australia
Canada USA
Germany Canada
Spain India
France Germany
Russian Federation Denmark
Republic of Korea China
India Japan
Denmark Republic of Korea
China Netherlands
Japan Russian Federation
Turkey Turkey
0 50 100 0 50 100
Ocean technology
The challenges facing women in oceanography follow the broad
trends seen in science overall. The percentage of females in
Sweden oceanography academia decreases with increasing faculty rank,
Turkey from 40% at the level of assistant professor, to 30% at the level
Brazil
of associate professor, and to 15% at the full or senior faculty
Netherlands
Germany
level in the USA (Orcutt and Cetinić, 2014). Similar findings
Portugal were obtained by a study on the general scientific workforce
Australia in the UK, also suggesting a ‘glass ceiling’ situation with a
USA concentration of women in lower managerial and professional
Spain
roles and marked underrepresentation in senior management
France
positions (Royal Society, 2014). In 2011, another study showed
India
Russian Federation
that even though female PhDs reached parity with male PhDs in
United Kingdom physical oceanography, this is not translated into gender parity
Italy at the tenure-track faculty position level (Thompson et al., 2011).
China
Denmark This glass ceiling suggests a tension between the meritocratic
Republic of Korea promotion structures in science and the individual career
Canada trajectories of men and women due to different challenges
Japan in science as well as their private lives. Meanwhile, the
Norway
enforcement of gender equity policies and measures supporting
0 50 100
women, and the actual effect on the composition of research
Gender distribution (%) teams from universities and research centres, ought to be
● Female ● Male
evaluated for ocean science. It is therefore important to
assess the values and practices governing the hiring process,
Figure 3.5. continued mentoring, tenure and promotion of candidates in science.

Ocean science institutions, marine laboratories and field stations
3.3. Ocean science institutions, USA

315
marine laboratories and field Spain

UK
stations Germany
France
Canada
Ocean science institutions and marine laboratories play a Japan
Republic of Korea
vital role in support of ocean research. They are critical in
Brazil
addressing a variety of scientific questions, such as studies of Australia
coastal food webs, ecosystem biodiversity and human impacts Italy
Netherlands
3
on coastal environments. They play an important role in the co- China
location of researchers and technologists with a range of skills, Sweden
Russian Federation
experience and knowledge, and thereby allow any individual
Norway
access to skills and knowledge across disciplines. In addition, Israel
higher education is becoming increasingly important for ocean Portugal
Argentina
science institutions. Belgium
Denmark
Marine field stations and laboratories provide access to a Poland
range of environments, including coral reefs, estuaries, Switzerland
kelp forests, marshes, mangroves and urban coastlines. Austria
Finland
These facilities are valuable platforms that support research Greece
and provide opportunities for educational outreach, such India
Bangladesh
as graduate and undergraduate training, public education
Mexico
and citizen science. Many marine research institutions also Chile
support long-term observational studies that provide vital Ireland
Puerto Rico
baseline data for understanding natural systems, such as Czech Republic
natural variations and human impacts on ecosystem processes, Estonia
New Zealand
enabling comparative studies that provide broad insights into
Turkey
ecological processes. However, the ocean research landscape Lebanon
varies between countries, with differing levels of ocean science Thailand
Ukraine
infrastructure and related research facilities largely influenced Uruguay
by different types of research organizations (national, federal
and/or academic). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Total number of ocean science —related research/academic institutions
● Ocean science research institutions obtained from international conference

3.3.1. Ocean science institutions ● Key governmental research institutions related to ocean science (GOSR questionnaire, 2015)
Figure 3.6 shows the top 40 countries in terms of ocean science-

Figure 3.6. Total number of institutions/facilities and universities
related institutions. The results indicate the different modalities
by country (top 40) represented in at least two of the following
of organization of national scientific schemes and subsequent list of international conferences: Third International Symposium
architecture of science infrastructure (e.g. centralized with on the Ocean in a High CO2 World, 2012, Monterey, USA; Second
some centres of specialized science, spatially equally distributed International Symposium Effects of Climate Change on the World’s
regional centres). Oceans, 2012, Yeosu, Republic of Korea; Third International
Symposium on the Effects of Climate Change on the World’s
Countries that invest in ocean science (Chapter 4) and publish Oceans, 2015, Santos, Brazil; Aquatic Science Meeting ASLO, 2013,
in ocean science (Chapter 5) also have numerous institutions New Orleans, USA; Aquatic Science Meeting, 2015, Granada, Spain;
focusing on marine research (Figure 3.6). Based on the data OceanObs’09, 2009, Venice, Italy (blue bars) and total number of
key governmental research institutions related to ocean science
extracted from the GOSR questionnaire, the total number of
(grey bars). Source: GOSR questionnaire, 2015.
ocean science institutions in Europe is about the same as for
the USA.

Sometimes the total numbers submitted to the GOSR a) Angola

Argentina
questionnaire were lower compared to those obtained from the
Australia
international conferences/symposia lists of participants. One
Belgium
possible explanation is that academic institutions that are not Benin
actively supported as key oceanographic institutions by their Canada
governments are still conducting ocean science and send experts Chile
Colombia
to present the latest outcomes in ocean science and related
Croatia
research.
Dominican Republic
Some research institutions specialize in particular fields. Finland
France
Twenty-nine countries provided data concerning the proportion
Germany
of institutions focusing on specific fields of science (fisheries, India
observations, marine research; Figure 3.7). Focusing on one Italy
field does not exclude the conduct of ocean science in other Kuwait
fields. Indeed, ocean observation is a key tool to answer scientific Mauritania

Mauritius
questions in most ocean science categories, e.g. providing the
Morocco
basis for scientific studies on ocean change. Norway
Republic of Korea
In total, facilities of ‘other ocean science’ comprise the
Romania
highest proportion (54%) compared to observations (27%) and Russian Federation
fisheries (19%), when only considering countries that classified Spain
institutions to at least two categories. Presumably, countries Suriname
that listed all institutions for one research field could not obtain Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
the information to differentiate types of ocean science facilities
Turkey
at the national level. USA
The relative proportion of institutions specializing in a field

might reflect national research priorities, economic importance 0 20 40 60 80 100
of ocean resources and therefore the investment in related % of ocean science facilities/institutions associated to one field of science
science. India, Norway and Finland, for example, have a high

● Fisheries ● Observations ● Marine research
proportion of their institutions specialized in fisheries, while
Italy, the Russian Federation, France, Argentina and Kuwait
seem to concentrate their efforts in ocean observations. b)
Some marine stations have existed for more than 100 years,
such as Stazione Zoologica Naples (Italy), Roscoff (France),
Fisheries 26%
Kristineberg (Sweden), Santander (Spain), Misaki Marine
Biological Station (Japan), Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Marine research 39%
Hole (USA) and the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth

(UK). The majority of marine stations, however, were founded
from 1950 to 2000. Many of the marine stations are members Observations 35%
of regional associations for marine stations (such as MARS,

NAML, JAMBIO, TMN, AMLC, CARICOMP, PIMS, GOOS-Africa
etc.).7 A global body, the World Association of Marine Stations, Figure 3.7. a) The relative proportion (%) of ocean research
was established in 2010. facilities/institutions associated with one field of science (fisheries,
observations, ocean research) for 29 countries individually; b) The
7 MARS - European Network of Marine Research Institutes and Stations; total number of institutions for 24 countries (as in Figure 3.7.a,
NAML – National Association of Marine Laboratories; JAMBIO – Japanese
excluding Canada, Germany, the Russian Federation, Spain and
Association of Marine Biology; TMN – Tasmania Maritime Network;
AMLC – Association of Marine Laboratories of the Caribbean; CARICOMP USA, which listed all institutions for one category). Source: GOSR
– Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity; PIMS - Perry Institute of Marine questionnaire, 2015.
Science; GOOS-Africa – Global Ocean Observing System for Africa.

Table 3.2. Total number and proportion of marine stations in different field stations including 50 marine stations. The different
regions. definitions of ‘field stations’ have complicated comparisons
until now. The following global analysis provides information
Number of marine
Geographical location on 784 marine stations maintained by 98 countries (for definition
stations
of marine station
(and % of total) see Chapter 2; Figure 3.8).
Asia 179 (23%)
Europe 172 (22%) Table 3.2 and Figure 3.9 provide further details on the regional
North America 163 (21%) and national distribution of the marine stations. Most are
Antarctica 86 (11%) located in the northern hemisphere, almost equally distributed
South/Latin America 81 (10%) among Asia (23%), Europe (22%), North America (21%), followed 3
Africa 62 (8%)
by Antarctica (11%), South/Latin America (10%), Africa (8%) and
Oceania 41 (5%)
Oceania (5%). The USA alone operates 137 marine stations,
accounting for more than 17% of the world total. Japan’s
Due to different definitions of ‘field stations’, the number of field marine stations mostly belong to universities and have limited
stations in previously published compilations varied from 800 permanent staffing (fewer than 10 scientists). Due to the unique
field stations, including hydro-biological stations (Hiatt, 1963; status of Antarctica, the marine stations located in this region
Inaba, 2015; Baker, 2015), to 260 marine stations (NRC, 2014). are maintained by approximately 30 countries as year-round
A study by Tydecks et al. (2016) counted more than 430 biological or seasonal stations.8
湖サンプル
Caribbean
1.1.1. Marine field stations
Ocean science research institutions and laboratories (Section 3.2.1) often incorporate marine field stations. Field stations serve
as important platforms for national and international research programmes, including studies to observe changes in climate
and the marine environment, as well as human impacts on marine ecosystem processes. Marine field stations are located near
the coast; universities or department campuses located close to the seashore do not necessarily meet the criteria of marine
stations. The activities of a marine station include oceanographic research and observation, as well as research in areas such as
marine ecosystem and environments, physiology, development, behaviour and ecology of marine organisms. They also contribute
to education, conservation and outreach related to marine and coastal ecosystems. The combination of field research and physical
laboratory infrastructure provides opportunities for research collaboration as well as joint activities between research and educational
communities. Marine field stations vary in size and infrastructure, management organization (e.g. government, governmental unit,
national or private university, private company or foundation), as well as in the type of marine environment they provide access to
(e.g. sandy beaches, rocky seashores, intertidal flats, coral reefs, estuaries, kelp forests, marshes, mangroves and urban coastlines).
8
Figure 3.8. World distribution of marine stations. Data regarding marine stations were gathered from several sources and their locations were
mapped using Google Maps.
8 https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1997/antpanel/4past.htm

Research vessels and other research infrastructures/equipment
USA
137
3.4. Research vessels and other
Antarctica
research infrastructures/
Japan
Spain equipment
Australia
China Continuous access to the open ocean, coastal zones and
France
watersheds depends on novel infrastructure and technology,
Canada
Italy
from sensors to research vessels to autonomous vehicles.
UK Research vessels are an essential component of ocean research
Norway infrastructure as they provide access to both the open ocean
Russian Federation and coastal areas. Evolving science needs, cost pressures
Republic of Korea
and newer technologies, such as advances in autonomous
India
Mexico
underwater vehicles (AUVs) and remotely operated vehicles
Philippines (ROVs), have changed ocean science infrastructure. However,
New Zealand this has not lessened the reliance on well-equipped ships. In
Germany fact, research vessels are fundamental to deploy and recover
Ireland
new observing technologies and to explore the vast areas of the
China
ocean poorly observed to date. Determining how to size the fleet
Greece
Sweden (e.g. appropriate number of research vessels and their scientific
Belize research capabilities) is an essential exercise that should be
Kenya carried out in order to utilize existing funding efficiently, to plan
Indonesia
future investment, to match seagoing capacities with research
Malaysia
demands, and to maintain or improve current capabilities.
Thailand
Bulgaria
Croatia
Argentina
3.4.1. Research vessels and ships partly used
Bahamas for ocean science
Chile
Ecuador Information about research vessels was provided by 30 countries
via the GOSR questionnaire. A total number of 371 vessels was
0 20 40 60 80 100
reported, which cover 325 research vessels mainly used for
Number of marine stations
ocean science and 46 vessels partly used for ocean science
Figure 3.9. Number of marine stations per country. The marine (Figure 3.10). The top ten countries are: USA (51), Japan (29),
stations in each country mapped in Figure 3.8 were counted and Germany (28), Turkey (27), Republic of Korea (26), Canada (20),
plotted in the order of counts (countries with > 5 marine stations).
Italy (20), France (18), Thailand (16) and Norway (15). The total
number for the top ten countries (250) is higher than for all
other countries combined (121 vessels).
Besides the data gathered through the GOSR questionnaire,

OCEANIC and Eurofleets are international databases that
contain compiled information about research vessels maintained
(Figure 3.11). Differences between the numbers available from
the OCEANIC database, EUROFLEETS and the GOSR could have
resulted from the inclusion of research vessels < 10 m in length
and ships that are not operational any more.
In general, the research vessel category applied for this report

has four ship classes, primarily based on the length of vessels.
The classification is consistent with that of the US Research

USA 252
USA
Japan
Germany Russian Federation
Turkey
Japan
Republic of Korea
Canada Canada
Italy
UK
France
Thailand
Norway
Germany
3
Turkey
Spain
India Republic of Korea
Argentina
France
Australia
Chile Italy
Russian Federation
China
Croatia
Colombia Spain
Benin
Norway
Finland
Mauritania Thailand
Romania
Sweden
Viet Nam
Trinidad and Tobago Netherlands
Angola
India
Belgium
Kuwait Argentina
Mauritius
Portugal
Morocco
Dominican Republic Ukraine
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

Number of marine research vessles Number of research vessels
● Vessels partly used for ocean science ● Research vessel ● GOSR questionnaire ● Eurofleet ● OCEANIC
Figure 3.10. Number of nationally maintained research vessels. Figure 3.11. Number of research vessels maintained by top 20
Source: GOSR questionnaire, 2015. countries (according to the OCEANIC database), results from
three different sources: GOSR questionnaire, 2015 – dark blue;
Eurofleet database, 2015—grey; OCEANIC database, 2015—light
Vessel fleet operated by University National Oceanographic
blue. (Note: data provided for the USA is restricted to Federal
Laboratory System (UNOLS).9 Oceanographic Fleet).
≥ 65 m: Global vessels (large and operate on a multi-ocean
basin scale)
55 m ≤ L < 65 m: International vessels (large enough to operate
on an international scale)
35 m ≤ L < 55 m: Regional vessels (e.g. operate on a European
regional scale)
10 m ≤ L < 35 m: Local and/or coastal vessels (for research only).
9 https://www.unols.org/

a) USA Of the 34 GOSR questionnaire respondents, 20 countries

Japan provided information on research vessels primarily used
Republic of Korea for ocean science and with information on ship class. The
Germany comparative distribution of ships by country is illustrated in
Turkey
Figure 3.12, which shows that there are 325 research vessels
Canada
operating in 29 countries.
France
Italy Local and coastal research is the primary purpose of 43% of
Thailand research vessels, spread over 29 countries. The proportions
Norway
of research vessels operating at regional (19%), international
Spain
(18%) and global scales (20%) are similar. Vessels used at the
India
global scale are maintained by 17 out of 29 countries: Argentina,
Argentina
Russian Federation
Australia, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan,
Croatia Norway, Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation,
Australia Spain, Turkey, USA, and Viet Nam.
Chile
Another indicator that provides useful information about the
Colombia
fleet of vessels supporting ocean science is the age of the
Finland
Benin ships. The OCEANIC database contains information in this
Mauritania regard, though it must be kept in mind that data from the GOSR
Romania questionnaire and this database differ significantly (Figure 3.11).
Viet Nam In order to minimize potential biases associated with outdated
Belgium data, the age class assessment of research vessels herein is
Kuwait restricted to ships ≥ 55 m (Figure 3.13).
Trinidad and Tobago
Mauritius There are 326 research vessels larger than 55 m registered on
Morocco the OCEANIC worldwide database. More than one-third of these
Angola ships were built more than 30 years ago, while less than 4% were
put into operation during the past ten years (Figure 3.13).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of research vessels
● Local coastal ≥10 m <35 m ● Regional ≥35 m <55 m

b)
Local coastal ≥10 m <35 m 43% ≥60 yrs 1% <10 yrs 3.7%
Global ≥65 m 20%
≥50 yrs 7.1%

≥20 yrs 9.2%
Total RV ≥40 yrs 18.4%
International ≥55 m <65 m 325

18%
≥20 yrs 26.1%

Regional ≥35 m <55 m 19% ≥30 yrs 34.7%
Figure 3.12. a) Number of nationally maintained research vessels

(RV), classified in four different ship sizes: local/coastal ≥ 10 m Figure 3.13. Proportion of seven age classes within the research
< 35 m, regional ≥ 35 m < 55 m, international ≥ 55 m < 65 m, vessel fleet for ships ≥ 55 m. Source: OCEANIC database, 2016.
global ≥ 65 m. b) Relative proportion of the different ship sizes
summarizing all research vessels, accounted for in a). Source:

A more detailed breakdown about the average age of research

The ship time allocated for conducting national and international
vessels at the national level is provided in Figure 3.14. Mexico,
investigation was reported by 23 countries (Figure 3.15). The
Australia, Canada, the UK and Greece have the oldest fleets.
USA, Germany, France and the Republic of Korea are the top
In contrast, the average age of research vessels in Norway,
four countries in terms of days of investigation dedicated to
Bahamas, Japan and Spain is less than 25 years, suggesting
international research on research vessels. The majority of
new investments in the scientific research fleet. The investment
ship time is dedicated to national research: Japan for example
into the renewal of ocean science equipment on board RVs can
reported ten times more days for national research than
be significant, however this analysis was beyond the scope of
international investigation, and Australia did not report any ship
this report.
time used for international research. The Russian Federation, 3
though maintaining the biggest research vessel fleet, reported
Number of research vessels ≥55 m in total only 529 days of ship time used for ocean science.
0 20 40 60 80 100
Norway
3.4.2. Other research infrastructure/equipment
Bahamas
Information about specific technical equipment used for ocean
Japan
science was provided by 20 countries via the GOSR questionnaire.
Spain
France
In total 1,392 devices (with per unit cost > US$0.5 million) were
Ukraine reported. The data based on this very rough classification
India suggests that of this equipment 74% was purchased over the
Germany period between 2009 and 2012, 14% between 2004 and 2008, 5%
Netherlands between 1999 and 2003, and 7% before 1999. Germany maintains
Thailand the largest number of devices (396 items) followed by the
Portugal Republic of Korea (172), Turkey (93), Canada (87) and India (83).
Iceland
Panama
Italy
3.4.2.1. Moorings and buoys
Chile
Moorings and buoys are important to gather data on the state
USA
of the global ocean by providing continuous measurements of
Russian Federation
physical and chemical parameters. The Data Buoy Cooperation
Republic of Korea
Denmark
Panel (DBCP) was formed in 1985 as a joint body of the World
South Africa Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Intergovernmental
Argentina Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO. It coordinates the
China operation of surface drifting buoys and tropical moored arrays.
Turkey
The Argo profiling floats programme is coordinated by the
Greece
Argo Project Office and the Argo Information Centre at JCOMM
UK
Canada
in‑situ Observing Platform Support centre (JCOMMOPS). Such
Australia coordination and other activities allow JCOMMOPS to maintain
Mexico real-time maps and statistics on the status of the ocean
observing networks such as: DBCP, including drifting buoys,10
Average age
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Average of research vessels ≥ 55 m [yrs - only countries with ≥2 research vessels]
● <10 yrs ● ≥10 yrs ● ≥20 yrs ● ≥30 yrs ● ≥40 yrs ● ≥50 yrs ● ≥60 yrs
Figure 3.14. Stacked bar chart: Number of research vessels ≥ 55 m

for countries with minimum two research vessels of this size,
colour-coded age classes. Diamonds indicate the average age of
all research vessels for the respective country. Source: OCEANIC 10 Drifting buoys: Surface Velocity Program (SVP) buoys, all different type of
database, 2015. ice buoys placed on ice which move with ice packs.

# of days per year of conducted research on RVs - national investigation # of days per year of conducted research on RVs - international investigation
4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
USA
Japan
Germany
Republic of Korea
Norway
France (2012)
Australia
Spain
Russian Federation
Colombia
Italy
Croatia
Belgium (2013/14)
Mauritania
Romania (2014)
India
Morocco
Argentina
Finland
Kuwait
Turkey (2014)
Angola (2015)
Ecuador
Mauritius
Benin
Figure 3.15. Number of days per year of research conducted from research vessels for national (left panel) and international (right panel)
investigation by country (2013, or the last year with available data). Source: GOSR questionnaire, 2015.
moored buoys,11 tsunameter buoys12 and fixed platforms,13 (223) of coastal/national moored buoys, followed by France
and the Argo network of sub-surface profiling floats. 14 (22), Canada (20), India (19) and the Republic of Korea (17).
The number and status of platforms, as well as operating
Argo is a model on how to share ocean science infrastructure. It
countries, assessed in the DBCP, are presented in Figure
has offered new ideas on (i) how to collaborate internationally,
3.16. The total number of platforms (2,093) operational during
(ii) how to develop a data management system, and (iii) how
the month of February 2016 comprise drifting buoys (1,536;
to change the way scientists think about collecting data.
other than Argo floats), coastal/national moored buoys (398),
Deployments began in 2000 and continue today at the rate of
tsunameter (55) and fixed platforms (104). The USA operates
about 800 per year.15
1,267 drifting buoys, followed by Europe (103), Canada (34),
France (29) and Australia (18). The USA has the highest number There are 3,839 Argo floats listed as active and in operational
condition. 16 The array of floats is presently provided by
11 Moored Buoys: national/coastal moored buoys and tropical buoys 29 countries. National contributions of floats to the Argo array
moored as separate categories, including all surface buoys, which are vary from a single float (e.g. by Kenya and South Africa) to the
moored to the sea floor. These buoys measure a number of atmospheric
parameters (air pressure, air temperature, winds, waves, humidity) as well
USA contribution of 2,136, approximately 55% of the global
as sea surface (SST) and subsurface parameters (subsurface currents, total (March 2016; Figure 3.17). A primary focus of Argo is to
subsurface salinity, etc.) in some cases.
document seasonal to decadal climate variability and to improve
12 Tsunameter buoys are systems with an anchored sea floor bottom
pressure recorder (BPR) and a companion moored surface buoy for the predictability. Argo is part of the Global Climate Observing
real-time communications. In their normal operation mode these buoys System (GCOS) and the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS).
measure water column height.
13 Fixed platforms include platforms permanently fixed to the seabed, mobile
offshore drill ships, jack-up rigs, semi-submersible platforms, floating
production storage and offloading units (FPSO) and light vessels.
14 Argo is a broad-scale global array of more than 3,000 free-drifting
profiling floats that measure the temperature and salinity of the upper 15 http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/About_Argo.html
2,000 m of the ocean. 16 http://www.jcommops.org

""/
/"
/ / " /^
_^ _
^
_
^
_
^ 60°
"
/ /"
" "
// "
_
^_^
^__
_
^_
^
_
^
_
^
_"
^
"
/ "
/ / "
" / " / "" "
/"/ " _
^ "
) )"
)
"
/ /
" / "
)"
"
)"
)))"
"
)
"
)
)" "
/ "
//"
_
^
//" _
^_) "
_
^
_
^
_
^
^
/^_
"
/ " "
)/) " " _
^
"
/ ) "
" ))
""
/"
)
"
/ "
// _)^
^
""
/_"
/"
"
/
"
/
"
"
/
"
/
/
"
) "
"
)") "
/
"
"
)
)"
)
"
)
"
/""
/
/ "
/
"
/
"
//"
/"
" /"
/)
" ) /
"
"
/
""/" /"
) ""
)
)"
)
")"
)")
""
))
" "
/
" "/"
"
/
"/"
/"/ /
" " "
)
/
/ "
"
/
/"
/"
/ "
/ _
^
"
/
"
/"
/ " "
//
/"
" / "
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/
"
/"
"
/
"
/"
//
"
""
/
/ "
/
"
/"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
"
/ "
/ " /"
/
"
/
"
/"
/
// "
/"
/
/"
"
"
/"
/
/
"
/ "
/"
/
"
/
"
/ "
/"
"
/
/ "
/
"
//"
"/
"
/ / "
" /
"
/"
" "
/"
/"
"
/ 30°
"
/
"
/
/^
_//^
/"
" _
"_
^
/^
_
/^
"
/"
/
"
/
_"
//"
"
"
/
/ "
/ "
/ ""
//
"
/ "
/
"
/"
/"
/"
/" "
/ "
/ / "
" /
/"
" / "
/ " #
0 #
0
3
"
/ / " / "
/
"
//
"
/"
/
/"
"/ " "
/ / "/"
)") /
"
/ //
" /#
"" 0 "
/ / "
" ""
/ "
/
"
/" /
"
/ #
0"/"
/ #
0 #
0
"
/ #
0 #
0 #
0 " #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0
"
/
#
0 # /
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0
#
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0
#
0 #
0 #
0
#
0 #
0
#
0 #
0
#
0 #
0 #
0
#
0 #
0
#
0 #
0 #
0 #
0
#
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0
#
0 #
0 0°
#
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 # #
#
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 #
0 # #
0 #
0 0 0
0 #
0
#
0 #
0 #
0 #
0
"
/
"
)
"
) "
/ ) #
" 0
"
))
")"
"
)
" -30°
"
) )
"
) "
)
"
)
"
/
-60°
60° 90° 120° 150° -180° -150° -120° -90° -60° -30° 0°
Data Buoy Cooperation Panel Platform Operating Countries March 2017

Platforms operational during the month. GTS data as received by Meteo France.
Drifting Buoys ITALY (9) Coastal/National MB "
/ IRELAND (6) Tropical MB Tsunameters ^
_ USA (8)
AUSTRALIA (17) NEW ZEALAND (5) "
) AUSTRALIA (7) "
/ REPUBLIC OF KOREA (17) #
0 BRAZIL/FRANCE/US (13) AUSTRALIA (5) _
^ UK (91)
CANADA (53) UK (8) "
) BRAZIL (6) "
/ SPAIN (14) #
0 JAPAN (4) CHILE (2)
EUROPE (75) US-FR (8) "
) CANADA (18) "
/ UK (7) #
0 USA (48) USA (25)
FRANCE (8) USA (806) "
) FRANCE (21) "
/ UK/FRANCE (1) #
0 USA/INDIA (17)
GERMANY (5) USA-EU (10) "
) GERMANY (4) "
/ USA (170)
INDIA (2) UNKNOWN (490) "
/ GREECE (2) " UNKNOWN (11)
"
/ INDIA (16)
Generated by www.jcommops.org, 18/04/2017
Figure 3.16. Map by operating country. Source: JCOMMOPS, 2017.
3.3.2.2. ROVs and AUVs without operator intervention. When a mission is complete, the
AUV will return to a pre-programmed location where the data can
In addition to buoys and moorings, new marine research be downloaded and processed. An AUV operates independently
technologies include an array of ‘vehicles’. A remotely operated from the ship and has no connecting cables, whereas ROVs are
vehicle (ROV) is an unoccupied underwater robot that is connected to an operator on the ship.17
connected to a ship by a series of cables. These cables transmit
Ocean gliders are one type of AUV that are used for ocean
command and control signals between the operator and the ROV,
science. Since gliders require little or no human assistance while
allowing remote navigation of the vehicle. A ROV may include a
travelling, these little robots are uniquely suited for collecting
video camera, lights, sonar systems and an articulating arm. The
data in remote locations, safely and at relatively low cost. Gliders
articulating arm is used for retrieving small objects or samples,
may be equipped with a wide variety of sensors to monitor
cutting lines or attaching lifting hooks to larger objects. temperature, salinity, currents and other ocean conditions.18
An autonomous unmanned underwater vehicle (AUV), commonly ROVs and AUVs (including gliders) are becoming increasingly
known as an unmanned underwater vehicle, is one of the important to explore and investigate vast areas of the open
technologies that can be used for underwater survey missions ocean. They help to monitor the ocean more closely and to
such as detecting and mapping submerged wrecks, rocks and
obstructions that may be hazardous to navigation for commercial 17 http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/auv-rov.html
and recreational vessels. An AUV conducts its survey mission 18 http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-gliders.html

!
(!
!! !! .
! ! !!
!
!! ! . !( !!
! !!
(
! ! ( !! ( !! ! ! (!
.
! ! !! ( ! ! (
!
! !! !! ! (
!! !!! ! (!
(! ! !
.
!
.
( !!
! ! ! !! !
! !! !! !
! !
( ! ! !
( ( (
(! !! !!! !!! !!! ( !!
! (!
( ! ( 60°
(! ( .. !
( !
! (
!! ( !!!! ! !!
! (! ! (! !
!!!!! !
( !!!
(! (
. ! (
!
( !
(( (!! ( !!! !( ! !! ! ! !
.
!
!
(!
( ( !! (! ! !! ! (! !!!
! (!!
!! ! !!
. !
! (
!
( !
(
( ! !
(! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
( !
( ! !
(
(! !!
! !
!
( ! (
! !
( ( ! (
!
( !
(!
!
(
! ! ! !
!
(
!
(
! !
(!! !! !!
! ! ! ! ! (!!! ! ! !! !
!
!
(
.!!
. !
.!
.
( ( !!( !
( ! (
((! ! !
((!!! ! !! !
! ! ! ( ( !! !
! ( ! ( (!
! ( !!!
!!
(! ! ( ! !! ( !!! !!!!
( ! ! ! !
!
!
!! !
!
(! ( !
! (
( !
! (!! ! ( ! ! !
. !
!
(! !
(! !!
! !
( ! !!
(! ! (!!
!
(!( !
!!
( !
(!! ( ! ! (! (!( !!!(!(! !! !!
!! (
( !! (! ! !
!.
( ! ( !
! ( !! ( ! ( ! !
(!
(!(!((!(!
(
!
( !!!! !!
(! ! !!
(!(!
( ! (
!
( ( (! !
(! !!(! !!
(! !
( ! ! !! ! !
(!(
!
( !!! !
!
!
!!!! !! !
! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ( ! ( ! !
(! ! (( (
! !! !!(!!!! (!!! ( !
!
( !! (! (! ! ( !!!
! ! !
(!!(!
( .!
!
!(!
((! !
(!
(( (!
(!
( !! (
!
(
!
(
!!!!! ! (!( !
( !
!
(
( ! !( !
!!!!!! !!
(!! !! !! !! ! !!
(! ! (( !
! ! !
(( ! !
( !
!! !
! !
! !
( !
( !
( ! ! (!!
.!! !!
. !( !! !!(!
(! (
(!
!(!(
!!!
!
!
! !!
!!!! !
( !
!!
!
( ! ( ! ( ! !!
(!
!
(!
(!! ( !
!
( !
( ( ! !
(
!! ! (! (!( !
(!
( !
( !
( (! ! !
(!
! !! ! (!
( ! ( !
( !
(
!
( ! (
!
(
! ! ! (! !!
!
. !! ! !
(!
!
(
!
.
. !
!
(!
(
!
( .
!
. !
! !.(!(
! ( ! !
!
!
!
( !
!( !
( !
( ( !! ! !!
! ( ! !
!
(
!
( (!
! (!
!
(!
( ( !
!
!
(
(! !
!( !
(!
(
!
( !
( !
(!
(
( ! (! (
!
( !
(!
((!
! (
!
( ( !
! (!!
( ( (! ( (
!
!
( !
(
!
(
!
( !
( !! !!!!!! .!
! . (!
! (!
(! !
(!
!
(
! ! ! ! !! ! ( !
(
!
( ! !!
! ( !
! ! ! ! !! !
!! !! ! !! (!! ( !!
(! ( !!
(( !! !!
(!(!
(! (! !
(!( !
( !
(! .!
(
!
(!!
(
!
(
!(
( (!!
(!
!
( !
( !
(!(
!
!
( !
(
!
( ! ! ! !! 30°
! !!!! ! ! (! !
!! ! ! (! ! (( !
(! ( !
( !
( ! !
.
! !
!
(!
!
(!
(!! !! ! !!! ! ( !! ! ( !
(! !
! !
( !
( ( !
( !!
( ( !
(!(! (
!
( !
( !
(!
( !
( !
(!
(!
!
(
(
!
( !!
(( !
(!
(
!! ! ! ! !
(
( ! !!
!
( !
( ! !
! !
!
.
!! ! ! ! ( ! ( ! !
( (! ( !
( ! ( ! !
(! !
(
(! (! ( !
!
( !(!
(!.(!
! (!
(
!
(
!
(!
!
( ( ! !!! !!
! !! ! ! !
( ! !
!!
! !
( !! ! ! (
(!( !
(! (!
(
(!
!
!
(
!
(
!
(! (
!
(! ( !
( (
!
!
( !
( !( (! (!
( !
( !( !
(!
!
((!( ! (
!
(
! (!
(!! !
(
(! (!! !
(
!!!
(! ! ! !! !
!! ! ! ! !! !
!!!! ( !
( ! ! ! !
( ! !
(! ! !
(!
( !
(! !
(!
(!
( (!
! ( (!
! ( . ! (
!
( !
(!
( !
( !
( !(!
(! ! !
( !!
!
!
(
( ( !! !!
!
( ! ! ! ! ! ! !
( !
( ! (
! !
( ( ! !
(!
( (!
( !
( !
( ( !
( ! !
( !
( !
( ! ( ! !
( !
( !
!! (
!! ( ! ! ! !! ( !!! ! (! ! . !
( !! ( ! ! !
( ! ( ( ! (!
!( !
( (!( !
( !
( ! !! !! !
!
( !! (( ! ! !
(!
!
( !! ! !! ! ! !
(! ( ( (
( ! (!
!
(!( ( !
! ( (( !
( ! !
(! ! (!(! ( !( ! !! ! ( ! ! !!
!
.! !
!! !
( !! !! (!
(!
! !(
( ( ! ! !!
! !! !
(( ! !
! ! !
( !
( ! (! ! ( ( (!
! !
( ( ( !(! !! ( ! !!! !
(!
( ! !
(((!!
! (.
!!! ! !! !! !
!! ! !
(!
!
. !
(!( ! (! !
(! (! ! !
( ! ( !
! ( ( ( ( !
! ( ! (!
(!( (!
! (! !
! !! ((!! ! !!
! (!!!!
!
(! (!
!( ! (!!
(.!
!(!
!
.! !!
(!! !! (!!!
! (! ! !!!!
(! !
(((! ( (
((! . (!
(
! (! ( !
( !
(!
(!
( ! ! (!
(! ( !! (!! ! !
((
(! ! ( ! !! (!!
!
(!
( !
( (! !!
(!
(
( !
. !! !! !!!! !
!! ! !
( .(! !!! ! ! (!
!
(!( !
(!( !
(!
(!
(
( !
( (! !
(!
(!
!
(
(! !
( ! ( ! ( !
!
(!
!
((!!
(
( !
( !
( ! (!
(!
(!
(
( ! (!
( ! ( ( !
! ! (! ( (! !
! (
.! !
! !
. !
!
(!
!(
(!
!
!
(!! (!
( ! !
.(! ! ( ! .!(
( ! ! !
!
!
( !
(!(! ( !
! (!
(
! ( (!
!
(!
(
!
(
!
!
( !
( (!
(! (!
(!(!
( ! ( ! !
(!
!
(
(
!
( (!
! ( !
( !
( !
(!. ! ( !!
! (! !
( ! ! ( !
( !
. !( !
( ! !
( !
( !
( !
( (!
( (! !
( ( !
(! ! !
( !
(
!
. !
( ! (!( ! !!(! (! !( !
( ! ( !
! (!( ! (
( ! ( ! !
( !
( ! (!
! ( ! ( ((!!
! ( !
((
!
( ! !
(!( !
! (!
( ! ( ( ( !
( !
(!(!
( !
! .! ! ! !!!
!
( ( ! !!
! ( ! !
!
( !
(!
(!(!
(!
( ! (
( ! (
! ( ( !
(( ! !
( ! ((!
( (! ( ! ( !
( ( !
! (( !
(!
! (
! !( ! !!!!! ( !! !
! ! !! !
!
!! !! ! ! .!! ! ! ! (! ! (! ! ! !! ( !
(!. ! !
(! ( (!
! !
( ! (!
! (
!
( ! !(!
(!(!
( !
(( ! (! (!!
!
( ! !
!
( (! !
(( !
!
( ! (! (( !
((!
( !!
( !
(!((( ! ( !!!
(!
!
(
( !
(( ! (!
(! ( !(!
! (!
( !
( ! (( !
! (! !
(!
!( !(!
( ! !
(! (! (( !
! !
( ! ( !
(! ( !
( ! !! !!! !
( !!
! . ! ( ! (!(! !!!
! (!!!! !! !
(! ( !
! (!
.!
. (!
((! ((!
! (! (!(
(!(!(( !
(! (! !
(! (( !
( ! ((
!
(!(!
(!
( !
(! (!
!(!(!
(! ((!
!
(
!(! (!
((!
(
(! !
(!! ( ! (!
(!(!
((! !( (!
(! (!
(!(( (!(! !
( !!
. ( ! (! 0°
!( ! !! !
.! ( ! !
.! .! !!. !
.
! ! .!
!(! ( !!
(!
(!(! (!(!
(!(! !
( (!
( !! (!
( ! ( !
!
( ! (! ((!
! ( !
( ! !
(!
((!
! (! (
!
( (!
(!(!( (!
(! (!
!
!
((!
(!
! ( ((!
(!(!
(!
(! !
(!
(
!
!
(
!
( ( (
!
!
!
( (!
(!
! !!
( !!
! !!
(! (!
!(
!
(
!!
( (!! ! ( !! ( !
!
. ! ( ! !
( ( ! ( ! !! . ( ! ( !
(! (!
( ( !
( !
( ( !
( !
( ( !
( !
( !
( (
!
. !
. ! ( ! !
( !
!
(! ( !!
( ! ! . ! ! ! ! !
( !
. !
!
( !
!
(
!
( !
(
( !
( (!
!.! ( !
( !
( !
( ( !
! ( !!!
(
! (
!
( !!
((!. !
( !
( ! (! !(
!
( . ! !
. !
( !
. !
. !
( ! !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
( !
( ( !
( ! ! ! !
( ( ! !
!
. !!
(( (!
!!!!!
( !
. ! (
(!!!!(!( ! (
!!(! . !
.
!
(!.!(!(! (!
(!. ! ( ! (
!
. !
(
!
(! ( !
(!
! (! ( ! (!( !!
! ((!
( !! !
(!
(! !
(
( !
(
!
. !
(
!
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
( ! ( !
(! ( !
( ! ( !
(! !
(
(!
!
( ((
!! ! ( !
!! ! ! ! !!!
( ( !
(!
!! ! !
. !
. !
( !
.. ! ! !
( !
( ! !
. !
( ( !
( (
( ! !
. ( ! ! !
( ! ! ! !
(
. !
! ( ( ! . ! .! . !
(!
(.( ! !
. (!
.!( ! (
( ! ( (! (!(((( (!!!
(! !
(!
((
!
( !
( !
( !
( (! ( (! ! !! ( ! ( !! ! (
! ! ! ( !
(! (
!
( ! (
!! !!(! (!
(!! ! !
.!!!
(. ! !. !
.! .!
. !
(! ! !
..! . ! (!
( ! (
(!(!
(! (! ( ! (!
!! (((! (!(! (! ( !
(! !
(
! !
(! ( !!!((! !! !! (( !! !(!
!
( ( ! !
(!
(! ! !
(!
(!
(! ! (!!!(!! ( ! (( !!
.!.! !
. !
( ! .! ! !
. !
.!(! .! ( !
(
(! !
(!( ! ( ! (!.! (!
! (!
! ! !
(!( ! (!(! ! ((! ! ! (! !
(! !
(! (!( !( ( !
(
! !
.! ! .! . ( !
(
.!
.!
.
. ! .!
!.. ! ! !
.! (! ( ! (!( !
(!
!
(( ! (! ( ( ! ((
!! (!(!
(( !
( (!! ( (!
!( ! (!
! (!
!
( ! ! ( ! !(
!
(! .!!
(
! .!! ! !
. ! (!
. ( ! . ! (!(!(
! . ! . !
. (
(( !
! ( !
( !
(!
(! (!
(! (! . !
( !! (! ( !
! ( !!(! ( ! (!
(
( (!
!( (! ((
!
( !! ( ( (! ! !( (
( (
!
!!
( !
( !!! ( (! (!
!
.
.( !
!
( .!
( ( !(!
(! !
.( !
.!( .! ( ! !
( (! ! !
(! ( !
(!
! !!
( !
(! ! ((! (!(! ! ( !
! ( ! ( ( (! ( ! !
(( ! ! !! ! ! (! (! (!
! ( !
.
!
( (!
.
!!
!
! (!!
!
. ( (!
(!
! .!
(!
.
!
.
!
. !
.
! !
( !
!
(.!
! (! !
(
. !
! ( !
( !
( !
( ! !!! ! !
(
! (! (( ! (! !
(
! (( !
( ( !
! (!( !
( ! (
!
( !
!
( ( ! ( ! (
!
(!
( !!! (
!
(
( ! (!(!
!
( ( !
. !
. ! !
. . ( !
( !
( ! !
( !
( ! !
(
!
(
! (!
! (!. !
( (!
! . ! .!
(
!.!
(! .!!(!
. !
.!.!
((. !
.. !
( ! . !! !
((
!
.! !
(( !
(! (! ( ! !
(!
!( ! ( (! ( ! (! ( !
(( ! ! ( !
! (! ( ! (
! ( !
! ( !
( !! ! ( . !! (
!
( ! ! !
( (! !
!
(!! !
(
(
( !
((
!
(. !!(!.! ! ! !
( !!
(( ! !
(!
(( ! ( (!
!( ! (! !
((( ( ! (!
(
(!
(! (! ( (
! !
!( (!
( ! ! ( !
(!
!
( !
(! (!
!!( ! ( !
(!
! !
( (!
( . !
! !
( ! (!( ! .! !.!
.! ( !!
. ( !( ! .!! !
(! (! (! ! ( !
(
!
( !
!
( ! ! (! (!
(! !
(! ( ! (! (!.!. !
.( !
(!
(
!
.!
(
. ! .!
( ( ! .( ( !
! (!(!
( ! !
(! !
!
( ! (! ! (! !
(
(!
!
( (! (!
(! ( ! (!(! !
(!
! !
( ((!
!((!! ( ! ( ( ! ! !!
! ( !
( (! !
( ! ( !! !
! (
! !
(!. ! (!(
! . ! ! ( !
! !
(! !
(! ! !
. ( !
.
! !
( !
(
. !! (( ! ( ( (! (!
( !! ( ! (!( !
(! (! ( !
(! ( !(( !
(! ( !!
( ! ! !!( !
(
( !!
! ( . ! !
(!!( ! !
((!
!( ! (! !
( !
(
(!
. !
( !
.! !
( ! ( ((!
( ( !
! !
( .!!( (( ! . (!
!
( (!
( (
! ! ( (
( ! !
( (
( ! ( (!
( ! (! (!(!( !! ! (!!!! !
( ! -30°
! (!
! ( !!
( . !(!
(!( !!(!
. .!
!.!. ( !!( !
. !! !
!( !
( ! (!
!
!
( (!
(!
(
!
( !
( ! ! !
( ! (!
!(! ! !
( ! !
. . !
! (! ! !
( (! ! ( !( ! ! ! (!
!
( (!(
( !! !
! ( !
. !
.
! ( !
. . !
(!
( !
( !
( !
(
!
. !
( !
(( ( !
( ( !
( !
( ! (!
( ! ! ! ! ! !
(
!
( !
(!
( !! !
( ! !! ( ! ( ! ( !
( !
(
.! !
( !( ! !
( !
.! !
. !
( !
. !
( ( !
! (!.!(!
( ! !
( ( ! ( !
(! (! (!
! (!
( ( !
! ( !
(
!
!
(!.!(!
(! (! !
.! .! !
( !! ! ! (( !
! (( !! ( !!(! ! (
(!
! !!(! !
!
(
! !
(!.
!
!
(!. ! !
. ! (( !
!
(
(
( !!
!
!
. !
.! !
(
. ! ( ! ( (!
(!
!
(! !
.
( ! (!
. !
.(
!
(! !
(!
(
!
( !
.!
(!
!
.
!
.(
! !
(
!
(
. ! .
(! !!
. ( !
(!!!
(
(! !!
(
( ( (!
!! .! !
(
! !
(
!
(
(! ( !
!
(!
(
( ! !
( !
(
( ! .
( ( ( !
!!
(
! ( !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
(!(
!
(
!!
( !
(! (
!
( !
(!
( !!
!
( ( !
(
!!!!!
( (!
( !
( !
(
!
(
!
. !
(
( !!
!
!
( !(!
(
! !( !!
(! .! ( !!!
!
! ( !
( (!
( ! . !
.
!
( ! !
( !
(
!
( ! ( !
( ( ( !
. !
( !
( !
(
!
.
(!
. ! !
( ( !
( !
( !
(. !
( !
( !
(
!
( !
(!
( !
. !
( !
( ( !
( !
(( !
( !
( ! ! ! ! !
( ! ( ! !
(!
( !
(
!
(
! !
(! ! ! . ! (!
. ! (! ( ( !
! .!.!(( ! !
. ! !
( !
. !
. ! .! . ! (!
(!(!( ! !
( ( (
!
( !
(!(!(! ( !
! ( (!
!
( (!
(!
! ( !
( !
( !! !
( ! ((! !
!( ! .!
(! !
. ! (! ! !
( !!
!! (!
(! !
(
!
.! !
(!
! ! ! ! ! !
( (! (! ! !
( ( !(!
(! !!
((
((! !
( (
(!
. (!
(! ( !
(! (!
( (!
( !
((!(! .!
.
.! ! ! ! (.
! . ! !( !
(( ! ( ! !
( ! !(! ( ! ! ! ( !( ! !
( !
(!
.! (!
! (! !
. !
( ! ( ! !! !! (! !
(! !!
! ( ! (
( ! (!
.! (!
( ! (( !
!
( !
( !.!
!
(
.! . !
( (!(! ! (!(
! (( !
! (!
(!
. ! (!
.! !
.!
( (!( ! (!
. ! ( ( !
( ! ( ( ( (( ! ( !(.!
! (
!
.! .!(! (! !
! !
( !.!. ! !! (
!( (
! !
(!!
( ( !!
! .(
! ! ! !! (!(! .!
(! .. .((
!! !!
. .!
.! (!
(! !
. !
( ! !
( ( !
( ( ! !
..! (
!
(
( !
! !(! !
(! !
( ! !! ( !
( (!
!
((! ! ! . !! . !
( (!
!( !
! ! . !
.
! !! ! ! ! (! !
( !
(!
((
(!
. .(
! !
( !
(( (!
( ! !
.! ! .!.!. .!
( !
( (! !
( !
( (! ! ! ! !
( ! !
(! !!
! ! ! ! ! ! (! !
! !
( !! !
.
(! (!
!!
((!
! (( !
! (( ! ( !.
(
! !! (! (!
(!
(!
(! ! !
( ! !
(( ! . !!!
(! !!
( ( !
! ( ! ( !
.! (! ( ! ! (!
!( !
( ! ( ! (!
( !!
( ! ! !
.! !!!
!!!(!( ! (!
.! !
.!( !
.! !! (!( !!(!!
( !
!( !
( !
!
( !
( !!! ( !
!!!. ! !!
! !! (. (!
( . !( !( !
. !
. ! !
(
!
(!
( . !
!! .!
!
(
(! !
. (! (
! ( ! ( .!
(!
! .(!(
. !
(!
( !
(
(
!
(!
(
!
(! . ! (!
!
!
((!
. !
. !
(
!
( ( ! ( ( !
! ( !
. !
(
.! (
! ! ! !!
( !
( !
.! !
(
(
!
.(
! ! ! ! .! !
( ! ( !
( ! !
( !
( !
( ! !
( !
. ! !
( !
( . !
( ( !
( (!
! (! !
( !
.
!
( ! ! ( !
!
( ! ( !!!
( !
( .! !! !
( ! . .
!
. !(
!
. (
!! .!
!
(!
.( ! .!
.! . ! ( !
( .!
! ( !
( (! ( ! (
(. !
!
( ! !( . !
!
! .!
(( !. !! ( ! !! !
( ! !
!
( (
!
( !!!! ! ( !!! ! !
(! (! (! . ! !
(!( ( ! !
( . ! (!
! . (!
!
. (! ( ! (( ! ! ! (!
. ! !
( (! .! ! !
. (! (! !
( !
!(( ! (. ! ( !
! !
( (!(
!! ! !
!
( !
( !! ( ! (
!
( ! (!( !
.
(!
!
(( ! .( ! ( ! (!
! ( . !
.
( . !
! .! ( ! !
. !
(! ! (
(( (
!
( ! ! . !
(
!
.! ! . .
!
. ( !!
! (( !
( !
. !! .(! !.!
!
.. (! ! !
(! .!(! ( ! ( ! (!
(!
( ! ( !
!
( (!
.( !( !
( ! !( !
!
.. ! . (!
! ( !
.
! ! !! .!
. !
. !
. !
.!
.!
!
( ( ! ( ! !!
! !!
. !
(! ! (! .. !(!! !!( ! (! !!
(
( ( !
!
(
!
.
! !
!
.!. !
( .
!!
. .! . !
!
(!( ( !
.!
(!
. !! ( ! !
!( !
. ! !(
!
!
!
( !
!
. . .
! ! !
. !
.
(!
.! !(!!
. !
(!
.
.! .
(!!
! !
(!
(. ! .!
(!
.(
(!
!
(. ( ( .
(!
! (
(!
! !
.
!
. ! ( .!
( !
! !
( !
. ! !
(! !( ! -60°
!
( ! (!
! (!. !
.!
. !
. !
. !
. !
. !
( !
( !
( . ! !!
(!
(!
. !
( !
( !
( ! ! !
.
( ! !
. !
( !
( !
( ( !
!
. !
( !
.
!
. !.!
.!. !
. !
. !
(! .! . !
! (!
.! (( !
(! ( !
! ( !
. !
( ! (!(!
( !
. !
( ( !
. !. !
(!( !
(!
!
. !
(( ! !
!
. !!
(!! .!( ( ( ( ! (! (. ! ( ! !
. (. !
( ( !
! ( !
(
!
(
!
(
!
( !
(
! ( ! (
! !
( !
. !
( ! (!(
!
(
!
(!!
( !
(!
( ((
! (!
! ( !
. !
(
!
.
!
.
!
( !
( !
( (
!
(
!!
((!((!! (! (
60° 90° 120° 150° -180° -150° -120° -90° -60° -30° 0°
Argo National contributions - 3936 Operational Floats March 2017

Latest location of operational floats (data distributed within the last 30 days)
!
. ARGENTINA (3) ! CHINA (117) ! GERMANY (145) ! JAPAN (165) ! NEW ZEALAND (7) !
. SPAIN (7)
!
. AUSTRALIA (380) !
. ECUADOR (1) !
. GREECE (5) !
. KENYA (1) ! NORWAY (10) ! UK (145)
!
. BRAZIL (6) !
( EUROPE (50) ! INDIA (112) !
. MAURITIUS (1) !
. PERU (3) !
( USA (2210)
!
( BULGARIA (1) !
. FINLAND (6) !
. IRELAND (11) !
. MEXICO (2) !
( POLAND (2)
! CANADA (72) ! FRANCE (322) !
( ITALY (68) !
. NETHERLANDS (22) ! KOREA, REPUBLIC OF (62)
Generated by www.jcommops.org, 10/04/2017
Figure 3.17. Map indicating the location of operational Argo floats in March 2016 (data distributed within the last 30 days) and list of national
contributions. Source: JCOMMOPS, 2017.
fill knowledge gaps in the existing ocean observation data number of 339 pieces of equipment (ROVs, AUVs and gliders)
sets. During the past decade, the research application of was identified in 28 countries.
AUVs has increased greatly, due to their unique capacity to
Portugal reported the highest number of ROVs, followed by the
carry sensors, such as for ocean acidification measurements
Republic of Korea, Greece, Norway, UK and USA. The highest
and for characterizing carbon and nutrient cycles. The
number of AUVs are maintained in the USA (47), followed by the
widespread application of unstaffed platforms is transforming
UK (22), the Republic of Korea (13), Norway (9) and Canada (8).
oceanographic infrastructure. AUVs, including instrumented
The total number of ROVs, AUVs and gliders in USA (100), UK
sea animals and gliders, are ideal platforms to use the newly
(46) and France (28) together are roughly the same as for the
developed small, low-power sensors for monitoring physical,
other countries combined (165).
chemical and biological indicators of dynamic variability and
ecosystem variations in coastal and island settings.
Previous and ongoing undertakings to assess ROVs, AUVs and 3.4.3. Sustained ship-based measurements
gliders19 were used to confirm and to complement information Ocean time series measurements, in particular ship-based
provided via the GOSR questionnaire (Figure 3.18).20 A total repeat measurements, are a type of observation method
considered indispensable for helping to answer emerging
19 Gliders considered in a separate category to AUVs for the purpose of this scientific questions in ocean science and improving decision-
analysis given their prevalence.
making in ocean and coastal management (Edwards et al., 2010).
20 Global Inventory of AUV and Glider Technology available for Routine Marine
Surveying—MREKEP/NERC—James Hunt, 2013, Eurofleets; http://www.
They provide research with the long, temporally resolved data
eurofleets.eu/lexi/. sets and high quality information needed to characterize ocean

physics, climate and biogeochemistry. They make it possible well as some smaller plankton species, and net tows to identify
to detect ecosystem variability and change. The International larger species (> 50 µm). The second type of sampling to obtain
Group for Marine Ecological Time Series (IGMETS), an IOC-led data regarding the plankton community was conducted with
effort, identified 341 marine ecological plankton time series a continuous plankton recorder (CPR), using an automated
globally (Figure 3.19). sampler and not individual net tows to preserve the plankton
community. Figure 3.19 illustrates the number of ship-based
This compilation takes into account two types of ship-based
time series for different time spans, highlighting time series
time series. The first type includes water samples to determine
using CPRs to describe plankton.
chemical and other aspects of the physical environment, as
3
a) b)
Portugal Brazil
Republic of Korea Iceland
Norway Malaysia
UK Nigeria
USA India
Greece
South Africa
France
France
Germany
Germany
Spain
Italy
Belgium
Portugal
Ireland
Australia
Italy
Japan
Poland
Romania Spain
Sweden Canada
Bulgaria Norway
Croatia Republic of Korea
Estonia UK
Turkey USA
0 10 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of ROVs Number of AUVs
c) d)
Republic of Korea
Italy ROVs 19%
Norway
Australia AUVs 41%
Germany
Gliders 40%
Spain
UK
France
USA
0 10 20 30 40 50
Number of gliders
Figure 3.18. a) Number of ROVs operated or developed by country; b) Number of AUVs operated or developed by country; c) Number of gliders
operated or developed by country; d) Proportion (%) of ROVs, AUVs and gliders at the global level compared to total number worldwide (345).
Sources: GOSR questionnaire, 2015; Eurofleet, 2015; MREKEP/NERC, 2013.

DISCOVER OCEAN TIME SERIES
•
Key:
Marine ecological time series site for which
data were provided and included in the
International Group for Marine Ecological
Time Series analysis.
• Marine ecological time series site for which

participation in the initial International
Group for Marine Ecological Time Series
analysis was not confirmed at the time
of this map’s creation.
© James R Wilkinson/SIO-CalCOFI
© Kirsten Isensee
© Digna Rueda
© Bill Li
Crew of the NOAA ship Belle M. Shimada CTD sensor equipped with water sampling WP2 plankton net deployed in the Baltic Sea. Chaetoceros decipiens. Scientific
recovers the Bongo Net during a CaLCOFI cruise. rosette deployed at the BATS station. sampling

Figure 3.19. Marine ecological
S
hip-based biogeochemical and ecological time series are one of the most valuable tools time series identified by
IGMETS (2015).
to characterize and quantify ocean ecosystems. These programmes continuously provided
major breakthroughs in understanding ecosystem variability, allow quantification of
the ocean carbon cycle, and help understand the processes that link biodiversity, food
webs, and changes in services that benefit human societies. A quantum jump in regional and
global ocean ecosystem science can be gained by aggregating observations from individual
time series that are distributed across different oceans and which are managed by different
countries. The collective value of these data is greater than that provided by each time
series individually. However, maintaining time series requires a commitment by the science
community and sponsor agencies.
The importance of continued sampling by existing marine time series is now highlighted by the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO). The International
Group for Marine Ecological Time Series (IGMETS) seeks to aggregate time series dispersed
around the world in an effort to augment the observing power to look at changes within
3
different ocean regions, to explore plausible reasons and connections at a global level, and
to highlight any locations of especially large changes that may be of special importance.
© Kirsten Isensee
© Nancy Copley
©USF
c research vessel Veliger II returning from regular Limacina retroversa. Recovery of a multi-net for plankton analysis in Sediment trap deployment at the
g at the Ubatuba station. the Baltic Sea during a cyanobacteria bloom. CARIACO station.

Conclusions
This data analysis includes information from time series Another type of sustained ship-based observation, coordinated
stations maintained by 40 countries (Argentina, Australia, by the Global Ocean Ship-based Hydrographic Investigations
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Program (GO-SHIP), is a network of globally sustained
Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, hydrographic sections, providing data to global ocean/
Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Iceland, Ireland, Isle of Man, climate observing systems, including observations of physical
Italy, Japan, Latvia, Mexico, Namibia, New Zealand, Norway, oceanography, the carbon cycle, marine biogeochemistry and
Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Slovenia, South ecosystems. GO-SHIP provides approximately decadal resolution
Africa, Spain, Sweden, UK, USA and Venezuela). of the changes in inventories of heat, freshwater, carbon,
oxygen, nutrients and transient tracers, covering the ocean
Continued measurements of a broad set of parameters delivers
basins from coast to coast and full depth (top to bottom), with
the baseline information needed to detect the impact of slow
global measurements of the highest required accuracy to detect
onset threats to ocean health, but it also requires continuous
these changes.
financial commitment by countries. These investments differ
between the northern and southern hemisphere, with more For the time period 2012–2023, 61 surveys are identified, most
stations in existence in the northern hemisphere and in of them either completed or planned, while a few are yet to
particular in the North Atlantic. Some ecological time series are be confirmed (Figure 3.21). In March 2016, 44 cruises were
maintained for more than 50 years, providing the information confirmed. The different expeditions will be sponsored by at
needed for climate models whose outputs are used in various least 13 different countries: Australia (2), Canada (3), France/
Spain (1), Germany (5), Ireland (1), Japan (9), Norway (2), South
marine science assessments (e.g. by the Intergovernmental
Africa (1), Spain (1), Sweden (1), UK (6) and USA (12).
Panel for Climate Change or ICES reports; Figure 3.20).
50+
50
3.5. Conclusions
45 Ocean science capacity, human and technical, depends on the
financial support it receives. While Chapter 4 focuses more on
40
the financial aspect, the analysis presented here in Chapter 3
gives a brief overview of infrastructure and some aspects of
Length of time series (years)
35
the currently available human resources (including gender
30 information) for ocean science, national ocean science research
institutions, related field stations, research vessels and some
25
specialized technical infrastructure.
20
However, the data presented above can only give an
15
approximation of the current situation and relies on the national
reporting mechanisms in place. Technical capacity to prepare
10 national inventories on ocean science capacity appear to be
limited to a few countries only. The multidisciplinary nature of
5
ocean science complicates such efforts. Future progress in this
area depends heavily on the capacity of national, academic and
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
federal capacities for marine research. Mapping technical and
Number of time series
human capacities in ocean science are especially critical for
● Number of time series (all types included) ● Time series (CPR only)
SIDS, yet these statistics are not available due to constraints
in the human, technical and financial resources required for
Figure 3.20. Histogram of IGMETS participating time series sorted by generating this kind of information.
their span in years (status, 2012). The Continuous Plankton Recorder
(CPR) time series are plotted separately, highlighting its significant Between 28 and 30 countries, depending on the individual
contribution to the longer time spans Source: O’Brien et al., 2017. questions, submitted information regarding ocean science

Conclusions
ARC01
ARC02
75N
vi s
Da A25
W
07 AR07E AR28 60°
AR
P01 A02
A16N
P16N
40N
P02 MED01
P03 30°
3
A05
P14N
A22
P09
A20
P10
P13
I01W I01E P04W P04E
N
0°
I07
I08N
I10
P15S
I09N
I03
A16S
I05
P06 A10
-30°
A13.5
A1
P16S
P18
I07S
I09S
8S
I06S
I0 P17E
A12
P14S
SR03
SR01
S04I SR04 -60°
S04P
A23
60° 90° 120° 150° -180° -150° -120° -90° -60° -30° 0°
GO-SHIP Status of 2012-2023 Survey (61 Lines) January 2017

Bold lines: High f requency (reduced requirements) Thin lines: Decadal GO-SHIP (full requirements)
completed at sea funded planned not planned yet associated and completed
Generated by www.jcommops.org, 01-Feb-17

Figure 3.21. GO-SHIP Reference Sections (repeat hydrographic sections). Source: GO-SHIP, 2017.21
capacities via the GOSR questionnaire. In order to obtain a of ocean science stretches from 4% to more than 62% female
global overview, additional resources, including national and participation, due to large regional differences as well as
international reports and assessments, were consulted for dissimilarities among the ocean science categories. Future
the analysis. compilations are envisaged to provide additional information
regarding the education, skills, experience and professional
Considerable differences exist in the total number of
level of human resources working in ocean science.21
researchers per country. The counts differ by a factor of 1,000,
clearly related to country size, length of coastline and economic Without doubt, ocean science institutions and marine laboratories
importance of marine resources. However, calculations on the play a vital role in support of ocean research, including ocean
average number of marine scientists per million inhabitants observation. They are critical for several scientific questions,
also show high variations, with Norway having a strikingly high including studies of coastal food webs, ecosystem biodiversity and
number with 364 researchers per million inhabitants, followed human impacts on coastal environments. Marine field stations
by Belgium with 74. The remaining countries only have between and laboratories provide access to a range of environments,
1 and 33 researchers per million inhabitants. When looking at including coral reefs, estuaries, kelp forests, marshes,
gender equality in ocean science, female scientists on average mangroves and urban coastlines. In total, the assessment
account for 38% of the researchers in ocean science, about
ten percentage points higher than the global share of female
researchers. However, the range across the different categories 21 GO-SHIP http://www.go-ship.org/

REFERENCES
presented here showed that there are 784 marine stations

References
maintained by 98 countries.
Countries that invest in ocean science (Chapter 4) and publish

in ocean science (Chapter 5) conduct their work mostly in highly Baker, B. 2015. The way forward for biological field stations.
BioScience, Vol. 65, pp., 123-129.
specialized institutions. However, some of the countries that
submitted information, via the GOSR questionnaire, about key Edwards, M., Beaugrand, G., Hays, G. C., Koslow, J. A. and
Richardson, A. J. 2010. Multi-decadal oceanic ecological
governmental research institutions focusing on ocean science,
datasets and their application in marine policy and
listed a lower number of institutions than that obtained via the management. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Vol. 25, pp.
assessment of international conferences. The discrepancies 602–10, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.07.007.
might be the result of insufficient communication and reporting Henson, S.A. 2014. Slow science: the value of long ocean
mechanisms between science and governmental institutions. biogeochemistry records. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society A, Vol. 372, issue 2025.
The analysis of the countries’ submission of numbers of
ocean science facilities, when categorized in three groupings, Hiatt, R. W. 1963. The World Directory of Hydrobiological and Fisheries
Institutions. Washington, American Institute of Biological
showed the following results: general ‘marine research’
Sciences.
facilities comprise the highest percentage (54%), followed by
Inaba, K. 2015. Japanese marine biological stations: Preface to the
observations (27%) and fisheries facilities (19%).
special issue. Regional Studies in Marine Science, Vol. 2,
Continuous access to the open ocean, coastal zones and pp. 154–157.
watersheds depends on novel infrastructure and technology, National Research Council. 2014. Enhancing the value and
from sensors to research vessels to unmanned vehicles; 43% of sustainability of field stations and marine laboratories in the
21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
research vessels in 29 countries are primarily operated for local
O’Brien, T., Lorenzoni, L., Isensee, K. and Valdés, L. (eds). 2017. What
and coastal research. The proportion of regional-scale research
are Marine Ecological Time Series telling us about the ocean?
vessels (19%) is similar to that of international (18%) and global- A status report. IOC Technical Series, No. 129. Paris, IOC-
scale research vessels (20%). However, it is not only the number UNESCO.
of vessels which matters; the age of vessels is important to obtain Orcutt, B.N. and Cetinić, I. 2014. Women in oceanography: Continuing
a perspective of new investments supporting ocean science. challenges. Oceanography, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 5–13.
Norway, Bahamas, Japan and Spain have the youngest research Reid, P. C. and Valdés, L. 2011. ICES status report on climate change
fleet with an average age of less than 25 years. in the North Atlantic. ICES Cooperative Research Report No.
310. Copenhagen, ICES.
The development and deployment of new technologies and the
Royal Society. 2014. A picture of the UK scientific workforce. Diversity
expansion of ocean observation infrastructure is needed, such data analysis for the Royal Society. Summary report. DES3214.
as ship-based time series, some of which provide data sets London, Royal Society.
older than 50 years, including biological data sets or sustained Thompson, L., Perez, R. C. and Shevenell, A. E. 2011. Closed ranks
hydrographic sections. in oceanography. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 4, pp. 211–12. http.
dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1113.
In summary, the human and technical capacities presented in this
Tydecks, L., Bremerich, V., Jentschke, I., Likens, G. E. and Tockner, K.
chapter complete the puzzle of ocean science, and each element (2016) Biological Field Stations: A Global Infrastructure for
is vital to advance and develop further. Human and technical Research, Education, and Public Engagement. BioScience,
capacity, together with long-term governmental and financial Vol. 66, pp. 164-171.
support, can create a favourable and productive environment for Valdés, L., Fonseca, L. and Tedesco, K. 2010. Looking into the future
conducting ocean science. Such research helps the world to be of ocean sciences, an IOC perspective. Oceanography Vol. 23,
No. 3, pp. 160-70.
better prepared to address challenges such as climate and ocean
change and contribute to responsible and sustainable ocean UNESCO. 2015. UNESCO Science Report: towards 2030. Paris,
UNESCO.
management as a basis for a sound ocean economy.
78 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2017

4
The funding
for
ocean science
© Shutterstock.com/Michail Patakos
4. The funding
for ocean science
Kirsten Isensee,1 Lars Horn2 and Martin Schaaper2
2 – The Research Council of Norway, Oslo
Isensee, K., Horn, L. and Schaaper, M. 2017. The funding for ocean science. In: In: IOC-
UNESCO, Global Ocean Science Report—The current status of ocean science around the
world. L. Valdés et al. (eds). Paris, UNESCO, pp. 80–97.
82 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © Shutterstock.com/Matej

© NikoNomad/Shutterstock.com
Kastelic
THE FUNDING FOR OCEAN SCIENCE
Introduction
4.1. Introduction employs operators and technicians, and provides a platform

for cooperation with private industry. Expenditures on ocean
science are therefore also investments for the future as they
The ocean provides a broad range of services and goods.
are addressing important societal needs (JPI, 2014).
Scientifically based management actions will be required
to guarantee that these benefits will be available to future Funding for ocean science originates from a variety of sources,
generations. These actions include conservation and restoration e.g. national, regional and international organizations, as well
of marine ecosystems, mitigation of human-induced stressors as directly or indirectly from the private sector, foundations,
(e.g. climate change, ocean acidification, eutrophication, over- non-governmental organizations and even citizens via
fishing) and adaptation to irreversible alteration of the coastal crowdsourcing. However, reporting mechanisms to obtain and
and open ocean. Eutrophication of marine waters, for example, compile funding on ocean science from all sources do not yet
already imposes high economic costs on commercial fisheries exist in most countries.
for some countries, such as the Republic of Korea and USA
In this context, this chapter provides a general overview on
4
(OECD, 2012). Ocean science provides the basis to develop tools
funding sources and mechanisms for ocean science around the
to address global challenges such as ensuring food security,
world. The first section discusses national expenditure on ocean
demographic change (e.g. coastal constructions), global health
science, with data from 29 countries, based on the first global
and climate change. Given the breadth of challenges and
endeavour to capture governmental funding of ocean science
beneficiaries, investment to enable knowledge-based decisions
at national levels. The second section focuses on international/
for the sustainable use of ocean resources will require a broad
regional funding structures; the third section examines direct/
base, including different levels of government, private industry
indirect financial contributions to ocean science by the private
and local communities.
sector, followed by a fourth section on philanthropic support for
Sustained investment in research and development (R&D), ocean science. The final section provides some forward-looking
including ocean research, remains essential to advance considerations.
knowledge and to develop new technology needed to support
modern economies. The ocean economy yields various benefits
in terms of employment, revenues and innovation in many
domains. Its current developments are largely based on decades 4.2. National governmental funding
of science and R&D investments by governments around the
for ocean science
world. The OECD estimates, conservatively, that the output of
the ocean economy was US$1.5 trillion (in value-added) in 2010
National governmental funding for ocean science is usually part
(OECD, 2016a), roughly equivalent to the size of the Canadian
of the general expenditure for R&D. The OECD suggested that
economy that same year. Under a business-as-usual scenario,
national governments will remain the main funders of public
the global ocean economy is projected to double in size by
research for the foreseeable future (OECD, 2016a). Depending
2030 to reach a gross value added of around US$3 trillion,
on national scientific priorities and research plans, the share
roughly equivalent to the size of the German economy in
that is invested in ocean science varies among countries and
2010 (OECD, 2016a). As another example, Australia’s marine
regions. The following analysis provides the results of the first
economy is projected to grow three times faster than Australia’s
international endeavour to capture governmental funding of
gross domestic product until 2025 (AIMS, 2014).
ocean science at national levels. The information presented is
Because of the many socio-economic domains benefitting based on the Global Ocean Science Report (GOSR) questionnaire
from ocean science, financing a sustainable marine research (2015), which sought information on national expenditure on
infrastructure (Box 4.1) has become essential to address local, ocean science for the five-year time period 2009–2013. Based on
regional and global issues, e.g. ocean-climate interactions, the analysis of the questionnaire data received from 29 Member
ecosystem variability and tsunami-generating earthquakes and States, and despite some methodological and data collection
undersea landslides. Technical infrastructure also contributes constraints, some key trends in national investments in ocean
to the training of students and early-career researchers, science can be identified for the first time.

National governmental funding for ocean science
a) b) 30
2,1E+11
25
20
1,6E+11 15
Total annual GERD [US$]
% of GERD change compared to 2009

10
5
1,1E+11
-5
5,5E+10
-10
-15
-20
5,0E+09
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Year
● Austria ● Belgium ● Brazil ● Canada ● China ● Denmark ● Finland ● France

● Germany ● India ● Israel ● Italy ● Japan ● Republic of Korea ● Netherlands
● Russian Federation ● Spain ● Sweden ● UK ● USA
Figure 4.1. Changes in GERD 2009–2013 (US$): a) GERD of the top 20 countries with the highest financial support; b) % GERD of the top 20
countries with the highest financial support between 2009 and the respective year. Source: UIS, 2015.
From 2009 to 2013, year-on-year Gross Domestic Expenditure on savings in difficult times. However, there is clear evidence that
R&D (GERD) showed great variability in several of the countries investment in R&D should be part of any national strategy for
surveyed. While the Republic of Korea and China increased economic growth and job creation (AIMS, 2014; OECD, 2016a).
spending substantially (25%), countries such as Canada and
Long-term datasets on governmental funding of ocean
Finland significantly decreased their national expenditure on
science are not available for most countries. Gathering such
R&D (Figure 4.1). Global R&D capacity has doubled in the last
data is fraught with difficulty, firstly because ocean science is
15 years, a remarkable expansion driven by two important
rarely administered by a single government office or agency,
factors: 1) several emerging economies, such as China, have
responsibilities are often split among different sectors
increased their R&D spending in past decades; and 2) industry
(e.g. fisheries, maritime/navigation and naval research,
expenditure on R&D has increased at a rate exceeding that
environment), and secondly because funding for ocean science
of public R&D expenditure. Nonetheless, the challenges of
might not be consistently categorized as such. Nevertheless,
slower economic growth and ageing populations will place
the data submitted through the GOSR questionnaire provide
considerable pressure on public spending in many countries
some information about the national resources dedicated to
over the next 10 to 15 years, with competition for resources
marine research. Notably, of the 29 countries that answered the
from other sectors, such as health and pensions (OECD, 2016a).
questions related to national governmental financial resources
Indeed, the most recent data show the GERD decreasing as
allocated for ocean science, 8 are among of the top 10 publishing
a proportion of overall Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in
countries in ocean science (Chapter 5). Some of those countries
many OECD countries,1 possibly a reaction of governments to
that responded reported that there were no national funding
pursue post global-financial-crisis austerity policies. Cutting
strategies or resources for ocean science.
national R&D expenditure is often seen as an easy way to make
1 UIS, 2015

Based on results of the GOSR questionnaire, Figure 4.2a Some countries, such as Norway, Turkey and Italy increased
illustrates the annual expenditure of the 29 countries on ocean their funding for ocean science between 2009 and 2013;
science from 2009 to 2013. For many countries, this was the first others, including Australia and Spain, reduced the national
time the requested data were compiled. Given the novelty of this governmental funding significantly. In general, it appears
exercise, the information presented is not complete for all five that trends in GERD diverge little by country, whereas there
years and does not always reflect the total national expenditure was significant variation in expenditure for ocean science in
on marine research. For example, Germany provided a rough some countries, e.g. Chile, Argentina and Japan (Figure 4.1b,
estimate for 2013, while Canada and Spain submitted the core Figure 4.2b). The available data indicate that 16 countries
funding allocated to their respective national oceanographic increased ocean science funding from 2009 to 2013, compared
institutes DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) and IEO (Spanish to 7 countries that decreased their support.
Institute of Oceanography, Spain).
4
a) b)
150
1,E+10
1,E+10
6,E+08
100
% of change compared to 2009, or the first year data available of national ocean science funding
5,E+08
Annual national ocean science funding [US$]
4,E+08
50
3,E+08
2,E+08
1,E+08 0
1,E+05
-50
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
● USA ● France ● Germany ● Norway ● Australia ● Italy ● Republic of Korea

● Canada (DFO) ● Japan ● India ● Spain (IEO) ● Thailand ● Croatia ● Finland
● Russian Federation ● Belgium ● Turkey ● Argentina
-100
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year
Figure 4.2. Annual national ocean science expenditure 2009–2013:
a) National expenditure for ocean science (excluding USA – 2012
● USA ● France ● Germany ● Norway ● Australia ● Italy ● Republic of Korea
1.25E+10 US$; 2013 1.25E+10 US$). b) % change compared to
● Canada (DFO) ● Japan ● India ● Spain (IEO) ● Thailand ● Croatia ● Finland
2009, or the first year data available of the national ocean science
● Russian Federation ● Belgium ● Turkey ● Argentina ● Romania ● Morocco
expenditure. Source. GOSR questionnaire, 2015. Note: data was ● Colombia ● Mauritania ● Chile ● Angola ● Kuwait ● Trinidad and Tobago
provided by 29 IOC Member States (representing a share of on ● Guinea ● Ecuador ● Benin
average 65 % of GERD 2009–2013), either in US$ or local currency,
subsequently converted in US$ using exchange rates of May 2016.

Table 4.1. Average annual national expenditure 2009–2013 on natural science and ocean science, and annual ocean science expenditure as a
percentage of annual natural science expenditure. Note: includes countries that provided data to the GOSR questionnaire and for which natural
science funding data was also available. Sources: ocean science data: GOSR questionnaire, 2015; natural science data: UIS, 2015.
Average annual Average annual

Average annual
national expenditure (2009–2013) national expenditure (2009–2013)
ocean science expenditure
natural science ocean science
(% natural science expenditure)
(US$ million) (US$ million)
Argentina 22.2 4.76 21.4
Croatia 159 22.0 13.9
Thailand 611 35.1 5.8
Trinidad and Tobago 5.3 0.27 5.1
Republic of Korea 7 720 228 3.0
Colombia 159 3.13 2.0
Romania 400 4.60 1.1
Chile 314 2.16 0.7
Kuwait 58.2 0.3 0.5
Turkey 1 250 4.83 0.4
Ecuador 65.5 0.13 0.2
Russian Federation 6 900 7.7 0.1
Average 4.51 (± 6.62)

Note: Data submitted via the GOSR questionnaire (2015) were either in US$ or local currency, subsequently converted in US$ using current exchange rates as of May 2016.
Few data about natural science funding were obtained to allow Previous studies have shown that for the Group of 20 (G20)2 the
a comparison between total expenditure on natural science GERD was on average 2.04% of GDP in 2001; of this, 0.65% was
and ocean science. However, Table 4.1 shows that, where data spent by governments, 1.26% by the private sector and 0.13%
are available, an average 4.5% of natural science funding was by other sources (Steele, 2013).
dedicated to ocean science, ranging from 0.1% in the Russian
National ocean science expenditures accounted for between
Federation up to 2% in Argentina. Unfortunately, data on natural
< 0.04% and > 4% of GERD from 2009 to 2013 (Table 4.2,
science funding for countries that reported high national
Figure 4.3), among the countries that responded to the GOSR
ocean science budgets, such as USA, France and Germany,
questionnaire. For some countries, such as Norway, Italy and
are currently not available. For a more extensive and complete
Turkey, a positive trend can be detected, indicating that an
comparison, the GERD was used in Table 4.2.
increasing amount of national R&D funding was allocated for
Table 4.2 presents the percentage of national GDP allocated ocean science from 2009 to 2013.
for R&D (2009–2013) and the percentage of R&D allocated to
Some countries provided additional information about
ocean science (2009–2013). The data illustrate that for many
international and regional funding for ocean science
of the countries surveyed, R&D as a percentage of GDP was
(Figure 4.4). In general, national funding was responsible for
relatively high. However, only a few countries devote a high
more than 70% of the total budget for ocean science; only the
proportion of these funds to ocean science: Croatia, Norway,
Republic of Korea, Turkey and Chile indicated that international
Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, and USA. Science in general, and
and regional funding accounted for higher percentages of the
presumably ocean science as a subset of it, relies heavily on
annual budget in certain years.
financial support not included in the national R&D expenditures.
2 G20 members – Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France,

Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russian
Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, UK and USA, along with the
European Union (EU).

Table 4.2. Percentage GERD of national GDP and percentage national ocean science expenditure of GERD for countries that provided information
regarding ocean science expenditure via the GOSR questionnaire. Sources: UIS (GERD, GDP), 2015; GOSR questionnaire (ocean science), 2015,
average non-weighted. Note: blue fields indicate a percentage higher than 1.5 and grey fields indicate percentages higher than 0.5.
Percentage (%) GERD of GDP Percentage (%) Ocean science expenditure of GERD
Average
Average
Country 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
2009-2013
2013
Argentina 0.52 0.48 0.49 0.52 0.58 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.23
Australia 2.32 2.39 2.25 0.74 0.72 0.76
Belgium 2.14 1.97 2.05 2.15 2.24 2.28 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.05
Canada (DFO)
Chile
1.77
0.35
1.92
0.35
1.84
0.33
1.78
0.35
1.71
0.36
1.62 0.54
0.20
0.51
0.36
0.54
0.11
0.60
0.15
0.54
0.20
0.53
4
Colombia 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.23 0.39 0.40 0.39 0.43 0.36 0.35
Croatia 0.78 0.84 0.74 0.75 0.75 0.81 4.73
Ecuador 0.38 0.39 0.40 0.34 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05
Finland 3.57 3.75 3.73 3.64 3.42 3.31 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.00 0.20 0.20
France 2.21 2.21 2.18 2.19 2.23 2.23 0.79
Germany 2.79 2.73 2.72 2.80 2.88 2.85 0.40
India 0.81 0.82 0.80 0.82 0.77 0.61 0.77 0.92
Italy 1.24 1.22 1.22 1.21 1.27 1.26 0.88 0.69 0.75 0.87 1.04 1.04
Japan 3.36 3.36 3.25 3.38 3.34 3.47 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.11
Kuwait 0.14 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.06
Morocco 0.73 0.37
Norway 1.66 1.72 1.65 1.63 1.62 1.66 3.18 2.69 3.28 3.58
Republic of Korea 3.74 3.29 3.47 3.74 4.03 4.15 0.44 0.62 0.40 0.41 0.44 0.32
Romania 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.50 0.49 0.39 0.50 0.47 0.35 0.51 0.54 0.65
Russian Federation 1.15 1.25 1.13 1.09 1.13 1.13 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04
Spain (IEO) 1.31 1.35 1.35 1.32 1.27 1.24 0.28 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.28
Thailand 0.32 0.25 0.39 2.02
Trinidad and Tobago 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.05 1.81 1.03 1.63 2.36 2.20
Turkey 0.88 0.85 0.84 0.86 0.92 0.94 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.09
USA 2.78 2.82 2.74 2.77 2.81 2.55

Note: Data for ocean science expenditure for Canada are only referring to expenditures devoted to the department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and data for Spain only reflect the
national funds received by the Spanish Institute for Oceanography (IEO).
Currently, no information exists about the involvement of the Previous assessments indicate that approximately 3% of R&D
private/business sector in terms of ocean science funding at the overall is funded by international organizations or foreign
national level. From 2009 to 2013, the average GERD was 1.64%; sources (Steele, 2013), much lower than what was obtained
however this varies widely across the world, with highest values for some countries with regard to ocean science (average 8%;
in North America and Western Europe (2.39%) and low values in Figure 4.4).
Central Asia (0.22%) as well as in the Arabic countries (0.26%).3
3 Source: UIS,2015

Croatia
4.3. International/regional
Norway
funding mechanisms
USA
used for ocean science
Thailand Different aspects of ocean science receive different levels
Trinidad and Tobago of support by national, regional and international funding
mechanisms. Funding varies over time and is often highly
Italy
dependent on socio-economic needs, e.g. to inform management
France decisions. This section provides some insights into sources of
India funding for ocean science programmes at the international
and regional levels. The analysis, while not comprehensive,
Australia
show-cases examples, focusing on past European structural
Canada (DFO) funds (Box 4.2) and funds provided by the Global Environment
Romania
Facility (GEF) (Box 4.3). In general, these types of funds are
restricted either by scope (e.g. fisheries, observation, capacity
Republic of Korea
development), region or beneficiary (e.g. developing countries).
Germany
Structural funds are allocated in the European Commission to
Colombia Member States or regions according to their average income per
Morocco
capita (European Commission, 2013). The decisions to allocate
these funds to programmes/projects are taken by the Member
Spain (IEO)
States and regions themselves. The European Commission
Chile aims to reduce regional disparities in income, wealth and
opportunities; Europe’s poorer regions receive most of the
Argentina
support, but all European regions are eligible for European
Kuwait Regional Development funding (ERDF). The current regional
Finland policy framework is set for a period of seven years, from 2014
to 2020. A study commissioned by the European Commission
Japan
has shown that many marine research infrastructures across
Belgium Europe have been co-funded by structural funds in the past,
Turkey in particular by the ERDF (European Commission, 2013). The
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF) 2014—2020
Russian Federation
amounts to €6.4 billion; 11% of the EMFF budget is managed by
Ecuador the European Commission directly and 89% is administered by
Member States in the framework of operational programmes.
0 1 2 3 4 5
% of GERD invested in ocean science Under the current European Union (EU) Multi-Annual Financial
Framework, the EU invests €70 million annually to support
● 2009 ● 2010 ● 2011 ● 2012 ● 2013
the Data Collection Framework, the EU-wide programme to
collect fisheries data to underpin the long-term management
Figure 4.3. Percentage of national R&D expenditures invested in of fisheries. This involves the understanding and monitoring
ocean science. Data from 25 countries that answered the GOSR of commercial species, dynamics of single stocks and mixed
questionnaire (Table 4.2). Sources: GOSR questionnaire (ocean
fisheries, and ecological modelling of regional basins. Another
science), 2015; UIS (R&D), 2015.
€71 million is earmarked to support implementation of the
EU Blue Growth Strategy, designed to stimulate sustainable
growth and job creation from seas and oceans, in areas such
as maritime surveillance, improved knowledge of the seas and
ecosystems, and enabling rational exploitation of new marine
resources (e.g. energy, biotech) (European Structural and
Investment Funds, 2015).

International/regional funding mechanisms used for ocean science
Australia Chile Colombia Italy
100 100 100 100

% of different funding resources for ocean
science of total GERD for ocean science
75 75 75 75
50 50 50 50
25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0
2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year Year Year Year
Norway Spain (IEO) Republic of Korea Turkey

4
100 100 100 100
% of different funding resources for ocean
science of total GERD for ocean science
75 75 75 75
50 50 50 50
25 25 25 25
0 0 0 0
2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year Year Year Year
● regional ● international ● national
Figure 4.4. Proportion of regional, international and national funding resources for ocean science (2009-2013) for selected countries. Source:
Another type of structural fund supporting ocean science is Since its inception, GEF investments in the ‘International
provided by the GEF, established on the eve of the 1992 Rio Waters’ focal area have surpassed US$1.15 billion. These
Earth Summit. Through its strategic investments, the GEF funds have leveraged another US$7.7 billion from partners
aims to address the planet’s biggest environmental issues. for marine-related projects and programmes. This investment
GEF is a partnership of agencies, including United Nations has contributed to various marine environmental outcomes,
agencies, multilateral development banks, national entities including the creation of 4.1 million km2 of marine protected
and international NGOs. It is a financial mechanism for five areas. However, it is important to note that GEF investments can
major international environmental conventions: the 2013 only be received by developing countries; developed countries
Minamata Convention on Mercury, the 2001 Stockholm Convention are not eligible to receive financial support from GEF.
on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the 1994 United
Science is an integral part of GEF projects, making it difficult to
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the
attribute the proportion of financial support of the total budget
1992 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),
towards research-related activities. However, GEF is not itself a
and the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
research programme and only funds research where it supports
Change (UNFCCC). Its portfolio includes projects related to the
improved environmental management, mainly focused on
preservation of threatened ecosystems in the ocean. The GEF
developing countries (Cabanban and Mee, 2012).
funding mechanism is based on co-financing, which has
resulted in an additional US$5.2 for every US$1 invested.4
4 Global Environment Facility (GEF). https://www.thegef.org

INTERNATIONAL/REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS USED FOR OCEAN SCIENCE
Box 4.1. Investments in national research vessel fleets
Several studies have documented the high investment required for marine
infrastructure (in particular ships and marine observing platforms), including Coastal/Local (6)
operations and maintenance, representing on average between 40% and
50% of the total funding for ocean science (JPI, 2011; Stemmerik, 2003). It
was estimated that in the European Union, half of the national budgets for Regional (5)
marine science are spent on operating and replacing marine infrastructure
assets (European Science Foundation, 2007). This is becoming more and more
challenging for agencies that support shipborne science, ship-operating Ocean/Intermediate (7)
institutions, and sea-going scientists, as the costs of operating and maintaining
research vessels are constantly increasing (European Science Foundation, 2007;
NRC, 2015). Global (7)
Higher ship costs will almost certainly force significant changes in the size of
the academic research fleet, as well as the use and scheduling of research 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
ships. This issue has been raised by numerous committees, e.g. by University- Daily operating costs (US$)
National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) of the United States,
federal agencies and their advisory boards, and independent commissions (e.g.
US Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004; Betzer et al., 2005; McNutt et al., 2005;
Figure 4.6. The average daily operating rate by UNOLS class, 2015.
Collins et al., 2006; UNOLS, 2009; NRC, 2015).
The number of ships in each class is in parentheses after the class
The primary expenses of research ship operation are crew costs, fuel costs, name. Source: NRC, 2015.
maintenance and overhaul, technical and shore support, and consumables. As
an example, for the UNOLS fleet between 2000 and 2008 (Figure 4.5.) crew and
Ship-dependent sampling, measurements and experiments are key components
fuel costs were the two largest components of total research vessel operating
of ocean research, but other platforms and advancements in autonomous and
costs, accounting for approximately 50% of total operating costs in this period
remote sensing technology contribute significantly to the exploration of the
(UNOLS, 2009).
many domains of ocean science (Chapter 6; Wynn et al., 2014). This trend is
expected to accelerate in order to get more data for less investment.
30,000,000
Ship data were not available from other countries at this time. Satellites are
25,000,000 also an important infrastructure investment for ocean science, but gathering
Crew
data on investment in satellites was beyond the scope of this report.
20,000,000 Depending on its size and area of investigations, a research vessel used
All Other Costs for open ocean research costs between US$2.2 million and US$40 million
US$
15,000,000 (e.g. icebreaker vessel) per year (European Science Foundation, 2007;
Fuel and Lube Oil Stemmerik, 2003). Figure 4.6 illustrates the variation in the daily operating
Maintenance and Overhaul
10,000,000 rate among global, ocean/intermediate, regional and coastal/local ships. The
high daily operating rates for the global –and ocean – class ships indicate
5,000,000
Shore Support Staff the substantial research funding required to undertake large oceanographic
expeditions, especially for research beyond the coastal seas in the major ocean
basins.
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 In general, the use of a research vessel requires a grant (for example, in the
Year USA this may be funded by the National Science Foundation, NSF) to support
the salaries, supplies, travel and equipment required to conduct science. It
Figure 4.5. Major cost factors for the UNOLS fleet for the time was reported that often projects require ship time but do not include it in the
period 2000–2008. The category of ‘All other costs’ includes food, budget (NRC, 2015).
insurance, equipment and supplies, travel, shore facility support,
indirect costs, and miscellaneous costs. Source: UNOLS, 2009.

INTERNATIONAL/REGIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS USED FOR OCEAN SCIENCE
Box 4.2. European fisheries research
Science and technology can contribute in important ways to sustainable and fish biology from 1988 to 2013, indicating the societal shift to sustained
fisheries through the identification and monitoring of wild fish populations utilization of natural resources.
and traceability of fish and fish products. In recent years, some noteworthy
innovations have been achieved in this respect, which have the potential to
revolutionize wild fish stock management and make serious inroads into FP7 (2007-2013)
prosecuting and preventing illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing
activities (OECD, 2016b).This case study examines the important role that FP6 (2002-2006)
successive EU Framework Programmes (FPs) for Science and Technology have
played in supporting fisheries research.
FP5 (1998-2002)
EU investment in fisheries research throughout the FPs steadily increased
between FP2 and FP7, covering the period from 1988 to 2013 (Table 4.3).
However, there was a notable reduction in funding for fisheries research under
the FP7 programme (2007–2013). Fisheries research under FP7 received the
FP4 (1994-1998)
4
lowest level of (0.21 %) relative to the total programme funding for any of the
FP3 (1990-1994)
FPs. This was also reflected in the number of projects funded, which increased
from FP3 to FP6, and declined again during FP7. The average investment per
project slightly decreased from FP3 to FP4, remained almost unchanged in FP2 (1988-1992)
FP5 and FP6, and increased in FP7, thus suggesting larger research projects.
Indeed, on average, FP7 fisheries research projects were more than twice the
size of those in FP4 (Rodriguez, 2014). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
It is possible to classify the EU FPs fisheries research projects according to

● Fisheries management ● Interaction with environment ● Fish biology
the fisheries research area to which they most closely belong, depending on
the main objective of the research project in question. Rodríguez (2014) used a ● Socio-economy and fisheries policy ● Fisheries technology ● Research infrastructures
six-part classification for fisheries projects based on a previous scheme by the
FAO Advisory Committee on Fishery Research (FAO, 2002), as follows: fisheries
management, interaction with the environment, fish biology, socio-economy Figure 4.7. Proportion of main research areas of conducted EU
and fisheries policy, fisheries technology and research infrastructures. Figure Framework Programmes fisheries research projects (1988–2013).
4.7 illustrates the increased importance of socio-economic and fisheries policy Source: Rodriguez, 2014.
projects and the reduced number of projects focusing on fisheries technology
Table 4.3. Budget allocation for EU fisheries research projects under FP2-FP7. Source: Rodriguez, 2014.
EU fisheries
Framework EU FP research % allocated Annual Average Average
research Nº of fisheries
Programme budget to fisheries allocation project duration project cost
budget projects
(FP) (€ millions) research (€ millions) (months) (€ millions)
(€ millions)
FP2 (1988-1992) 5 357 15.14 0.28 3.03 65 27 0.23
FP3 (1990-1994) 6 600 22.76 0.34 4.55 30 31 0.76
FP4 (1994-1998) 13 100 48.16 0.37 9.63 67 34 0.72
FP5 (1998-2002) 14 960 76.17 0.51 15.23 63 36 1.21
FP6 (2002-2006) 17 500 92.49 0.53 18. 50 71 35 1.30
FP7 (2007-2013) 50 521 107.131 0.21 15.30 63 35 1.70
Total (1988-2013) 108 038 361.79 0.33 (average) 14.47 (average) 359 33 (average) 1.01 (average)

Funding of ocean science by the private sector: possible synergies
Box 4.3. Large Marine Ecosystems Box 4.4. Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science – combining
national and private funding sources
GEF funding contributes to advance ocean science, particularly to identify
knowledge gaps and to propose measures on how to address these gaps In some cases, private funding can support ocean research. One example is
through international and regional collaboration. For example: the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (SAHFOS), the international
charity that operates the Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) Survey. The CPR
## The global ocean has been conceptually divided into 66 large marine
is a plankton-sampling instrument designed to be towed from merchant ships
ecosystems (LMEs), near-coastal areas where primary productivity is
on their normal routes. SAHFOS therefore relies heavily on the cooperation with
generally higher than in open ocean areas. To date, the GEF has supported
projects aiming to contribute to sustainable governance of 23 LMEs in ‘ships of opportunity’ utilizing both volunteer commercial and research vessels
which multiple countries collaborate on strategic, long-term ocean (26 ships in 2013) to collect measurements related to physical, chemical and
governance of transboundary resources, including science. biological oceanography and ecology through this programme.
## As of the end of 2016, the International Waters focal area has invested
EU
US$285 million, leveraging US$1.14 billion in financing from other partners
in LMEs (GEF secretariat, 2016). NERC
NORWAY
## The funding strategy for the future includes support of priority actions
NEXEN OIL
and investments within regional policy frameworks, in order to explore
USA
the potential of the ocean economy, including blue carbon restoration,
marine spatial planning and economic valuation (GEF secretariat, 2016). PACIFIC
JNCC
OTHERS
BAS
CANADA
DEFRA
4.4. Funding of ocean science

Figure 4.8. Principal sources of funding for SAHFOS in 2014.
by the private sector: Source: Johns and Brice (eds), 2015.
possible synergies
SAHFOS has been collecting data from the North Atlantic and the North
Sea on biogeography and ecology of plankton since 1931 and more recently
The private sector can act as a beneficiary of ocean science has expanded its work in other parts of the global ocean. While in the early
and can also contribute to directly fund relevant scientific times this foundation started with private funding, the work of SAHFOS, in
and R&D programmes. As users and beneficiaries of ocean addition to ‘in-kind’ funding of the ships of opportunity, is supported with
direct funding from: UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), UK
science, many marine industries use marine environmental
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), USA National
data. This is the case for established industries like oil and gas Science Foundation (NSF), as well as seven other organizations* and companies
industries, shipping companies, as well as newer high-growth including the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trust and Nexen Oil in 2014 (Figure 4.8). The
industries like offshore wind generation and aquaculture, which total funding sources for 2014 were reported at GBP 1,558,537 (GBP 2,141,088
in 2013; GBP 1,758,543 in 2012) (Johns and Brice (eds), 2014, 2015). Note:
invest considerable amounts in environmental impact and risk British Antarctic Survey, European Union, European Environment Agency, Dept
assessments (European Commission, 2013) and also generate of Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Institute of Marine Research Norway, Joint
and use marine data. A distinction should be made, however, Nature Conservation Committee, North Pacific Research Board.
between mature industries (e.g. oil and gas, shipping), and new
industries. The offshore wind industry, in particular, is expected An example of ‘in-kind’ support provided by the private sector is
to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decades that of the so-called ‘ships of opportunity‘. These are commercial
and is in strong need of marine data to reduce the risks and vessels making regular transits on the ocean, which collect
enhance the value of these investments. It is important that scientific data. As chartered research vessels are expensive
service and equipment providers are engaged at the outset and cruises are time-consuming, the use of volunteer vessels
of research planning and consideration should be given to as well as oceanographic samplers while underway is a cost-
market development where the private sector and other parts effective way to cover vast areas of the ocean. Data collection
of the public sector do not yet have a strong role (McAleese from ships of opportunity, mounted with observation equipment,
et al., 2013). repeatedly traversing sailing routes contributes to the scientific

Philanthropy: non-profit and private foundations/organizations
knowledge of the ocean by increasing the coverage, frequency opened opportunities for long-term funding and projects in
and repeatability of sampling and routine observations. the past. Though the initial financial support is low compared
to governmental expenditures (Figure 4.6), the value of this
Examples include:
support is often leveraged by funding from other sources.
the Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science (Box 4.4);
automated instrument packages on ships of opportunity 4.5.1. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
routes (Ferrybox) in the North and Baltic Sea as part of
EuroGOOS; and Within its Conservation and Science programme, the Packard
Foundation includes an ocean programme, which contains
the Ocean Exploration Trust, founded in 2008 by Dr Robert
financial support for the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research
Ballard to engage in pure ocean exploration; many of its
Institute (MBARI) (Table 4.4). 5 MBARI is a not-for-profit
scientific expeditions are launched from its 64 m research
exploration vessel (E/V) Nautilus.
organization conducting scientific research in marine biology, 4
oceanography, underwater geology and other kinds of marine
research and technology development, and educating the
scientific community and the general public in regard to such
research. In total, the Packard Foundation has invested more
4.5. Philanthropy: non-profit than US$1.6 billion in ocean science over the past 50 years, with
and private foundations/ the aim to close knowledge gaps and improve ocean health.
organizations
Table 4.4. Direct charitable expenses and programme operating
expenses of MBARI (US$) donated by the Packard Foundation. Source:
Philanthropy – the desire to promote the welfare of others,
Packard Foundation.5
expressed especially by the generous donation of money to
good causes – is becoming an increasingly important source of Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
revenue to advance science. The awe-inspiring scale and beauty US$ 50 189 52 162 53 229 52 554 51 404 50 336 51 861
of the ocean can help attract philanthropic funding to support
ocean science. Some specialist foundations focus on technology
innovation to advance existing key oceanographic technologies, 4.5.2. The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
and to enable open and effective sharing of new technologies,
The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s Science Program
scientific information and research outcomes among academic
seeks to advance basic science through developing new
and broader communities worldwide. Foundations and
technologies, supporting research scientists and creating
philanthropies can augment national investments and stimulate
new collaborations at the frontiers of traditional scientific
new initiatives. Although public funding remains the dominant
disciplines. One ocean science activity, the Marine Microbiology
source of research funding, it is unclear how far or fast that
Initiative (MMI), seeks to gain a comprehensive understanding of
balance might shift in the future or what a shifting balance may
marine microbial communities, including: their ecological roles
mean. Previous studies are rare, supporting the conclusion that
in the oceans; their diversity, functions and behaviours; and their
a comprehensive assessment of the magnitude and impact of
origins and evolution.6 Since 2004, more than US$225 million
privately funded science, particularly ocean science, is needed,
has been spent within the framework of the MMI. Another
as public funding sources decline (Spring et al., 2014). area of high importance for the foundation is environmental
The following examples of foundations that support ocean conservation, more than US$250 million has been invested
science not only stress the increasing importance of alternative in a programme focusing on marine conservation supported
funding sources, given highly competitive national science projects and working groups since 2004.
budgets, they also illustrate how investments in ocean science
made by foundations have resulted in ground-breaking research, 5 David and Lucile Packard Foundation: https://www.packard.org/
catalysed new collaborations and additional resources, and 6 Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation https://www.moore.org

Looking ahead
4.5.3. Alfred P. Sloan Foundation US$7 million Shell Ocean Discovery XPRIZE, inviting teams to
advance deep-sea technologies for autonomous, fast and high-
The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation committed US$78 million to resolution ocean exploration.9
support the Census of Marine Life, an international programme
(1999 to 2010) to assess the diversity, distribution and
abundance of marine life. The foundation supported 14 Census 4.5.5. Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation
of Marine Life field projects, helped to assess current marine
In June 2006, HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco established a
populations, created a network to predict the future of marine
foundation with the objective to support the protection of the
animal populations, developed the Ocean Biogeographical
environment and the promotion of sustainable development,
Information System (containing tens of million records on
focusing on the Mediterranean basin, Polar Regions and Least
hundreds of thousands of marine species), and supported
Developed Countries. Since its establishment, 368 projects have
the Census’s International Scientific Steering Committee and
been supported by the foundation with a total of €37.3 million.
Secretariat, the US National Committee, and an Education and
In 2015, the foundation committed €6.8 million to 27 projects; of
Outreach Network to increase the project’s visibility and engage
this amount, €1.22 million (18%) was allocated to ocean science
other nations and organizations. Two thousand seven hundred
projects addressing issues such as ocean acidification and
(2,700) scientists from more than 80 nations participated in the
developing marine protected areas (Prince Albert II of Monaco
programme.7
Foundation, 2015).
The Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) was
created as the data integration component of the Census of
Marine Life.8 OBIS has grown beyond its original scope and now
integrates data from many sources, over a wide range of marine 4.6. Looking ahead
themes, from poles to the equator, from microbes to whales. It
is now the world’s largest online repository of geo-referenced Ocean science relies on sustained funding, international
biodiversity data. At its 2009 Assembly, the Intergovernmental collaboration and support from a variety of funding
Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO adopted OBIS as one sources. The GOSR is the first global endeavour to capture
of its programmes under the International Oceanographic Data governmental funding of ocean science at national levels.
and Information Exchange (IODE). With the support of policy This first-ever assessment includes the contributions of 29
makers and the nations it serves, OBIS continues to grow and countries that responded to the GOSR questionnaire (2015)
thrive under IODE, remaining a permanent legacy of the Census submitting information for the time period 2009–2013. Despite
of Marine Life collaboration (Chapter 6). methodological and data collection constraints, some key
trends in ocean science were identified.
4.5.4. The Schmidt Family Foundation Based on the results of the GOSR questionnaire, government
funding for ocean science remains modest. Ocean science
The Schmidt Family Foundation works to advance the funding, as a share of national R&D funding, varies widely
development of clean energy and support wiser use of natural between countries from < 0.04% to 4%. Countries with the
resources. Within this framework, the Schmidt Ocean Institute largest dedicated ocean science budget include USA, Australia,
was founded in 2009, providing opportunities for ocean science Germany, France and the Republic of Korea. Ocean science,
studies aboard the RV Falkor oceanographic research vessel. like other scientific and R&D domains, is facing increased
The Schmidt Family Foundation also supports the XPRIZE sustainability challenges in many countries. When examining
Foundation, which awarded The Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health trends over five years (2009–2013), ocean science funding has
XPRIZE, a US$2 million global competition that in 2015 fluctuated by more than 50% in some countries (e.g. Argentina,
challenged teams of engineers, scientists and innovators Chile and Japan).
from all over the world to create new improved affordable pH
A growing number of commercial actors from diverse maritime
sensor technology. Currently, the foundation is supporting the
sectors (e.g. oil and gas, offshore wind, aquaculture) have
become direct and indirect beneficiaries of ocean R&D and
7 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation https://sloan.org/
8 OBIS http://www.iobis.org/ 9 Ocean Discovery XPRIZE http://oceandiscovery.xprize.org/

REFERENCES
observing programmes. In some countries, there may be

References
potential to increase private investment in dedicated ocean
research programmes (e.g. PhDs and postdoctoral researcher
positions supported by private grants). As other sources of AIMS. 2014. The AIMS Index of Marine Industry. Australian Institute of
funding, non-profit institutions (including foundations and Marine Science. www.aims.gov.au/publications.html.
crowdfunding) are becoming new mechanisms to fund selected Betzer, P., Hayes, D., Knox, R., Mooers, C., Pittenger, R. and Wall, R.
ocean science programmes. However, these sources remain 2005. Projections for UNOLS’ Future - Substantial Financial
negligible in most countries, with the bulk of funding for Challenges. Narrangansett (RI), UNOLS.
researchers still relying on grants from government agencies. Cabanban A. and Mee, L. 2012. IW:Science: Large Marine Ecosystems
and the Open Ocean – A global Synopsis of Large Marine
Looking ahead, pressures on public budgets for science and Ecosystems and the Open Ocean science and transboundary
R&D may intensify in some countries, with implications for management. Ontario (Canada), UNU-INWEH.
ocean science funding. To secure long-term institutional Collins, C., Gardner, W., McNutt, M. and Ortner. P. 2006. Criteria and 4
support, as well as to diversify sources of funding, ocean Process for Recommending Non-operational Periods of Ships in
the UNOLS Fleet: Report of an Ad-Hoc UNOLS Subcommittee.
scientists may need to increasingly demonstrate the high and
Narrangansett (RI), UNOLS.
long-term societal and economic value of investing in ocean
European Science Foundation. 2007. Position Paper 10 - European
research. The ocean economy is already bringing many benefits
Ocean Research Fleets. Strasbourg, European Science
in terms of employment, revenues and innovation across many Foundation.
domains. Its current development is based on decades of R&D
European Commission. 2013. Towards European Integrated Ocean
investment by governments around the world. To ensure future Observation – Expert Group on Marine Research Infrastructures,
environmental sustainability and economic growth, continuous Final Report. Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg.
ocean research supported by long-term public and private
funding will need to be secured. European Structural and Investment Funds. 2015. European
Structural and Investment Funds 2014–2020: official text and
This chapter gives baseline information on ocean science commentaries. Publications Office of the European Union,
funding that can be used as a starting point for more directed, Luxembourg. FAO. 2002. Advisory Committee on Fishery
Research (ACFR) 4th Session. Statutes of the Advisory
tailored investment and new capacity development strategies, Committee on Fisheries Research. Rome, Italy, 10–13
and to support the case for ensuring maximum impact of December. ftp://ftp.fao.org/FI/DOCUMENT/ACFR/ACFR4/Inf4.
ocean research, for example through marine technology and pdf (Accessed 6 June 2017)
knowledge transfer from government-funded marine and GEF secretariat. 2016. 25 Years of the GEF. GEF Secretariat.
maritime R&D projects. Expanding the reach of the GOSR Johns, D. G. and Brice, G. (eds). 2014. SAHFOS Annual Report 2013.
questionnaire to gather data from more countries would help SAHFOS, Plymouth (UK), p. 63.
to complete the picture of the ocean science funding landscape Johns, D. G. and Brice, G. (eds). 2015. SAHFOS Annual Report 2014.
now and in the future. SAHFOS, Plymouth (UK), p. 63.
JPI. 2011. Joint Programming Initiative healthy and productive seas
and oceans. www.jpi-oceans.eu. (Accessed 6 June 2017)
JPI. 2014. CSA Oceans mapping and preliminary analysis of
infrastructures. www.jpi-oceans.eu (Accessed 6 June 2017)
McAleese, L., Hull, S. and Barham, P. 2013. A review of private and
public sector marine science and evidence needs, the capability
of the UK’s private sector marine science and technology
sector to meet or support the meeting of those needs, and
opportunities for growth. A report for Defra, BIS and the
Marine Industries Liaison Group.
McNutt, M., Wiesenburg, D. and Hofmann, E. 2005. UNOLS Ad-Hoc
Committee to Address the Impact of Budget Reductions on
Fleet Operations. UNOLS.
NRC Committee on Guidance for NSF on National Ocean Science
Research Priorities: Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences;
Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth and Life Studies.
2015. Sea Change 2015–2025 Decadal Survey of Ocean
Sciences. National Academies Press.

The funding for ocean science
REFERENCES
OECD. 2012. OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The

Consequences of Inaction. OECS, Paris. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1787/9789264122246-en. (Accessed 6 June 2017)
OECD. 2016a. OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016,
OECD, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-
en. (Accessed 6 June 2017)
OECD. 2016b. The Ocean Economy in 2030. Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, Paris.
Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation. 2015. Annual report 2015.
Monaco, Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation.
Rodriguez, S. A. 2014. La investigación pesquera en los programas
marco de investigación europeos. PhD Thesis, Universidad
de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.Spring, M., Cooksey, S. W.,
Orcutt, J. A., Ramberg, S. E., Jankowski, J. E. and Mengelt,
C. 2014. Is Privately Funded Research on the Rise in Ocean
Science? AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 1, pg. 8.
Steele, A. 2013. Infographic: How much does Science costs? The
Conversation. https://theconversation.com/infographic-how-
much-does-the-world-spend-on-science-14069. (Accessed
6 June 2017)
Stemmerik, L. and ad hoc Working Group on Marine Research
Infrastructure. 2003. European Strategy on Marine Research
Infrastructure. Helsinki, Publications of the Academy of
Finland.
UNOLS. 2009. Science at Sea – Meeting Future Oceanographic Goals
with a Robust Academic Research Fleet. UNOLS.
US Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st
Century. Washington D.C., US Commission on Ocean Policy.
Wynn, R. B., Huvenne, V. A., Le Bas, T. P., Murton, B. J., Connelly, D.
P., Bett, B. J., Ruhl, H. A., Morris, K. J., Peakall, J., Parsons,
D. R. and Sumner, E. J. 2014. Autonomous Underwater
Vehicles (AUVs): Their past, present and future contributions
to the advancement of marine geoscience. Marine Geology,
Vol. 352, pp. 451-68.

5
Research
productivity
and science
impact
© Shutterstock.com/Kumpol Chuansakul
5. Research productivity
and science impact
Luis Valdés,1 Youn-Ho Lee,2 Kirsten Isensee3 and Martin
Schaaper4
2 – Korean Institute of Ocean Science and Technology, Republic of Korea
Valdés, L., Lee, Y.-H., Isensee, K. and Schaaper, M. 2017. Research productivity and

science impact. In: IOC-UNESCO, Global Ocean Science Report—The current status of
ocean science around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds). Paris, UNESCO, pp. 98–125.
100 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © UNESCO/Kirsten Isensee

Research productivity and science impact
Measuring global ocean science through publications
5.1. Measuring global ocean science (2010–2014), comprising 372,852 articles.3 Bibliometric
data were produced on ocean science as a whole and
through publications for each of the categories of ocean science indicated in
Figure 2.1.
Some important measures of knowledge production, transfer
and utilization can be derived from the scientific publications
in which scientific knowledge is embodied. Bibliometrics is
the application of mathematical and statistical methods to 5.2. Global analysis
quantify published scientific literature (e.g. papers, books
and documents) and create metrics and indices for reliable
of research performance
comparisons (Pritchard, 1969). It has become a generic term
for a range of approaches directed at quantifying output levels,
collaboration patterns and impact characteristics of scientific 5.2.1. Total scientific publication output:
research (OECD, 2002, 2014). Overall figures
The bibliometric literature recommends implementing a
broad suite of metrics for a holistic understanding of the
Table 5.1 shows the global performance of peer-reviewed
ocean science literature between 2010 and 2014 by total
5
articles produced by an author, institution or country because publications and citation counts. 4 The total number of
each bibliometric indicator measures a different aspect of the publications worldwide reached 372,852, whereas the number
underlying publication set (e.g. Martin, 1996; van Leeuwen et al., of citations in the same period was 2,206,429. Europe is the
2003). A suite of metrics can therefore provide indications of – largest contributor in both publications and citations with a
and credit for – a number of aspects of scientific publications. proportion of 33% of the world total publications, followed by
In the Global Ocean Science Report (GOSR), a suite of metrics Asia (28%) and North America (26%) (Figure 5.1).
was used to evaluate ocean science output in four categories:
production; quality; topicality and collaboration. The production South America 5% Africa 2%
indicators attempt to measure research performance over Oceania 6%
specified periods of time. The quality indicators attempt to
measure the impact of published literature to the broader
scientific community. The topical indicators attempt to identify Asia 28%
the major research areas pursued by nations consistent with North America 26%
research priorities and categories set by the United Nations
Sustainable Development Goal 14 (‘Conserve and sustainably
use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable Europe 33%
development’, (UNGA, 2015)) and blue growth (see Chapter 2
for ‘blue growth’ research categories). Finally, the collaboration
indicators attempt to identify both the amount of knowledge Figure 5.1. Proportion of global publication authorship by
published by international research partnerships and the major continent (Annex F).
institutional and international connections showing how this
knowledge is shared. The total number of scientific publications is an indicator of
research output. The USA leads the world in ocean science
This chapter provides an overview of global ocean science
research output (96,000 papers), followed by China (58,000),
output as measured by bibliometric indicators and describes
the UK (29,500), Germany (24,200), France (22,000), Canada
trends and patterns following the metrics indicated above.
(21,000), Australia (21,000), Japan (20,500), Spain (18,000) and
Bibliometric data were compiled from scientific peer-reviewed
Italy (15,000) (Table 5.1).
articles1 in Ocean Science2 indexed in the Web of Science by
Thomson Reuters and published over the past five years
1 Peer review means that the science that is published has been subjected 3 Articles printed in other languages than English were also counted if the
to independent scrutiny by qualified scientists, and thereby supports keywords and/or the abstract were available in English. See Section 2.3.2
scientific quality and credibility. in Chapter 2 for a detailed explanation on the statistical methods.
2 Definitions for Ocean Science and the categories considered for the 4 The sum of national publications exceeds the world total due to double
bibliometric analysis can be consulted in Section 2.1 in Chapter 2. counts related to international collaboration.

Global analysis of research performance
The number of citations that a scientific publication receives countries from other parts of the world. Twenty countries
is an indication of the use of this publication in subsequent show an impact factor higher than seven, eighteen of those
scientific works. Therefore the ratio between publications and are European and North America countries and only two
citations is an indication of the quality and impact of the national (Israel and Singapore) are not. The extent to which a country
contribution to world science. Citation rates vary, research is engaged in international collaboration influences its citation
nations with the greatest publication output are not necessarily rates. Generally, publications that are co-authored by scientists
the most highly cited (Table 5.1, Figure 5.2). Generally, European from many countries are cited more often than publications for
and North America countries have a multiplying factor or which all the authors are from the same country (Jarić et al.,
impact factor (ratio of citations to publications) higher than 2012) (see also Section 5.3.1).
Table 5.1. Number of published papers and citations received by continent and country in ocean science for the period 2010-2014 (Annex F).
Continent Country Papers Citations

World 372 852 2 206 429
North America 116 708 925 691
USA 96 088 801 788
Canada 21 073 175 076
Mexico 5 278 21 445
Cuba 345 1 607
Panama 341 2 938
Costa Rica 304 1 675
Trinidad and Tobago 138 661
Jamaica 81 471
Bahamas 67 420
Barbados 54 348
Grenada 45 178
Belize 27 220
Guatemala 27 188
Dominican Republic 21 51
Honduras 20 112
Saint Kitts and Nevis 18 51
Haiti 17 110
Dominica 9 134
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 5 21
Antigua and Barbuda 3 19
South America 22 258 98 007
Brazil 13 211 51 042
Argentina 3 780 18 740
Chile 3 577 20 541
Colombia 998 4 619
Venezuela 553 2 459
Uruguay 442 3 613
Peru 407 3 352
Ecuador 280 1 584
Bolivia 116 755
Nicaragua 37 284
El Salvador 23 135
Guyana 18 36
Paraguay 13 33
Suriname 11 41

Table 5.1. continued

Europe 149 642 1 033 199
UK 29 472 271 018
Germany 24 227 218 285
France 22 078 196 093
Spain 17 826 134 189
Italy 15 083 106 016
Norway 9 888 75 613
Russian Federation 8 816 31 458
Netherlands 8 780 82 639
Portugal 6 606 43 963
Sweden 6 377 59 111
Denmark 5 794 55 114
Switzerland 5 299 62 385
Poland 5 041 21 650
Belgium
Greece
5 011
3 531
42 834
22 121
5
Finland 3 114 26 942
Austria 2 779 26 564
Czechia 2 720 17 410
Ireland 2 272 18 243
Croatia 1 654 6 626
Romania 1 652 5 191
Hungary 1 045 6 007
Estonia 904 5 771
Slovenia 858 5 235
Iceland 788 6 444
Ukraine 715 2 939
Serbia 686 2 608
Bulgaria 677 2 586
Slovakia 595 2 832
Lithuania 551 2 077
Latvia 211 555
Luxembourg 205 1 375
Monaco 193 2 192
Malta 130 684
Montenegro 130 636
Albania 109 272
Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia 85 265
Belarus 83 246
Bosnia and Herzegovina 61 200
Rep. of Moldova 23 62
Liechtenstein 7 19
Andorra 5 43
San Marino 2 3


Asia 123 769 597 174
China 57 848 283 431
Japan 20 516 117 333
India 12 631 54 753
Rep. of Korea 10 688 53 480
Turkey 6 153 24 358
Iran 4 437 16 148
Malaysia 3 315 13 640
Israel 2 397 17 881
Thailand 2 323 11 904
Singapore 2 307 16 935
Saudi Arabia 1 831 11 084
Indonesia 1 116 5 725
Pakistan 1 113 3 956
Viet Nam 946 3 715
Philippines 730 4 240
Bangladesh 632 2 749
United Arab Emirates 453 2 499
Oman 323 1 648
Sri Lanka 276 1 685
Cyprus 243 2 079
Kuwait 227 733
Jordan 221 821
Iraq 199 642
Lebanon 164 837
Qatar 163 726
Nepal 106 871
Azerbaijan 86 213
Georgia 86 296
Mongolia 81 548
Yemen 79 508
Syria 78 361
Lao People's Dem. Rep. 73 285
Kazakhstan 72 252
Armenia 70 305
Brunei Darussalam 66 365
Uzbekistan 60 248
Cambodia 59 348
Bahrain 43 207
Myanmar 31 142
Maldives 27 139
Kyrgyzstan 26 210
Tajikistan 18 39
Turkmenistan 7 30
Dem. People's Rep. of Korea 7 49
Afghanistan 5 22
Bhutan 4 34


Africa 11 472 60 648
South Africa 3 979 26 526
Egypt 2 063 8 234
Tunisia 1 355 6 207
Nigeria 604 1 670
Morocco 545 3 151
Kenya 542 3 920
Algeria 493 1 775
United Rep. of Tanzania 300 1 878
Ghana 218 1 031
Ethiopia 203 1 199
Senegal 185 1 129
Cameroon 167 723
Uganda 154 915
Madagascar
Mauritius
138
100
1 044
655
5
Zimbabwe 94 388
Seychelles 88 609
Benin 87 265
Côte d'Ivoire 86 270
Mozambique 82 751
Libya 82 303
Namibia 80 590
Botswana 61 174
Sudan 53 274
Malawi 51 220
Zambia 51 272
Burkina Faso 50 328
Cabo Verde 41 386
Gabon 37 292
Angola 33 133
Congo 32 210
Mauritania 31 177
Niger 30 240
Dem. Rep. of the Congo 29 260
Mali 27 273
Guinea 19 163
Burundi 17 35
Eritrea 16 161
Rwanda 16 67
Togo 15 48
Swaziland 13 79
Sierra Leone 10 95
Chad 9 49
Comoros 9 56
Gambia 7 72
Guinea-Bissau 7 49
Central African Republic 5 31
Djibouti 4 45
Liberia 3 8
Lesotho 3 13
Sao Tome and Principe 1 6


Oceania 25 072 205 383
Australia 20 937 174 009
New Zealand 4 818 40 114
Fiji 155 846
Papua New Guinea 68 724
Solomon Islands 28 236
Palau 26 130
Vanuatu 24 162
Cook Islands 20 147
Fed. States of Micronesia 20 65
Tonga 5 68
Marshall Islands 5 35
Tuvalu 4 7
Kiribati 4 9
Samoa 3 4
Niue 2 6
Nauru 1 4
Note: ARC and ARIF are not computed (N/C) for countries with less than 30 relative citation scores or 30 relative impact factors (see methods tab). The same applies for HCP 1% and HCP
10% (these need at least 30 relative impact factors). A growth rate (GR) is not computed when one of the periods (2010–2011 or 2013–2014) contains 0 articles. Colour coding indicates
performances above (green) or below (red) the world level.
Source: Computed by Science-Metrix from WoS data (Thomson Reuters)

Science-Metrix Nº Papers
● No Info
● 1 - 2,500
● 2,500 - 5,000
● 5,000 - 10,000
● 10,000 - 15,000
5
● 15,000 - 30,000
● 30,000 - 100,000
Science-Metrix Nº Citations
● No Info
● 1 - 10,000
● 10,000 - 50,000
● 50,000 - 100,000
● 100,000 - 200,000
● 200,000 - 400,000
● 400,000 - 900,000
Figure 5.2. Publication and citation map of the world where the area of each country is scaled and resized according to the number of ocean
science publications (top) or citations (bottom) received. Darker colours indicate more publications or citations (Annex F).

The research output of each country, in terms of the number of Table 5.2. Ranking of the 40 most publishing countries in Ocean Science
publications and the number of citations received, is illustrated for the periods 2000–2004, 2005–2009, 2010–2014 (blue - ranking
in Figure 5.2. In these cartograms the geographic regions are upgraded, grey - ranking downgraded; Annex F).
deformed and rescaled in proportion to their relative research 2000–2004
production5 (by publications and citations). The heterogeneity Country Rank Papers
shown in the comparison of both maps suggest asymmetries USA 1 66 786
in the use and penetration of published science; a number of UK 2 19 323
countries make a substantial contribution to research while Japan 3 16 469
others are less influential or have a negligible contribution. It Germany 4 14 099
is notable, however, that China, Brazil and India appear to have Canada 5 13 535
fewer citations than publications, indicated by the diminished France 6 12 727
relative size of the countries between the two indicators (Figure China 7 11 213
5.2), whereas the USA, Germany, UK or France are more Australia 8 10 094
influential in terms of citations than publications. Spain 9 7 916
Italy 10 7 888
Russia 11 6 175
5.2.2. Emerging scientific nations
Netherlands 12 5 021
The ocean scientific landscape is changing. Table 5.2 shows a Norway 13 4 928
selection of the top 40 ranked countries in terms of total number India 14 4 104
of publications as a function of time for three selected five- Brazil 15 3 813
year periods: 2000–2004, 2005–2009 and 2010–2014. Although Sweden 16 3 798
continuing to increase in absolute numbers of publications, Denmark 17 3 312
the proportion of papers published by traditional scientific Rep. of Korea 18 2 905
leaders (e.g. USA, UK, France, Germany and others) has been New Zealand 19 2 843
declining. Meanwhile, China has increased its publications to Mexico 20 2 774
the extent that it is now the second highest producer of research Belgium 21 2 615
output in the world. Brazil, India and the Republic of Korea are Switzerland 22 2 339
also increasing their share of research production, whereas Turkey 23 2 043
Japan, the Russian Federation and the Netherlands dropped by Portugal 24 2 011
four or five positions in the global ranking in the same period Poland 25 1 984
(Table 5.2). Israel 26 1 962
Finland 27 1 961
South Africa 28 1 907
Greece 29 1 818
Argentina 30 1 693
Austria 31 1 364
Chile 32 1 327
Ireland 33 966
Czechia 34 960
Singapore 35 910
Thailand 36 743
Egypt 37 655
Malaysia 38 375
Iran 39 336
Saudi Arabia 40 208
5 Simple coloured maps can be misleading as the value assigned by classes Note: The selection of the top 40 countries is based on their output during the period 2010–2014
of abundance gives an impression of a greater impact than in reality. Source: Computed by Science-Metrix from WoS data (Thomson Reuters)

2005–2009 2010–2014
Country Rank (∆ position) Paper Country Rank (∆ position) Paper

USA 1 81 723 USA 1 96 088
China 2 (+5) 28 325 China 2 57 848
UK 3 (-1) 23 342 UK 3 29 472
Japan 4 (-1) 19 336 Germany 4 (+1) 24 227
Germany 5 (-1) 18 048 France 5 (+2) 22 078
Canada 6 (-1) 17 646 Canada 6 21 073
France 7 (-1) 16 685 Australia 7 (+1) 20 937
Australia 8 14 154 Japan 8 (-4) 20 516
Spain 9 12 009 Spain 9 17 826
Italy
Brazil 11 (+4)
10 11 023
8 052
Italy
Brazil
10
11
15 083
13 211
5
India 12 (+2) 7 600 India 12 12 631
Norway 13 7 134 Rep. of Korea 13 (+3) 10 688
Russia 14 (-3) 7 047 Norway 14 (-1) 9 888
Netherlands 15 (-3) 6 443 Russia 15 (-1) 8 816
Rep. of Korea 16 (+2) 5 865 Netherlands 16 (-1) 8 780
Sweden 17 (-1) 4 666 Portugal 17 (+1) 6 606
Portugal 18 (+6) 4 367 Sweden 18 (-1) 6 377
Turkey 19 (+4) 4 314 Turkey 19 6 153
Denmark 20 (-3) 3 922 Denmark 20 5 794
Mexico 21 (-1) 3 805 Switzerland 21 (+3) 5 299
Belgium 22 (-1) 3 668 Mexico 22 (-1) 5 278
New Zealand 23 (-4) 3 617 Poland 23 (+2) 5 041
Switzerland 24 (-2) 3 533 Belgium 24 (-2) 5 011
Poland 25 3 502 New Zealand 25 (-2) 4 818
Greece 26 (+3) 2 948 Iran 26 (+8) 4 437
Argentina 27 (+3) 2 569 South Africa 27 (+1) 3 979
South Africa 28 2 525 Argentina 28 (-1) 3 780
Finland 29 (-2) 2 307 Chile 29 (+2) 3 577
Israel 30 (-4) 2 197 Greece 30 (-4) 3 531
Chile 31 (+1) 2 125 Malaysia 31 (+8) 3 315
Austria 32 (-1) 1 948 Finland 32 (-3) 3 114
Czechia 33 (+1) 1 798 Austria 33 (-1) 2 779
Iran 34 (+5) 1 650 Czechia 34 (-1) 2 720
Thailand 35 (+1) 1 627 Israel 35 (-5) 2 397
Ireland 36 (-3) 1 447 Thailand 36 (-1) 2 323
Singapore 37 (-2) 1 430 Singapore 37 2 307
Egypt 38 (-1) 1 086 Ireland 38 (-2) 2 272
Malaysia 39 (-1) 924 Egypt 39 (-1) 2 063
Saudi Arabia 40 313 Saudi Arabia 40 1 831

Portugal and Turkey have improved their standings and climbed 5.2.3. Building science: economic
into the top 20 in the period (2010–2014). Iran and Malaysia have and scientific wealth
also risen in the global ranking, climbing 13 and 7 positions
respectively in the last 15 years. Meanwhile, publication share The relationship between knowledge and wealth has been
has declined for several countries, most notably for some recognized since ancient times. Yet how this relationship works
European nations such as Finland and Ireland. Also, Israel and in the modern world is still a sensitive political issue; it is a
New Zealand declined in scientific performance. widely accepted principle that in order to achieve long-term and
sustainable economic growth, spending on education, research
Even maintaining a ranking position requires additional
and development is essential to produce a substantial amount
effort as countries have to increase their total publication
of innovative research.
output. For example, most European and western countries
maintained a steady share of publications between 2000 and To understand how this relationship works in ocean science, it is
2014, fluctuating only one or two positions up or down over the useful to compare the scientific efficiency (outputs – publications
whole period. However, in order to hold their ranking all have and citations – as a measure of returns on investment) relative to
increased the number of articles by around 35% for each of the gross domestic product (GDP) and ‘wealth intensity’ indicators
periods considered. (GDP per person, percentage of GDP and investment in R&D).
Table 5.3 shows the Pearson correlation coefficient (r2) of the
In summary, China, Iran, India, Brazil, the Republic of Korea,
tested variables for the 40 nations in the comparator group of
Turkey and Malaysia show the strongest relative growth between
Table 5.2, and Figure 5.3 displays the data for the correlations
the three periods indicated above. However, these countries –
indicated in grey in Table 5.3.
with the exception of China – are still far from the top positions,
which continue to be dominated by the USA, Canada, Australia
and European nations (UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy). Table 5.3. Matrix of Pearson correlation coefficient (r2) between
different economic and bibliometric indicators. For more detailed
The picture of scientific research is also starting to change information, the correlations highlighted in grey are displayed in
across the Middle East, where there are a number of significant Figure 5.3 (Annex F). Source: UIS (GDP), 2015.
new commitments to marine science in countries such as Iran
and Saudi Arabia. For example, Saudi Arabia has grown from Impact
Publications Citations
(Cit/Pub)
208 publications in the period 2000–2005 to 1,831 in the period
2010–2014, making it the fastest-growing country in terms GDP (country wealth) 0.952** 0.859** 0.001¯
of numbers of scientific publications in marine science in GDP per capita 0.016¯ 0.064¯ 0.717**
the world. % GDP in R&D 0.952** 0.071¯ 0.318*
Expenditure on R&D 0.895** 0.859** 0.011¯
Similar trends were reported in other bibliometric analyses,
such as fisheries science (Aksnes and Browman, 2015), physics Non-significant, *P<0.01, **P<0.001; economic indicators for 2013 (World Bank);
bibliometric indicators for the period 2010–2014 (Science-Metrix).
(Wilsdon, 2008) or science overall (UNESCO, 2010, 2015; Royal
Society, 2011). Countries such as China, Brazil, India, Turkey, Wealth intensity indicators (GDP, percentage GDP invested
Iran, Saudi Arabia and others have improved their overall in R&D and spending on R&D) all have a positive correlation
scientific performance by declaring research a public priority, with total number of published documents. Countries with
increasing their spending on R&D6 at rates rivalling that of high levels of publication activity also have stronger national
European countries (Wilsdon, 2008) and making significant economies (i.e. GDP) and high levels of R&D expenditure.
investments in environmental technologies (which are relevant
National science citation intensity also correlates with national
for global challenges such as climate change, water and food)
wealth intensity (GDP) and expenditure in R&D, but not with
(OECD, 2010).
percentage GDP invested in R&D. This could be because if
GDP is low, then even high percentages of GDP investment
6 China has heavily increased its investment in R&D, with spending would result in only modest absolute investments in science.
growing by almost 20% per year since 1999 to reach US$368 billion
PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) in 2014 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics Therefore, real investment in R&D seems to be a much more
database – accessed 7 March 2017– http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/ appropriate comparative index for this analysis (even if we were
cn?theme=science-technology-and-innovation) and India produces
roughly 2.5 million graduates in IT, engineering and the natural sciences
not able to obtain the amount of expenditure on ocean research
each year (Wilsdon, 2008). exclusively; see Chapter 4).

120,000 and retaining talented scientists. A report published by van

Noorden (2012) indicates that 12% of scientists from China and
100,000
US 37% from India have migrated to the UK, USA and Australia.
Number of publications (2010-2014)
Moreover, many researchers and scientists from other Asian

80,000
countries including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Jordan are also
60,000
moving to other continents (van Noorden, 2012). Secondly,
CN
many research institutions in countries that were low in
40,000 rankings, including those from Asia, Africa and South America
UK have multiple ‘missions’ (e.g. assessment, management,
DE
20,000 SP FR JP education, reports), which are not all oriented towards scientific
NO
CH RU publications. Thirdly, outstanding achievements obtained by
0
- 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 top researchers attract young talent; this causes a feedback
GDP in billions (US$, 2014) process that draws young talent towards North America or
Europe, whereas there may be less motivation for American or
European researchers to move to other continents.
14
The reasoning presented here is not entirely new. Earlier

5
12 CH
work has provided evidence that excellent national research
Ratio citations/publications
10 AT DK
DE SE generates opportunities for innovation and ultimately for
8 US
SP SG NO productivity and economic growth, as well as other societal
ZA
6 JP benefits (i.e. the overall development of nations) (Bell et al.,
KR 2014). The relationship is quite straightforward: the more
4 IN CN
resources that are available per researcher the more likely
2
research results will be produced that are regarded as seminal
0 and cited accordingly.
0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000
GDP per capita (US$, 2014) A better understanding of the factors influencing the quantity
and quality of research output is especially relevant for decision-
Figure 5.3. Comparison of economic and scientific wealth. Top:
National science publication output versus national GDP as an makers, given that direct public funding through grants,
indicator of national wealth intensity. Bottom: ratio of citations/ subsidies and loans remains the primary form of support for
national publications versus national GDP per capita as an indicator ocean science R&D, with an increased focus on competitive and
of individual wealth intensity. Data are shown only for the 40 nations merit-based programmes (see Chapter 4). However, the most
in the comparator group (see Table 5.2; Annex F). Country codes are
successful nations in terms of ocean science performance are
displayed according to ISO 3166 two-letter code, alpha-2. Source:
UIS (GDP), 2015 those that facilitate more financial resources per researcher,
which is a function of GDP per capita.
Small or medium-sized nations with high GDP per capita have Overall, research performance increases with economic wealth.
high citation impact (Figure 5.3). Sweden, Denmark, Austria, UK Investing a greater amount of GDP on R&D can generate strong
and especially Switzerland7 perform strongly on this measure. research and technological capabilities and enhance overall
At the other end of the scale, although China and India rank scientific performance. The production of highly cited scientific
second and ninth in the world, respectively, in terms of total articles having global impact is underpinned by a healthy
GDP, each has low GDP per capita and a modest citation impact. scientific research environment (depending on recruitment and
retention of top researchers, as well as access to equipment
There are several reasons relating scientific performance and
and facilities), and economic wealth.
economy. Firstly, those countries with better research and living
conditions may be more appealing or competitive in attracting
7 Switzerland, although it is a landlocked country, has good performance

in ocean sciences. This observation could be linked to the fact that a
number of international geoscience organizations have head offices
in the country in addition to the research in marine sciences from its
academic institutions.

Research profiles
5.3. Research profiles classification across disciplines is not detailed enough. For
instance, blue growth has become an important topic but
related research is spread across several sectors (tourism,
aquaculture, fisheries, etc.). Some European countries seem
5.3.1. Patterns in national and regional to be specialized in this new ocean science category (e.g.
specialization in ocean science Norway and Spain; which could be related to a focus on fisheries
by category research). Whereas UK, Germany and France show strength
in ‘Ocean and climate’, Russia, Italy and the Netherlands
To enable international comparisons, governments, managers
are important players in the category of ‘Ocean crust and
and scientists need an indication of disciplinary strengths and
marine geohazards’.
weaknesses of their national research profile based on reliable
indicators. For this purpose we have disaggregated ‘Ocean By contrast, several countries in Asia (i.e. China, Republic of
Science’ into seven categories: ‘Marine ecosystems functions Korea and Iran) show stronger performance in ‘Ocean technology
and processes’, ‘Ocean and climate’, ‘Ocean crust and marine and engineering’ but poorer performance in ‘Ecosystem
geohazards’, ‘Blue growth’, ‘Ocean health’, ‘Human health and functions and processes’ and ‘Ocean and climate’. Malaysia
well-being’ and ‘Ocean technology and engineering’, plus one shows a strong specialization in ‘Blue growth’, ‘Ocean health’
overarching topic: ‘Ocean observations and marine data’ (see and ‘Human health and well-being’. India and Japan specialize
Chapter 2 for details on the content of each category). As a in ‘Ocean crust and marine geohazards’ and are well‑balanced
metric for comparison purposes we have used the Specialization across the other categories. Israel’s scientific output shows a
Index (SI), which gives an overview of a nation’s research profile fairly well-balanced pattern across all categories.
(or specialization) by comparing the shares of the categories of Of the eight countries studied in Africa, six show very high SI
ocean science across a nation’s total publications to the overall values for ‘Human health and well-being’; in contrast, there is a
shares of each category for the world’s total publications. general lack of expertise in ‘Ocean technology and engineering’.
This national and disciplinary disaggregation process produces Kenya and Tanzania show the highest performance for ‘Human
a substantial database, but it can be presented in a compressed health and well-being’ and both are also strong in ‘Blue growth’.
form using spider or radial plots. The SI index for each category Nigeria is most specialized in ‘Ocean health’ but also strong
is normalized to that of the world in ocean science (World=1), in ‘Human health and well-being’. In contrast, Morocco is
which permits an easier comparison and a reference for more visible in ‘Ocean crust and marine geohazards’ and is
visualization in the spider plots. Results in Figure 5.4 are well-balanced in the other categories. South Africa shows a
given for the five continents (America is divided into North and well-balanced pattern, relatively uniform in each research
South America) and for every nation accounting for at least profile with slightly higher values in ‘Ecosystem functioning
300 publications in the studied period (2010–2014), with the and processes’. Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria are fairly strong
exception of Fiji Islands (155 publications, but still ranking #3 in ‘Human health and well-being’ with Algeria also showing
for Oceania). strengths in ‘Ocean technology and engineering’.
In terms of the relative specialization of countries in scientific In North America, 7 of 20 countries accounted for more than 300
disciplines, Figure 5.4 reveals some marked asymmetries publications in ocean science in the studied period and all of
among countries. The traditionally dominant scientific countries them performed well in ‘Ecosystem functioning and processes’.
(USA, UK, Germany, France, Canada and Australia) show a fairly USA and Canada are also specialized in ‘Ocean and climate’ and
well‑balanced pattern, relatively uniform, in their individual ‘Ocean observation and marine data’. Mexico, Cuba and Costa
research profiles with slightly higher values in ‘Ecosystem Rica show above average performance levels in ‘Human health
functioning and processes’ and ‘Ocean and climate’. Japan and and well-being’ and for ‘Blue growth’.
Russia are specialized in ‘Ocean crust and marine geohazards’
All eight countries compared in South America are particularly
and China in ‘Ocean technology and engineering’.
strong in ‘Ecosystem functioning and processes’, but weak (with
Over the past five years, several new trends have emerged the exception of Peru) in ‘Ocean and Climate’. Peru and Ecuador
in terms of national research priorities. Some of the data on also have good scores in ‘Blue growth’, ‘Human health and
scientific publications reflect these priorities but often the well‑being’ and ‘Ocean health’.

Research profiles
Europe Asia
Blue growth Blue growth

2,0 2,0
Human health and Marine ecosystems Human health and Marine ecosystems
well-being 1,5 functions and processes well-being 1,5 functions and processes
1,0 1,0
0,5 0,5
Ocean Ocean
technology Ocean technology Ocean
and and climate and and climate
engineering engineering
Ocean observation Ocean crust Ocean observation Ocean crust

and marine data and marine geohazards and marine data and marine geohazards
5
Ocean health Ocean health
● World ● France ● Germany ● Italy ● Netherlands ● Norway ● Russia ● World ● China ● India ● Iran ● Israel ● Japan ● Malaysia
● Spain ● UK ● Maldives ● Rep. of Korea ● Turkey
Africa North America

5 3,0
Human health and 4 Marine ecosystems Human health and 2,5 Marine ecosystems
well-being functions and processes well-being functions and processes
2,0
3
1,5
2
1,0
1 0,5
Ocean Ocean

● World ● Algeria ● Egypt ● Kenya ● Morocco ● Nigeria ● South Africa ● World ● Canada ● Costa Rica ● Cuba ● Mexico
● Tunisia ● United Rep. of Tanzani ● Panama ● USA
Figure 5.4. National strengths in different ocean sciences categories. Spider plots show the Specialization Index (SI) compared to
the world (2010–2014) for the nations accounting for at least 300 publications in the studied period (note discussion on Fiji, under
Section 5.2.1; Annex F).

Research profiles
South America Oceania

3,0 2,0
Human health and 2,5 Marine ecosystems Human health and Marine ecosystems
well-being functions and processes well-being 1,5 functions and processes
2,0
1,5 1,0
1,0
0,5
Ocean 0,5 Ocean

● World ● Argentina ● Brazil ● Chile ● Colombia ● Ecuador ● Peru

● World ● Australia ● Fed. States of Micronesia ● New Zealand
● Uruguay ● Venezuela
Figure 5.4. continued
Finally, in Oceania both Australia and New Zealand show a communicating in the common language of science, cultural
fairly well-balanced pattern for SI in each category. Australia similarities or geographic proximity.
seems more specialized in ‘Ecosystem functions and processes’
and ‘Ocean and climate’ than in other areas such as ‘Ocean
technology and engineering’. New Zealand is also weaker in
5.3.2. National positional analysis in ocean
‘Ocean technology and engineering’ than other areas, such science by category
as ‘Ocean crust and marine geohazards’. Fiji shows high
In order to visualize the composite performance of countries
performance in several categories, including ‘Blue growth’,
we used the positional analysis, which combines three separate
‘Human health and well-being’ and ‘Ocean technology and
indicators (number of papers, specialization index, SI, and
engineering’; however it must be noted that these indices
average of relative citations, ARC) to allow easy interpretation
were calculated with a very low number of publications (155
and comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of nations in
documents) in the studied period. Furthermore, the main
each category of ocean science. The abscissa (horizontal axis)
campus of the University of the South Pacific, (one of the major
corresponds to the SI, the ordinate (vertical axis) to the ARC
research institutions in the region) is located in Fiji but jointly
and the size of the bubble is proportional to the number of
owned by the governments of 12 member countries in the region.
publications. The world level is situated on the axes; a bubble
The research publication profiles clearly illustrate the diversity in the second and third quadrant is less specialized than the
that exists among countries and may reflect different scientific world average while a bubble in the third and fourth quadrant
priorities and needs. This variation is usually not visible in shows an ARC score lower than the world ARC average (see
aggregated analysis (e.g. if ocean sciences were subdivided into Section 2.3.2 in Chapter 2 for a more detailed explanation on the
only three or four categories) and therefore this methodology is statistical methods). For ocean science overall, we compared
useful to obtain a clear overview of the different activities and the performance for the 40 nations in the comparator group of
profiles of countries and enable international comparison. The Table 5.2, and the results are shown in Figure 5.5. In addition
challenge is to use this information to transfer knowledge and —and to enrich the comparison in the different categories— we
technology and create new capacities, using the advantages of used the 40 highest publishing countries in each category and

Research profiles
the results are presented in Figure 5.6 (in total for this analysis terms of specialization but low penetration in citation rates.
we compared 45 countries). In the third quadrant we find most of Asian and Arab nations.
In spite of the similarity of research topics between ‘Ocean and

Ocean science
climate’ and ‘Ecosystem functioning and processes’, which
could produce a high autocorrelation in the analysis, the plots
show few coincidences in the relative position of the countries,
supporting the Global Ocean Science Report delineation of
categories of ocean science. Most of the 40 analysed countries
CHE
FIN
GBR
DNK for ‘Ocean and climate’ are spread between the first and third
NLD SWE FRA
AUT
DEU quadrants (Figure 5.6). According to the results, none of the
Above
CAN AUS NZL

SGP BEL USA
IRL ESP NOR BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are particularly
ITA
Scientific Impact (ARC)
ISR CZE ZAF PRT influential in ‘Ocean and climate’ research at a global scale.
World Level
SAU GRC
CHN KOR Also, Iran, Egypt and Turkey show lower performance in the
CHL
THA positional analysis for this research category.
5
JPN ARG
MYS
POL BRA
Below
IRN EGY MEX Regarding ‘Ocean health’, 30 of the 40 analysed nations show
IND TUR
RUS a specialization level above the world average, demonstrating
good performance in research areas such as pollution, alien
species and other impacts caused by anthropogenic activities.
However, the countries with the highest SI values also show
modest publication production, indicated by small bubble sizes
Below World Level Above
Specialization Index (SI) (Figure 5.6). Most industrialized nations, where important
chemical industries are based (such as Germany, Netherlands,
Figure 5.5. Positional analysis for the 40 countries included in the
comparison group for ocean science output, 2010–2014. The size UK, Switzerland, USA, Japan and China) rank below the world
of the bubble is proportional to the number of publications for SI average in this category, although they produce abundant
that country over the study period. (Country codes are displayed literature and some are among the most influential according
according to ISO 3166 three-letter code, alpha-3; Annex F). to their impact rates.
The positional analysis for ‘Human health and well-being’

The positional analysis for ocean science overall does not show
reveals that 39 of 40 countries have SI scores above or close
much dispersion in nations’ distribution in the plot, as most of
to the world average. In fact, the distribution of the countries
them are grouped close to the centre of both axes (Figure 5.5).
is displaced towards the right side, in the case of the third and
This is because this presents the average position of nations,
fourth quadrants the bubbles are closer to the centre of the Y
and therefore we lose the perspective on an individual nation’s
axis (Figure 5.6) than for any other category. Kenya shows the
contribution and specialization in each thematic category. This highest performance in SI and Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia
figure is useful to compare the relative position of the nations also have high scores for SI. Kenya is also influential in terms
displayed in the plots shown in Figure 5.6. of citations for this category.
The category ‘Ecosystem functioning and processes’ is likely The first and second quadrants for ‘Blue growth’ are populated
the most classic research topic in ocean science and the by small and medium bubbles, perhaps because this is a new
distribution of the nations in the plot shows that the first emerging area or because blue growth is a broad concept
quadrant is occupied by countries with a longstanding tradition spanning several sectors. With tourism, aquaculture and
in ocean science from North America and Europe plus Australia, fisheries part of blue growth, it is understandable that two well-
New Zealand and South Africa (Figure 5.6). The second quadrant developed but landlocked nations, Switzerland and Austria,
is mostly populated by Latin American countries (Brazil, show the poorest SI in this category (Figure 5.6). On the other
Argentina, Chile and Mexico) which have high performance in hand, Romania shows the poorest performance in terms of ARC.

Research profiles
Ecosystems functions and processes Ocean and climate
AUT
CHE
AUT BEL GBR DNK CHE NLD
NLD FIN SWE FIN DNK
NOR PRT SWE
DEU DEU GBR FRA
Above
Above
FRA CAN AUS BEL
USA ITA AUS NOR
ITA IRL ESP NZL USA
GRC ZAF IRL CHL
ISR NZL

PRT SAU ESP ZAF CAN
World Level
World Level
CZE ISR GRC
CHN POL SGP POL ARG
SAU MEX CHL CZE EGY JPN
KOR JPN ARG
RUS BRA MYS CHN EST
MEX
Below
Below
MYS TUN TUR
TUR THA HRV
IND IRN BRA KOR
IRN IND RUS
Below World Level Above Below World Level Above

Specialization Index (SI) Specialization Index (SI)
Ocean health Human health and well-being
CHE PRT
DNK CHE NLD GBR
NLD SWE DNK IRL
GBR BEL ITA SWE AUS
AUT DEU IRL AUS NOR USA NOR KEN
Above
Above
FRA DEU CAN

USA CAN NZL FRA ZAF
ITA FIN ESP SGP ESP NZL
GRC PRT FIN ARG
BEL
CZE GRC MYS
World Level
World Level
SAU CHL
ARG ZAF RUS ISR
KOR CHN SAU
MYS CHN KOR THA
JPN CHL POL MEX
IND JPN
BRA
Below
Below
TUN
IRN EGY MEX IND
POL TUR HRV EGY
IRN BRA
RUS ROU TUR
TUN

Figure 5.6. Positional analysis for the eight oceans science categories The size of the bubble is proportional to the number of publications for that
country over the study period. (Country codes are displayed according to ISO 3166 three-letter code, alpha-3; Annex F).

Research profiles
Blue growth Ocean crust and marine geohazards
CHE CHE
SGP NLD DNK NLD
SWE GBR IRL AUS NZL AUT AUS
DEU GBR
Above
Above
USA FRA PRT NOR
CAN ESP USA DEU FRA
AUT FIN SAU GRC SWE
CAN DNK NOR
ZAF SGP BEL ESP

ISR PRT
BEL ITA CHN IRL JPN ITA
ZAF NZL
World Level
World Level
POL
CHL
CHN
KOR ARG MYS ROU
ISR SAU GRC CHL
TUR IDN
JPN IND THA CZE KOR POL ARG
RUS TUR
Below
Below
MEX IRN BRA MEX

EGY BRA MYS IND EGY
RUS
ROU
IRN
5

Ocean technology and engineering Ocean observation and marine data
SGP PRT CHE

CHE NLD NZL AUS DNK
FIN ESP DNK NLD
ITA BEL FRA ZAF
DEU CHL FRA DEU SWE GBR
AUT AUT
AUS
Above
Above
ZAF USA FIN

GBR CAN NZL
USA NOR
ARG BEL IRL IRL
GRC NOR
CAN SAU SGP ITA

TUR ESP
IRN MYS GRC CHL PRT
World Level
World Level
CZE POL
SWE EGY IND
ISR JPN ARG
JPN ISR
KOR RUS
CHN THA
ROU
Below
Below
BRA MEX
CHN TUR MYS
RUS BRA
IRN
KOR HRV
MEX IND
HRV
EGY
POL

Figure 5.6. continued

Collaboration patterns and capacity development
In contrast to the previous category, the first quadrant for quadrant with high scores for both indices (SI and ARC) in each
‘Ocean crust and marine geohazards’ is populated by big of the eight categories. Also, Switzerland shows a relatively
bubbles, indicating higher total numbers of publications. steady position with high scores in ARC although its scores
Indonesia appears as the second nation with the highest SI. are below world average for SI (mostly appearing in the high
Chile, Japan and India are also above the world average. The part of the second quadrant in six of eight categories). It is
Russian Federation, with a longstanding tradition in geology, also interesting to see how the USA (the largest bubble in
is also well above the world average in SI in this category. It this analysis) moves gradually from the first quadrant (in
is noticeable that China gets its best score in terms of citation ‘Observations and data’, ‘Ocean and climate’ and ‘Ecosystem
in this topic (Figure 5.6). All major scientific research nations, functioning and processes’) to the second quadrant (in ‘Human
as well as most of the countries affected by tsunami events, health and well-being’, ‘Ocean health’, ‘Blue growth’).
are above the world average for both SI and citation impact,
The weaker position of China, Republic of Korea, Japan,
revealing a high interest for this research area.
Brazil and Russia in this analysis – very often appearing in
There is a high expectation of new devices and equipment the third quadrant – could be explained by the fact that these
developed by ‘Ocean technology and engineering’ and many countries produce over 70% of their overall publications from
countries show good scores in average relative citations in national researchers alone (Royal Society, 2011). Domestic
this category. However, their performance in SI is quite low, for collaboration is not as beneficial to citation impact as
example, 18 countries occur in the second quadrant (Figure 5.6), international collaboration (see Section 5.4).
making this plot distinctive among the eight categories
compared in this analysis. Mirroring other areas of science and
society, China and Korea get high scores in SI, but also Norway
and other countries are above the world average in SI. 5.4. Collaboration patterns and
‘Ocean observation and marine data’ encompass – and are capacity development
necessary for – all ocean science categories. The distribution
of the 40 nations in the plot resembles the ‘Ocean and climate’ Today, many scientific papers are co-authored, increasingly
plot. This is likely to be because observation networks and big by researchers from different countries, which enable the
data sets are important for climate change science. Countries ratios and routes of collaboration to be traced and quantified.
sharing equipment (e.g. satellites, Argo buoys or research Collaboration can be beneficial for several reasons. It
vessels) and offering free access to their data collections provides a larger pool of available ideas (intellectual synergy),
appear in the first quadrant (see Chapter 3). It is perhaps methods and resources, and allows cost sharing and time
understandable that landlocked countries such as Austria, saving through division of labour (Katz and Martin, 1997;
Switzerland and Czechia, show poor scores in SI in this category Leimu and Koricheva, 2005a). The degree of collaboration is
(Figure 5.6), but they are still above or close to the world average also often taken into account when making funding, hiring
relative citation index. and promotion decisions (Herbertz, 1995; Katz and Martin,
This analysis shows how nations are specialized in specific 1997). Consequently, scientific collaboration is commonly
categories of research and, as there was no evidence considered a prerequisite of high-quality research. The
of autocorrelation in the results, illustrates that the number and multiplicity of connections have been favoured
categorization used in this report is neither spurious nor by the establishment of global programmes under the UN
overlapping. There are still elements for reflection - for umbrella and international projects financed by international
example, the steady position that Norway shows in the first commissions, which have promoted international cooperation

Single author vs. multiple authors
a)
5
4
% Articles
1
5
0
0- 0.1 0.1- 0.2 0.2- 0.3 0.3- 0.4 0.4- 0.5 0.5- 0.6 0.6- 0.7 0.7- 0.8 0.8- 0.9 0.9- 1 1- 1.1 1.1- 1.2 1.2- 1.3 1.3- 1.4 1.4- 1.5 1.5- 1.6 1.6- 1.7 1.7- 1.8 1.8- 1.9 >=1.9
(ARIF)
● single author ● multiple authors
Single country vs. multiple countries
b)
6
4
% Articles
0
0- 0.1 0.1- 0.2 0.2- 0.3 0.3- 0.4 0.4- 0.5 0.5- 0.6 0.6- 0.7 0.7- 0.8 0.8- 0.9 0.9- 1 1- 1.1 1.1- 1.2 1.2- 1.3 1.3- 1.4 1.4- 1.5 1.5- 1.6 1.6- 1.7 1.7- 1.8 1.8- 1.9 >=1.9
(ARIF)
● single country ● multiple countries
Figure 5.7. Comparison of scores in the average of relative impact factors (ARIF) in: a) articles produced by one single author (grey bars) versus
multiple authors (blue bars); and b) articles produced by all authors from the same country (domestic, grey bars) versus multiple counties
(international, blue bars; Annex F).

and connected researchers pursuing common scientific related to an increased frequency of self-citations in the case
questions or interests from different parts of the world. of multi-authored papers (Herbertz, 1995).
The level of internationalization of science differs among

5.4.1. Scientific cooperation matters regions and countries. According to the Royal Society (2011),
China, Turkey, Taiwan (China), India, Republic of Korea and
The net value of collaboration is an issue under discussion, as Brazil produce over 70% of their publications from national
the potential benefits may depend on the type of collaboration, researchers alone. By contrast, small nations and less
the discipline and the country or countries involved. For example, developed countries are collaborating at a much higher
international collaboration is generally considered to increase rate. Over half of the research published from Belgium, the
citation rates more than domestic collaboration (Narin et al., Netherlands and Denmark in the period 2004–2008 was the
1991; Leimu and Koricheva, 2005b; Jarić et al., 2012). product of multinational authorship.
Despite the increasing emphasis placed on collaboration In summary, collaboration is a means to spread efforts over
in scientific research, little is known about the extent of different individuals and institutions, enhance intellectual
collaboration that occurs and whether or not a relationship synergy and allow resources to be shared. Collaboration is
exists between the degree of collaboration and the impact believed to be a highly effective tool for enhancing efficiency
of a research study (Figg et al., 2006). In order to illustrate and productivity in scientific research because: (i) papers with
how scientific cooperation matters in ocean sciences, two many authors are most probably multidisciplinary papers, so
comparisons were carried out. Firstly, we determined the that citations in various disciplines can be expected; (ii) the
average of relative impact factors (ARIF) for articles signed more authors a paper has, the larger the network in which
by a single author versus papers published by multiple the paper will become known through personal contacts; and
authors. Secondly, we classified collaboration as domestic (iii) each additional author increases the probability of self-
citations (Bornmann et al., 2012). The results of our study could
in-house collaboration (all authors from the same country)
encourage marine scientists to cooperate more in international
versus international collaboration (authors from more than
research projects and to develop publication strategies that
one country).
would increase their chances of achieving high citations without
The effect of collaboration on scientific impact appears to compromising the quality of the science produced.
be positive in both comparisons (Figure 5.7) as the scores
for multiple authors and multiple countries (international
cooperation), represented by the blue bars, are placed to the 5.4.2. Research neighbourhood
right side of the distribution, whereas the grey bars accumulate
Knowing how scientific interactions vary with region and
the higher scores on the left side of the plot. distance is valuable for practical reasons. For researchers, it
Although it could be argued that the expected benefits of might suggest how to choose collaborators in order to optimize
collaborative research in ecological sciences are relatively the impact and visibility of their research. For institutions and
modest (Leimu and Koricheva, 2005a, 2005b), our analysis shows governments, it might advise suitable allocations of funds
that the citation rates of ocean science papers are affected for regional and international projects, in order to improve
by the number of authors and their internationalization. The the scientific outcome for a given amount of resources
higher citation rates received by multi-authored papers might (Pan et al., 2012).
reflect the true benefit of multidisciplinarity of such articles Figure 5.8 shows the collaboration network established in the
or the advantages of division of labour. In addition, the larger top 40 most publishing countries in ocean science in absolute
the number of authors, the larger the network of scientists terms (Figure 5.8a), and also how this relates to the network
that might know one of them, increasing the probability that of the top 40 most publishing institutions (Figure 5.8b). A
such papers will be brought to the attention of the citer through European cluster dominates the centre of the country network
personal contacts (Bornmann et al., 2012). Alternatively, the (Figure 5.8a), linking with the USA, and also with Canada
increase in citation rates with the number of authors might be (via France) and Australia (via UK). The USA has a strong link

Argentina
Israel
Chile
Greece
Poland
Brazil Turkey
Portugal
Ireland
Denmark
Spain Italy
5
Belgium
Netherlands Finland
Russia Germany
France Norway
Czechia
Switzerland
UK
USA Sweden
South Africa Canada
Austria
Australia
China
New Zealand
Japan
Mexico
Thailand Egypt
India
Rep. of Korea
Iran Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Malaysia
Figure 5.8a. International collaboration network of selected top publishing a) nations and b) organizations in ocean science, 2010–2014. The
size of the nodes is proportional to the number of publications in ocean science and the thickness of the lines is proportional to the number of
collaborations (co-authored papers). Nodes are arranged using an algorithm where linked nodes are attracted to each other while unlinked
nodes are pushed apart (Annex F).

USDA
U. Nacl Autónoma de México
U. Calif, Davis
U. Maryland
U. Florida
USGS
DFO
Oregon State U. DOE

Ocean U. China
NOAA U. British Columbia

Min. Educ. China U. Hawaii Manoa NASA
Chinese Acad. Sci. U. Washington
U. Calif, San Diego

MPG
WHOI RAS
Helmholtz Gemeinschaft
U. Tokyo
Hokkaido U. Christian-Albrechts U.
NERC
CNRS
CSIRO Leibniz Gemeinschaft
UPMC U. Bergen
U. Southampton
U. Queensland
IFREMER
CSIC
James Cook U.
CNR
U. Western Australia
CONICET
U. São Paulo
Figure 5.8b. continued

with Canada and also with China and, to a lesser extent, with witnessed the formation of larger research teams supported
Australia. In the periphery, weaker connections established by international programmes of the UN or by international
between countries from different continents can be observed. commissions (see Chapter 7 for more information). Multi-
institutional collaborations are more likely to lead to higher
In terms of institutional collaboration, the largest nationally
impact publications, especially if they involve different countries.
funded institutions dominate the landscape (Figure 5.8b). This
is likely the result of different research models. The centre of Geographic proximity is also likely to favour the process of
the diagram is occupied by the European cluster composed giving and receiving credit for someone’s work, expressed
of French organizations such as the Centre national de la by paper citations. For most papers, one expects to find a
recherche scientifique (CNRS), Institut Français de Recherche diminishing probability of citation with distance, as new findings
pour l’Exploitation de la Mer (IFREMER) and Pierre and Marie are typically more visible in the area where the authors operate
Curie University (UPMC), the Spanish Consejo Superior (Van Noorden, 2010, 2012). In addition, collaboration patterns
de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), the British Natural are likely to be influenced by results: while collaborating,
Environment Research Council (NERC) (all examples of a scientists become more familiar with the scientific output
centralized model), and several German organizations (as an of their co-authors, and then more stable collaborations are
example of a decentralized model). A second cluster is made by
US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
established and have a higher chance to be cited in the future.
In turn, scientists who frequently cite each other’s work have
5
and several universities and other research organizations, strongly overlapping research interests, and are more likely to
including the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), become co-authors sooner or later. Therefore, citations and
which has clear links with European organizations. A third collaborations between distinct locations are highly correlated
large cluster is composed of several Chinese organizations; and it is good practice to improve scientific quality and transfer
however, these do not maintain particularly strong links with of knowledge and technology.
the neighbours in the region (i.e. Japan, Korea). A fourth cluster
International cooperation enhances the flow of knowledge.
is made up of Australian and New Zealand institutions, which
It also helps to get a new result recognized by the scientific
are connected to both British and USA organizations. Canada’s
community in different geographical areas, which in turn may
research structure is decentralized (composed of small
help to reveal how new scientific paradigms spread and get
organizations) with key collaborative hubs being Department
established.
of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) and the University of
British Columbia. Apparently, Latin American institutions from The architecture of world science is changing with the
Argentina (CONICET), Brazil (Univ. Sao Paulo) and Mexico expansion of global networks. These involve networks of
(Univ. Nacional Autónoma de Mexico) have comparatively individuals, communities of practice and groups, sometimes
weaker international connections. orchestrated and funded internationally or by cross-national
structures such as the UN or the EU (Van Noorden, 2012). These
global networks increasingly exert a significant influence on the
5.4.3. Opportunities to enable collaboration conduct of science across the world and open new opportunities
and promote excellent science for collaboration and the promotion of excellent science.
Multi-authored collaborations serve as a major opportunity for When considering the motivations and benefits of international
ocean science, as a wide range of competences and skills can be collaboration, the political and diplomatic dimensions also
integrated to tackle difficult problems and improve the chances warrant reflection. Chapters 7 and 8 will explore the potential
of success (Pan et al., 2012). Indeed, the last decades have of scientific collaboration in greater detail.

REFERENCES
References
Aksnes, D. W. and Browman, H. I. 2015. An overview of global UNGA. 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for
research effort in fisheries science. ICES Journal of Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. UNGA.
Marine Science, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 1044-11.Bell, J., Frater,
B., Butterfield, L., Cunningham, S., Dodgson, M., Fox, K., van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., Moed, H. F., Nederhof, T. J. and
Spurling, T. and Webster, E. 2014. The role of science, research van Raan, A. F. J. 2003. Holy Grail of science policy: Exploring
and technology in lifting Australian productivity. Report for the and combining bibliometric tools in search of scientific
Australian Council of Learned Academies. www.acola.org.au. excellence. Scientometrics, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 257-80.
(Accessed 8 June 2017) Van Noorden, R. 2010. Cities: Building the best cities for science.
Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W. and Daniel, H. D. 2012. What Nature, Vol. 467, No. 7318, p. 906.
factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry Van Noorden, R. 2012. Global mobility: Science on the move. Nature,
besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 6, pp. 11–18. Vol. 490, No. 7420, pp. 326–29.
Figg, W., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Wilsdon, J. 2008. The new geography of science. Physics World,
Barrett, J. C. and Birkinshaw, J. 2006. Scientific collaboration Vol. 21, no.10, pp. 51-53.
results in higher citation rates of published articles.
Pharmacotherapy, Vol. 6, pp. 759–67.
Herbertz, H. 1995. Does it pay to cooperate? A bibliometric case study
in molecular biology. Scientometrics, Vol. 33, pp. 117–22.
Jarić, I., Cvijanović, G., Knežević-Jarić, J. and Lenhardt, M. 2012.
Trends in fisheries science from 2000 to 2009: a bibliometric
study. Reviews in Fisheries Science, Vol. 20, No. 2, 70-79.
Katz, J. S. and Martin, B. R. 1997.What is research collaboration?
Research Policy, Vol. 26, pp. 1–18.
Leimu, R. and Koricheva, J. 2005a. Does scientific collaboration
increase the impact of ecological articles? BioScience,
Vol. 55, No. 5, pp. 438-43.
Leimu, R. and Koricheva, J. 2005b. What determines the citation
frequency of ecological papers? Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, Vol. 20, pp. 28–32.
Martin, B. R. 1996. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment
of basic research. Scientometrics, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.343-62.
Narin, F., Stevens, K. and Whitlow, E. S. 1991. Scientific co-operation
in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers.
Scientometrics, Vol. 21, pp. 313–23.
OECD. 2002. Frascati Manual: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys
on Research and Experimental Development. Paris, OECD.
OECD. 2010. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2010.
Paris, OECD..
OECD. 2014. Main Science and Technology Indicators. Volume 2013,
Issue 1. Paris, OECD.
Pan, R. K., Kaski, K. and Fortunato, S. 2012. World citation and
collaboration networks: uncovering the role of geography in
science. Scientific Reports, Vol. 2.
Pritchard, A. 1969. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal
of Documentation, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 348-49.
Royal Society. 2011. Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific
Collaboration in the 21st Century. Policy document 3/11.
London, The Royal Society.
UNESCO. 2010. UNESCO Science Report 2010: The Current Status of
Science Around the World. Paris, UNESCO.UNESCO. 2015.
UNESCO Science Report 2015: Towards 2030. Paris, UNESCO.

6
Oceanographic
data,
information
management
and exchange
© Shutterstock.com/The Hilary Clark

6. Oceanographic
data, information
management
and exchange
Hernan E. Garcia,1 Ariel H. Troisi,2 Bob Keeley,3
Greg Reed,4 Linda Pikula,5 Lisa Raymond,6
Henrik Enevoldsen,7 Peter Pissierssens7
1 – NOAA NESDIS National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), USA
2 – Servicio de Hidrografía Naval (SHN), Argentina
3 – Retired from the Canadian Government in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans
4 – IODE Programme
5 – NOAA Central Library, USA
6 – MBLWHOI Library, USA
Garcia, H.E., Troisi, A.H., Keeley, B., Reed, G., Pikula, L., Raymond, L., Enevoldsen, H.

and Pissierssens, P. 2017. Oceanographic data and information management and
exchange. In: IOC-UNESCO, Global Ocean Science Report—The current status of ocean
science around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds). Paris, UNESCO, pp. 126–145.
128 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © Shutterstock.com/Anton Balazh

Oceanographic data, information management and exchange
Introduction
6.1. Introduction oceanographic data in these databases have been collected over
time by different observing systems and for different purposes.
Many global- to regional-scale surveys and time series of
To document and understand the dynamics and interactions of
various water column variables have been carried out since the
the world ocean in the context of the earth climate system, it is
1900s. Examples of international ocean observing programmes
necessary to have access to relevant and timely oceanographic
include the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE), the
observational data and information. Documenting ocean
Argo Program, the Climate and Ocean: Variability, Predictability
mean-state and its variability has been a long-time goal of
and Change (CLIVAR), and many others.
oceanographic science. A science-based, integrated approach
to combine observations with appropriate data synthesis and While ocean-observing systems provide access to a large
modelling efforts enables informed decision-making in order amount of in situ data, the quantity of measured ocean Essential
to respond to and mitigate impacts of environmental change Climate Variables (ECV) as defined by the Global Climate
and improve resilience. Observing System (GCOS) varies considerably because these
programmes are designed to sample certain variables only.1
The global community has established the 2030 Agenda for
Some of these are part of the Essential Ocean Variables (EOVs)
Sustainable Development. In this framework, the Sustainable
as defined by the Global Ocean Observing System. Some
Development Goals (SDGs) adopted by the UN include a stand-
key EOVs are in situ temperature, salinity, ocean currents,
alone goal for the oceans, SDG 14 ‘Conserve and sustainably use
nutrients, dissolved inorganic and organic carbon, inorganic
the oceans, seas and marine resources’, as well as a goal for
climate change, SDG 13 ‘Take urgent action to combat climate
carbon, dissolved gases such as oxygen, transient tracers,
plankton, etc.2 When these EOVs and other data are integrated
6
change and its impacts’. Other relevant agreements include
into common data formats and quality-controlled databases,
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030,
these have a significant impact on the development of valued-
the SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action (SAMOA) Pathway and
added scientific products. These databases are actively used
the decisions adopted under the 1992 United Nations Framework
for addressing a number of questions, ranging from diagnostic
Convention on Climate Change, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement.
studies of ocean variability at multiple time and spatial scales
These agreements highlight the need for States to adopt
to input for ocean data assimilation and numerical efforts to
scientifically sound and informed decisions, thus raising the
answer real world problems.
need to collect, control, provide access to, and preserve data
and information, as well as to exchange and implement best Regionally and globally, there is a diverse array of organizations,
practices for data management. partnerships and programmes working with data and
information compilation, sharing and management. The
In addition, the adoption by the UN General Assembly of
examples of organizations, partnerships and projects listed
Resolution 69/292 regarding the development of a new
in Table 6.1 have diverse approaches and different degrees
international legally binding instrument under the 1982 United
of open access to data. However, it reflects the widespread
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) on the
recognition of the importance and demand for ocean data and
conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity
information management.
of areas beyond national jurisdiction has prompted discussions
at the international level on effective ways and means to The International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange
access and use ocean data, including marine biodiversity (IODE) Programme of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
data, information and products. In this context, the Ocean Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO) has served a critical
Biogeographic Information System (OBIS) has been recognized role in supporting the development of internationally recognized
by States as a critical element to reach the proposed goals, databases and projects, such as the World Ocean Database
being the most comprehensive gateway to the world’s ocean (WOD), the Global Oceanographic Data Archaeology and
biodiversity and biogeographic data and information required Rescue (GODAR), the Global Temperature and Salinity Profile
to address pressing coastal and world ocean concerns. Programme (GTSPP), the Underway Sea Surface Salinity Data
Archiving Project (GOSUD), the International Quality Controlled
To characterize ocean variability, the international scientific
community needs access to the most complete and reliable 1 GCOS http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/index.
scientific databases of historical physical, chemical, geological php?name=EssentialClimateVariables
and biological oceanographic observational data. The 2 GOOS EOVs http://goosocean.org/eov

Introduction
Table 6.1. Examples of the many organizations, partnerships and Ocean Database (IODE-IQuOD) and OBIS. These international
programmes working with ocean data and information management. projects and associated databases have stimulated exchange
Some of the organizations mentioned also operate globally. Source: of historical and modern oceanographic data. Further, these
IODE, 2017.
projects have promoted synergy, leading to the development
of quality-control procedures and the integration of research-
Region Examples
quality data at local, regional and global scales, resulting in a
Africa PROPAO, IOGOOS, MESA, GOOS Africa,
continuing increase of ocean data stored in these databases
ODINAFRICA, MadaBIF, WIOMSA, UNEP
clearinghouse mechanism, PIRATA, (Figure 6.1).
MOLOA, AWA, AfrOBIS.
The main challenges and potential gaps facing the acquisition,
South America CMA, CLME, SPINCAM, ODINCARSA,
management and exchange of data and information at this
including Caribbean OBIS, CPPS-OBIS.
the Caribbean time are: (i) sustaining robust ocean observing systems that
Europe ICES, HELCOM, SeaDataNet, EMODNet, include EOVs; and (ii) ensuring that data collected by different
Copernicus, Jerico, CAFF, EUROFLEETS, countries are made accessible in an open and timely manner
HAZADR, PERSEUS, MEDIN, GEBCO, through robust databases using common data formats and
GEOTRACES, GLOSS, Argo, AtlantOS,
metadata best practices – and served using inter-operable
EMSO, IQUOD, OceanSites, IbiROOS,
CoCoNet, Emblas, Black Sea SCENE, data delivery systems. Only in such an integrated and open
AORA, Caspinfo, WoRMS, OTN, LTER, data access framework is it possible to document regional to
LIFEWATCH, EMBRC, NAMMCO, ICCAT, global climate-related events and inform society and decision-
MyOcean, SOOS, EuroGOOS, MedGOOS, makers. At present, the Marine Climate Data System (MCDS)
EurOBIS, MedOBIS.
and Global Data Assembly Centres (GDACs) serve as data flow
Asia/Pacific including UNEP/NOWPAP, GEOTRACES, ODIP, GOOS,
mechanisms to help integrate oceanographic data streams
North America and NEAR-GOOS, ODINWESTPAC, WESTPAC,
Oceania MOMSEI, WMO, IHO, PICES, ICES, through enhanced coordination.
SEAOBIS, J-OBIS, OBIS-USA.
16 2016 Data provider Data user

Submit
14,7
14
WOD13
12 12.3
WOD09 Assemble data

10
Products
# of Profiles (millions)
WOD05 8.9 and metadata
Data
8 WOD01 7.9 7.7
Verify content as needed
7.0
6 WOD98 5
WOA94 5.3 Convert to
4 4.5
NODC 1991 2.6
3.5 processing formats
NODC 1974 2.5 2.1
2 1.5 1.5
1.3 Respond to requests
0.4
0
Quality
1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022
Year Checking
● # of temperature profiles ● # of salinity profiles

Duplicates
Figure 6.1. Increased ocean data sets, examples of temperature Update archives
checking
and salinity profiles stored in the World Ocean Database. Source:
IODE, 2017. Figure 6.2. Data management processing chain. Source: IODE, 2017.

Data management
6.2. Data management must fall within specified ranges) to more sophisticated
comparisons (e.g. against ocean climatologies).3
The term ‘data management’ encompasses a wide range of An important consideration is verifying that data received by
activities. It describes the activities to assemble data, the an archive has not already been stored in an identical or near
assessment of the quality and completeness of the data, the identical form at an earlier date. Reasons for this occurring
insertion of the data into a safe and secure long-term archive, include: reprocessing by data providers; arrival of higher
and the dissemination of archived data to those who seek it quality, delayed mode data versus real-time equivalents; and
(Figure 6.2; Austin et al., 2016). mistakes in sending data sets. Determining if data received has
arrived at an earlier time is not a simple process, in particular
Raw data themselves, such as scientific measurements of
because the newly arrived data may have changed values.
sea-surface water temperature, are insufficient to ensure
It is not uncommon that resolution of this issue requires
the applicability of those numbers to a particular problem.
advice from data providers. Data and metadata verification
It is important that data managers also include information
about how the data were collected. Information such as sometimes leads to questions that have to be referred back
what instruments were used, including the precision of to the data collector for resolution. This is an important step
the instrumentation, the collection procedures, and when to ensure fidelity of the data placed in the archive.
the data were collected, are vitally important. These are The data archive step is usually straightforward once all of the
usually referred to as metadata, and their inclusion in data above questions have been answered. The data structure of an
management procedures is crucial. Assembling both data archive is the complicated part. While in principle it is desirable 6
and metadata requires a strong connection between data for data to reside in a single archive, this is a challenge given
collectors and data managers. the wide variety of data and metadata collected. It is more often
Once data and metadata have been brought together in the the case that data are split into different types, with different
hands of a data manager, the processing towards inclusion data archive structures that reflect the characteristics of each
into the archive begins. There are many steps in the processing type. This represents a tension, since when delivering data
and these include verification that all data and metadata are to a user, it is desirable to deliver whatever data are asked
complete. Questions such as ‘Are all the units of the numbers for, ideally in a single format or in as few different formats as
reported?’, ‘Is the format of the data file fully explained?’ and possible. The objective is to make data processing as simple
‘Are all the needed metadata present and clearly associated for the user as possible.
with the appropriate data?’ need to be answered. After these The main objective of data management is to ensure safe and
questions are resolved, processing begins, usually to try long-term (i.e. eternal) storage of data and metadata so that
to reassemble the data and metadata into data structures present and future users are able to use all of the data that
compatible with the way the archive is built. Of particular have been collected over time. Delivery of data and metadata
importance is the need to ensure that any unit conversions is, therefore, a vital step. An archive must be able to respond in
take into consideration changes in precision of the measured a timely way to requests for the data and information it holds,
values. All of this must be done carefully to ensure no and to deliver these to a user in a way that is suited for their
information is lost or degraded in the process. purposes. This is a great challenge. The data and metadata
After this, the data usually pass through a series of data collected today are very diverse and there are greater demands
quality checks that allow for the identification and flagging for multi-disciplinary studies. In addition, the user community
of incorrect data caused by instrument errors or incorrect of an archive is not solely the same people who provide data;
handling of the instrument. These checks are designed to rather, the range of users includes scientists, engineers, a
exploit known characteristics of the property being measured diverse range of other actors from public (e.g. policy-makers)
by the instrument employed. For example, water temperatures and private sectors. The capacity of these different groups
from a polar region are not likely to exceed certain values, and to handle digital data, especially in complex data structures,
the significant number of decimals reported is dependent on is also varied. An archive strives to support all of its users,
the instrument resolution. Quality checks are often contained
3 Climatologies are defined as the long-term averages of certain variables,
in a battery of tests, from simple checks (e.g. temperatures often over time periods of 20–30 years.

International cooperation on oceanographic data/information management and exchange
and so must have facilities to deliver both complete and a stable environment of human and financial resources. A long-
comprehensive data sets to those with full data processing term archive by definition exists over lifetimes. Well-functioning
capabilities, as well as data sets filtered to meet the needs of data management and archive systems provide the baseline
users with lower processing capabilities. Any filtering applied measurements for climate and trend analyses.
must preserve the precision and other characteristics of the
data and must ensure that any uncertainties associated with
the data and metadata are also carried. This is vital so that all
users have the opportunity to judge the appropriateness of the 6.3. International cooperation on
data received to the problem they are addressing. oceanographic data/information
Beyond delivering the data in digital form, archives also management and exchange
frequently choose to deliver other products. These can be
maps of data availability, maps of measurements (for example
sea-surface temperatures), statistical analyses of the contents
6.3.1. The International Oceanographic
of archives (such as error rates detected in processing), and
so on. The type of products generated is usually determined
Data and Information Exchange
by the number of times requests for such products are made Programme (IODE)
and the operational reporting procedures of an archive (both
The IOC was established in 1960.4 It promotes international
to users and the governing bodies of an archive).
cooperation and coordinates programmes in marine research,
An effective data management team needs to include services, observation systems, hazard mitigation, and capacity
professionals who are well-connected to both data providers development in order to understand and effectively manage the
and users. Ideally, those working with data providers should resources of the ocean and coastal areas. Nowadays, IOC is the
have hands-on experience in the discipline related to the recognized United Nations mechanism for global cooperation
data received; they are known as subject-matter experts. in the study of the oceans (UN DOALOS, 2010). Almost
Because of the diversity of data, it is not often feasible for immediately after the creation of IOC, the IODE programme was
all data expertise to be represented in data management established in 1961, ‘to enhance marine research, exploitation
teams. Therefore, data management teams need to develop and development, by facilitating the exchange of oceanographic
strong relationships with data providers to learn from their data and information between participating Member States, and
experience and ensure that data management processes are by meeting the needs of users for data and information products’.
appropriate for the type of data assembled. Data managers
The main objectives of the IODE Programme are to: (i) facilitate
must also be able to talk with users, to understand the problem
and promote the discovery, exchange of, and access to, marine
they are addressing, and to explain how archive contents may
data and information, including metadata, products and
be brought to bear. Sometimes a user will ask for data, when
information in real-time, near real-time and delayed mode,
a simple data product will meet their needs. A conversation
through the use of international standards, and in compliance
with a user, before work begins, can help to tailor and deliver
with the IOC Oceanographic Data Exchange Policy for the ocean
data or products to effectively meet a user’s needs.
research and observation community and other stakeholders;
Of course, part of the data management team must be (ii) encourage the long-term archival, preservation,
composed of computer experts, who maintain the data documentation, management and services of all marine data,
processing systems and write the necessary software for data products, and information; (iii) develop or use existing best
processing. The combination of computer expertise and practices for the discovery, management, exchange of, and
subject-matter expertise in the design and building of data access to marine data and information, including international
management systems is crucial. standards, quality control and appropriate information
technology; (iv) assist Member States to acquire the necessary
As a term, ‘data management’ is compact and descriptive of
what is required. But unpacking the elements of effective data
4 IODE (International Oceanographic Data and Information
management shows that there are many components and a Exchange) http://www.iode.org/index.php?option=com_
great deal of expertise needed. All of this cannot exist without content&view=category&id=5&Itemid=89 (Accessed 20 November 2016).

capacity to manage marine research and observation data centres, Section 6.3.2) and the Australian Ocean Data Network
and information and become partners in the IODE network; (Section 6.3.3). The activities of the Ocean Data Interoperability
and (v) support international scientific and operational marine Platform are also briefly reviewed (Section 6.3.4). The platform
programmes, including the Framework for Ocean Observing promotes the development of a common framework for marine
for the benefit of a wide range of users. data management to facilitate the discovery and access of marine
data through national, regional or international distributed
The IODE network has successfully managed to collect, control
ocean observing and data management infrastructures.
the quality of, and archive millions of ocean observations, and
makes them available to Member States. The IODE data centres
have a mandate to manage all ocean-related data variables 6.3.2. SeaDataNet
including physical oceanography, chemical, biological, etc.
In addition, IODE collaborates closely with, and services the SeaDataNet is a European distributed infrastructure operated
needs of, the other IOC and related programmes such as Ocean by the NODCs and marine information services of the major
Sciences, Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS), Marine research institutes from 34 coastal States bordering the
Spatial Planning (MSP), Integrated Coastal Area Management European seas. The SeaDataNet infrastructure provides
(ICAM), and the Joint WMO-IOC Technical Commission for harmonized discovery services and access to ocean and marine
Oceanography and Marine Meteorology (JCOMM), among environmental datasets, managed in over 100 distributed
others. Another major and long-term commitment of the data centres, as well as a range of metadata services, tools
IODE Programme is the long-term accessibility and archival
of oceanographic data, metadata and information to safeguard
and standards that have been widely adopted across Europe.
SeaDataNet has developed, and maintains, a set of common 6
present and future holdings against loss or degradation. standards for the marine domain, which include:
metadata profiles of the ISO 19115 standard for datasets and
From the start, the IODE Programme has focused on the
research cruises;
building of a global community of national data centres, each
established and maintained by IOC Member States. The number metadata formats for data collections, research projects,
of such National Oceanographic Data Centres (NODCs) has monitoring programmes and networks and organizations;
grown steadily since 1961 to the current total of 65. In addition controlled vocabularies for the marine domain, with
to the data management facilities at NODCs, the number of international governance, user interfaces and web services;
research groups, projects, programmes and institutions that
manage their own data and provide their own – often online standard data exchange formats for download services; and
–data services, increases. The IODE network welcomes these standard quality control procedures.
new data centres as Associate Data Units (ADUs), of which
The SeaDataNet infrastructure comprises a network of
20 have been established since 2013. For more than 50 years
interconnected data centres and a central portal providing users
now, the IODE programme has built not only a network of data
with a unified and transparent overview of the metadata and
centres but also a wide variety of specialized databases.
controlled access to the large collections of datasets, managed
It should also be noted that there does not exist any formal by the interconnected data centres. The Common Data Index
education related to oceanographic data management. The (CDI)5 data discovery and access service provides online access
IODE Programme has developed an active training programme to more than 1 million datasets through a portal interface for
over the past decades to address this gap. Today, IODE operates requesting access, and if granted, for downloading datasets
its OceanTeacher Global Academy programme that provides from the network of distributed data centres. SeaDataNet has
continuous professional development for staff of the data also developed a set of dedicated software tools and online
centres associated with the IODE network. services for sharing metadata and data resources across its
In addition to the intergovernmental global network of infrastructure. Common software tools are made freely available
oceanographic data centres established under the auspices to data managers and end-users for data and metadata editing,
of IODE, regional and national data centres developed their conversion, analysis and interpolation.
own networks. The following sections describe two of these
networks: SeaDataNet (the European network of national data 5 http://seadatanet.maris2.nl/v_cdi_v3/search.asp

SeaDataNet has defined a data policy that aims to strike a The primary access point for search, discovery, access and
balance between the rights of investigators and the need for download of data collected by the Australian marine community
widespread access through the free and unrestricted sharing is the AODN portal, which is the single access point for marine
and exchange of data, metadata and data products.6 The final data published by AODN contributors. 9 The marine data
goal of this policy is to serve the scientific community, public collections published in the AODN portal are wide-ranging,
organizations and environmental agencies, and to facilitate the and all data collections can be downloaded through the user
production of advice and status reports by stating the conditions interface and are freely available to the public. The infrastructure
for data submission, access and use. The policy applies to data of the portal follows international standards and agreements
managed by SeaDataNet partners for providing access to data for data and metadata formatting, discovery and sharing. The
managed across the distributed systems. The data policy is portal incorporates a catalogue of metadata, a search interface
consistent with national and international policies and laws and driven by facets utilizing controlled vocabulary terms, and a map
is intended to be fully compatible with the European INSPIRE interface that can be used to interact with AODN datasets and
Directive.7 offers data download in a number of formats.
The next phase will be the SeaDataCloud project, which aims The AODN has developed a data policy, which is aimed at
to advance SeaDataNet services and increase their usage, making marine data available through the AODN Portal. The
adopting cloud and HPC technology for better performance in AODN does not generate any original data itself but is focused
cooperation with EUDAT, the network computing infrastructure on publishing third party data. A condition of participation in
developing and operating a common framework for managing the AODN is that all data provided is freely accessible at no
scientific data across Europe. charge to third parties. All data provided to the AODN must be
adequately documented with metadata and arrangements made
for data to be held by the custodian organization or an alternate
6.3.3. Australian Ocean Data Network organization for long-term access. The data policy recommends
The Australian Ocean Data Network (AODN) is an interoperable that all data be licensed through an appropriate open access
online network of marine and climate data resources, Creative Commons license, preferably the ‘By Attribution’ (CCBY)
administered by the Integrated Marine Observing System licence. Data products have been developed using observations
(IMOS), 8 a national collaborative research infrastructure made available through the AODN partners. One example is the
supported by the Australian Government and led by the Australian Shelf Seas Atlas,10 comprising a collated database
University of Tasmania in partnership with the Australian of in situ salinity and temperature observations from coastal
marine and climate science community. The aim of the AODN and shelf waters around Australia, collected over the 20-year
is to make marine data, from publicly-funded projects as well period between 1995 and 2014, which have been assembled into
as data from private industry and not-for-profit organizations, a single data collection. These data have been supplemented
accessible and freely available over the internet. These data by data from the World Ocean Database.
cover a wide range of ocean environment parameters, including
data collected from ocean-going ships, autonomous vehicles,
6.3.4. Ocean Data Interoperability Platform
moorings and other platforms. The scope of observations
geographically covers Australia’s coastal, continental shelf SeaDataNet and the AODN, together with the IODE, partner in
and open oceans across disciplines (physical, biogeochemical the Ocean Data Interoperability Platform (ODIP),11 a project that
and biological). aims to promote the development of a common framework for
marine data management to facilitate the discovery and access
The objectives of the AODN are:
of marine data through the development, implementation,
to populate the AODN with publicly funded data and to make
population and operation of national, regional or international
these data accessible to a wide community; and
distributed ocean observing and data management
to encourage and develop the culture of data sharing across
the marine science community of Australia.
9 https://portal.aodn.org.au/
10 https://imos.aodn.org.au/imos123/home?uuid=f9b50e93-df47-4317-8f1f-
6 http://www.seadatanet.org/Data-Access/Data-policy f3ed2fed7093; https://imos.aodn.org.au/imos123/home?uuid=0a21e0b9-
7 http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/ 8acb-4dc2-8c82-57c3ea94dd85
8 http://imos.org.au/ 11 http://www.odip.eu/

Marine information management
infrastructures. ODIP aims to leverage existing marine data formats. The data may be repackaged in the form of websites,
infrastructures to establish a common global framework for regional repositories of stored and accessible scientific research
data management that will potentially overcome many of the publications, images, data, online catalogues of specialized
barriers to the sharing of marine data. ODIP aims to build collections, digitized collections of scientific studies that may
consensus, trust and cooperation between partners in order to be otherwise difficult to find, electronic citation databases,
have a coordinated approach towards the harmonization of the and internet bibliographies. MIMs establish national and
marine data management infrastructures that can be applied international standards to disseminate this information, and they
and adopted globally. form groups of networked individuals and professional societies
to collaborate on new products, training courses and technology
In summary, regional and national networks make an important
for the delivery of marine and atmospheric information.
contribution to their respective communities, as well as
contributing to the broader international community through In the past, library collections were based on physical items on
the IODE network of NODCs. a shelf. Electronic publications allow for wider access to the
scientific literature, but spiralling costs make it impossible for
many libraries to subscribe to everything researchers want.
IODE compiled the OpenScience Directory,13 which provides
6.4. Marine information a list of free or low cost e-journals for developing countries
management and also funds membership for some Member States in the
International Association of Aquatic and Marine Science
Libraries and Information Centers (IAMSLIC) that supports
6
the Z39.50 Distributed Library and Interlibrary Loan Program,
6.4.1. From data to research knowledge thus expanding timely access to science publications for
IODE Marine Information Managers (MIMs) are essential Member States.
partners in the research management and the scholarly The journey of marine libraries from analogue to digital is
communication life cycle; they play an increasingly collaborative enhanced by the international ‘open access’ movement. Open
role with data collectors and managers. There are many access is the free, immediate, online availability of research
significant trends developing in information management, articles combined with the rights to use these articles fully in
which can provide support to data managers and scientific the digital environment. Open access is a much-needed modern
authors in creating knowledge. IODE, through its MIMs, update for the communication of research that fully utilizes
leads projects and products, is assisting in this process and the internet for the purpose for which it was originally built,
implements new technologies and tools. The terms of reference i.e. to accelerate research free of many restrictions on use
for IODE National Coordinators for Marine Information have (copyright and licence restrictions). Open access can be applied
been adopted by the IODE Committee.12 to all forms of published research output. Although electronic
Many MIMs are involved in research data and others need journals and online library catalogues have existed in marine
instruction in data literacy. They are collecting, organizing and science libraries for many years, the ‘Open Access repository’
exploiting information, data, expertise and other knowledge or ‘Institutional Repository’ (IR) has now been designated as one
assets, which are held within their organizations, ensuring that method to fulfil governmental, funder and national mandates
these assets remain available for future use. On an international to provide free and open access to the results of funded
scale, networks of MIM centres are collaborating to produce research. Subject repositories, such as OceanDocs14 and other
products and services to strengthen our global understanding institutional repositories developed by Member States, play
of ocean processes and conditions. Marine information an auxiliary role in making publications accessible. IODE has
management is a vital process in the ocean knowledge cycle. developed standards for best practice for data publication and
guidelines for data centres and librarians with e-repositories
The users of marine information include research scientists, (Leadbetter et al., 2013).
policy-makers and students at all levels, educators, industry
and businesses. MIMs interact with marine data managers
to deliver information products in a variety of online media
13 http://www.opensciencedirectory.net/
12 http://www.iode.org/nc-mim 14 http://www.oceandocs.org/

Marine information management
Figure 6.3. Connections of the co-authors’ country affiliations of about 500 publications that cited OBIS and that are recorded in Web of Science
(over 1,000 OBIS –cited papers are listed at http://www.iobis.org/library, maintained with support from the library of the Flanders Marine
Institute). Data points without connections represent single authored papers. Source: OBIS, 2017 bibliometric data set at http://www.iobis.org/
library and Web of Science.
General trends in marine information management include libraries. Utilizing visualization techniques, collaborative
open access, interoperability of systems, increased emphasis on networks are shown on an international level. The example
international collaborations and the development of networks. shown in Figure 6.3 illustrates the numerous connections
The development of collaborative networks has been recognized among scientists who formed collaborations, which led to
as important to accelerate the pace and progress of scientific the production of scientific articles citing OBIS. It is notable
scholarship which has long been a goal of IOC in general, and that there are not only North-North but also North-South
IODE specifically. OceanExpert15 provides a networking tool and South-South connections. Through open access to data,
utilizing personal, persistent identifiers, which can link to a OBIS provides equitable access and benefits to research and
scientist’s career publications, activities, scientific events and enhances international collaboration.16
institutions. The increasing use of persistent identifiers and
A significant barrier has been the wide variation in best
linked data will likely have a significant impact on the type
practices and standards between and within disciplines.
of future services offered by MIMs. IODE also participates in
IODE addresses this need through the development of the
initiatives such as the Research Data Alliance (RDA), ensuring
OceanDataPractices platform 17 and the OceanKnowledge
that the marine science community is associated with the
Platform Pilot Project.18 These are excellent examples of IODE
development of international data standards and best practices
trying to apply interoperability and standards to their products
for MIMs.
and projects. UNESCO, IOC and IODE projects and products
New technologies are enabling more sophisticated analysis make marine information openly and freely accessible.
of research outputs. Performance metrics (e.g. bibliometrics)
for research data and publications measure the impact of
scientific research on individual, institutional, national and
international levels (Chapter 5). These studies are often
16 The contribution of OBIS to marine scientific research has been recognized
carried out by advanced academic and research organization
by the UN General Assembly (see for example: A/RES/69/245).
17 http://www.oceandatapractices.net/
15 http://www.oceanexpert.net/ 18 http://www.iode.org/okn

National capacity assessment for data and information management
1960-1964 The OceanTeacher Global Academy 19 utilizes open source

1965-1969 software to store courses in marine data and information
1970-1974
management along with other marine science topics. These
1975-1979
resources can help MIMs and data managers provide services
1980-1984
that rely less on traditional collections and more on knowledge
creation and new information products.
1985-1989
1990-1994 A potential gap is the need for resources to support data
1995-1999 literacy and the hesitation of librarians to participate in the data
2000-2004 movement. The principles and values of the field of library and
2005-2009 information science bring a unique and necessary perspective
2010-2014 to the evolving data science discipline. Learning resources, such
2015-2016 as ‘23 Things: Libraries for Research Data—Research Data
Sharing Without Barriers’,20 can assist MIMs with incorporating
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
data management into their practice of information services.
Number of data centres
Increased collaboration with data managers is recommended.
● NODC ● ADU
Figure 6.4. Number of IODE NODCs/ADUs created between 1960

and 2016 (NODCs shown in blue; ADUs shown in grey). Source: 6.5. National capacity assessment 6
IODE, 2017.
for data and information
management
1960-1964 The IODE is the global data centre network that deals only with
1965-1969 oceanographic data management and exchange. However,
1970-1974 oceanographic research centres, projects and research groups
1975-1979 are increasingly managing and disseminating their own data.
1980-1984 The IODE network has therefore started inviting these additional
1985-1989 entities to join the IODE network as ADUs.
1990-1994
1995-1999
2000-2004
6.5.1. IOC Member State participation in
2005-2009
international oceanographic data
2010-2014 exchange
2015-2016
To achieve the objectives of IODE, the IOC Member States, under
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 the IODE Programme, have established a global network of
Number of data centres NODCs and, since 2013, ADUs (including OBIS nodes).
● NODC ● ADU Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5 show that there have been two
peak periods in the establishment of NODCs: 1970–1974
Figure 6.5. Cumulative number of IODE NODCs/ADUs created and 2000–2004. The latter was due to the Ocean Data and
between 1960 and 2016 (NODCs shown in blue, ADUs shown in grey). Information Network for Africa (ODINAFRICA), a project funded
Source: IODE, 2017.
by the Government of Flanders (Kingdom of Belgium); which
operated between 1997 and 2014 and was instrumental in
developing oceanographic data and information capacity in
19 http://classroom.oceanteacher.org/
20 https://www.rd-alliance.org/23-things-libraries-research-data-rdas-
libraries-research-data-interest-group.html

Africa. The possibility for projects, programmes, institutions The investment by the European Commission in regional ocean
or organizations to establish ADUs as from 2013 has increased data projects such as SeaDataNet, EMODNET and ODIP but also
the number of data centres by 30% (from 65 to 85), thereby collaboration in ICES, HELCOM, EuroGOOS and MedGOOS, is
demonstrating the increasing capacity of entities other than clearly seen in its high percentage of regional collaboration.
NODCs to manage oceanographic data. Other key initiatives in Europe include Copernicus, Jerico,
The data presented here are based upon responses to an online

National
survey carried out between 24 June and 19 September 2016 (between your centre and other
national institutions)
among the IODE community (IODE national coordinators for
Regional
data management, IODE national coordinators for marine (eg Europe, Africa, South-East Asia)
information management, IODE Associate Data Unit contact International
(in addition to IODE)
points). Out of 114 contacts, a total of 76 (67%) responded. Of
these respondents, 47 belong to an NODC, 17 to an ADU or 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
OBIS regional node and 17 are marine librarians. Note that Figure 6.6. The percentage of national data centres involved in three
some institutions host both a data centre and a marine library. types of collaboration: national, regional and international. Source:
IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 57 focal points).
In order to enable distinguishing regional differences, the
results provided combine the responses received from NODCs
biological data
and ADUs (n=57) and are grouped into four regions (Annex (incl plankton, benthos, pigments,
animals, bacteria …)
G). Note that for some of the countries there was more than physical data
(waves, currents, hydrography, sea level,
one respondent. temperature, salinity, optics, acoustics)
geological
(sediments, bathymetry …)
chemical
6.5.2. Cooperation with other data centres and (nutrients, pH, CO2, dissolved gasses …)
pollutant (monitoring)
IOC programmes
fisheries data
Globally, the large majority of data centres are involved in
other (please specify)
national, regional and global collaborative activities (Figure 6.6).
The main regional initiatives in Latin America involving 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
cooperation on data and information management includes Figure 6.7. Observational data types regularly collected and
the Caribbean Marine Atlas (CMA), the Caribbean Large managed by national data centres as a percentage of respondents.
Marine Ecosystems (CLME), the South-East Pacific Data and Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 57 focal points).
Information Network in support to Integrated Coastal Area
online access to metadata
Management (SPINCAM), and the Ocean Data and Information
online access to data
Network for the Caribbean and South America Regions
online access to library catalogue
(ODINCARSA).
online access to e-documents
and e-publications
In Africa, there is a high percentage of regional collaboration published ocean data
(e.g. 'snapshots' of datasets as used for publications)
through ODINAFRICA as well as through regional Large Marine GIS products (maps, atlases)
Ecosystem (LME) projects such as the GCLME and the CCLME. portals
Specific initiatives for Africa also include PROPAO, IOGOOS, numerical model data
MESA, GOOS Africa, MadaBIF, WIOMSA, UNEP clearinghouse CD-ROM products
mechanism, PIRATA, MOLOA, and AWA. Other
In the Asia/Pacific region, there are also a number of specific 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
organizations and initiatives involved in cooperation on data Figure 6.8. The data and information products provided to clients by
and information management, including the UNEP/NOWPAP, data centres as a percentage of respondents. Source: IODE survey,
GEOTRACES, ODIP, GOOS, NEAR-GOOS, ODINWESTPAC, 2016 (answered by 57 focal points).
WESTPAC, MOMSEI, WMO, IHO, PICES and ICES.

CAFF, EUROFLEETS, HAZADR, PERSEUS, MEDIN, GEBCO, 6.5.4. Services provided by NODCs and ADUs
GEOTRACES, GLOSS, Argo, AtlantOS, EMSO, IQUOD, OceanSites,
IbiROOS, CoCoNet, Emblas, Black Sea SCENE, AORA, Caspinfo, The data and information products provided to users by data
WORMS, OTN, LTER, LIFEWATCH, EMBRC, NAMMCO, ICCAT, centres also vary among NODCs and ADUs, with the top
three products globally being: (i) online access to metadata;
MyOcean, and the SOOS.
(ii) provision of GIS products; and (iii) online access to
data (Figure 6.8). Regionally, all regions show the highest
6.5.3. Oceanographic data types managed percentages in the provision of online geographic information
by NODCs system (GIS) products. Giving access to metadata and data
is one of the biggest services delivered by data centres in
Overall, the IODE data centres mostly manage physical data, Europe (including the Russian Federation) and Asia/Pacific.
followed by biological data and chemical data (Figure 6.7). Generally, providing open access to oceanographic/ocean data
Less than half of the centres collect data on marine pollutants is becoming standard practice, however only few data centres
and fisheries. in Latin America and Africa report this as one major activity.
A similar pattern can be observed for numerical model data,
However, at the regional level there are differences in which data which is also reflected in that only Africa relies strongly on
types are handled at NODCs or ADUs. In Latin America, Europe dissemination of data on CD-ROM.
(including the Russian Federation) and Asia/Pacific, there is
Globally, the top three services provided by data centres to
a fairly equal coverage of physical, biological and chemical
data but a lower coverage of geological and geophysical data,
clients are: (i) data archival; (ii) data visualization; and (iii) data 6
quality control tools (Figure 6.9). The least provided services
except in the Asia/Pacific region. In Africa, biological, physical
include virtual laboratory, cloud computing space and provision
and fisheries data dominate the activities of data centres, while
of DOIs for data sets.
geological, chemical and pollutant data are less important
currently. Similarly, Latin American data centres reported little At the regional level, NODCs and AUDs in all four regions
work conducted with pollution data. report the provision of data archival services as one of their
main data management activities. Only Latin America shows
a slightly below-average percentage (Figure 6.10). However,
data archival looking at data visualization, 100% of Latin American data
personal data repository centres provide this service which, in contrast, is only rarely
cloud computing space performed by African data centres. Similarly, the offering of
virtural research laboratory data quality control tools by data centres located in Africa is
web services
(see http://www.webopedia.com/
lower than other regions.
TERM/W/Web_services.html)
provision of DOI for data set The clients and end users of data, products or services provided
data analysis tools by data centres are diverse and represent many sectors of
data visualization tools society, reflecting the broad relevance of oceanographic data
data quality control tools and information to the economy, research, public administration
communication tools (hosting of web sites,
mailing lists, group discussion support,
and businesses, in particular. Globally, the core users of data,
project management tools ...)
products or services are national and international researchers,
special tools (vocabularies,
format descriptions, gazetteers ….) as well as the general public, followed by policy-makers and
access to documented methods,
standards and guidelines the private sector, according to the results of the IODE survey
Other (please specify) (Figure 6.11). The regional analysis does not reveal any
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% significant differences between the regions in terms of user
audiences, except for Asia/Pacific where national researchers
Figure 6.9. Services provided by data centres to clients as a
percentage of respondents. Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by are the top clients.
57 focal points).

Latin America Europe (incl. Russian Federation)
data archival data archival
personal data repository personal data repository
cloud computing space cloud computing space
virtural research laboratory virtural research laboratory

web services web services
(see http://www.webopedia.com/ (see http://www.webopedia.com/
TERM/W/Web_services.html) TERM/W/Web_services.html)
provision of DOI for data set provision of DOI for data set
data analysis tools data analysis tools
data visualization tools data visualization tools
data quality control tools data quality control tools

communication tools (hosting of web sites, communication tools (hosting of web sites,
mailing lists, group discussion support, mailing lists, group discussion support,
project management tools ...) project management tools ...)
special tools (vocabularies, special tools (vocabularies,
format descriptions, gazetteers ….) format descriptions, gazetteers ….)
access to documented methods, access to documented methods,
standards and guidelines standards and guidelines
Other (please specify) Other (please specify)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Africa Asia/Pacific
data archival data archival
personal data repository personal data repository
cloud computing space cloud computing space
virtural research laboratory virtural research laboratory

web services web services
(see http://www.webopedia.com/ (see http://www.webopedia.com/
TERM/W/Web_services.html) TERM/W/Web_services.html)
provision of DOI for data set provision of DOI for data set
data analysis tools data analysis tools
data visualization tools data visualization tools
data quality control tools data quality control tools

communication tools (hosting of web sites, communication tools (hosting of web sites,
mailing lists, group discussion support, mailing lists, group discussion support,
project management tools ...) project management tools ...)
special tools (vocabularies, special tools (vocabularies,
format descriptions, gazetteers ….) format descriptions, gazetteers ….)
access to documented methods, access to documented methods,
standards and guidelines standards and guidelines
Other (please specify) Other (please specify)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 6.10. Services provided by data centres to clients as a percentage of respondents per region. Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by
57 focal points).

only users in my own institution 6.5.5. Data policy and data access restrictions
national researchers in my own country
researchers in any country Defined national policies for data storage and sharing is one
policy-makers of my own ministry
indicator of the priority given to ensuring that oceanographic
policy-makers in other ministries of my country
policy-makers in any country data and information is stored, shared and used (Section 6.1).
(e.g. through UN commitments)
military Globally, there is a balance between countries that do – or do
civil protection not – have a national data sharing policy.
private sector
The regional analysis, however, shows a significant difference,
(e.g. fisheries, hotels, industry ...)
school children
general public with 69% of Member States in the Asia/Pacific region having a
other national data sharing policy, compared to only 31% of Member
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% States in Africa (Figure 6.12).
Figure 6.11. Clients and end-users of data, products or services Overall, data sharing and open access to data is a core
provided by data centres. Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by component of international and regional oceanographic data
57 focal points). and information management systems. It is a prerequisite for
most of the societal groups presented in Figure 6.11 to have
Latin America EU/East + Ru access and to make use of data, data products and services.
The extent to which this is possible depends on national data
being shared with little or no restriction. Globally, 63% of data
centres restrict access to ‘certain’ data types and 40% apply a
6
restriction during a certain period of time (Figure 6.13).
Yes 43% Yes 52% The regional analysis reveals that all respondent Latin America
No 57% No 48% data centres restrict access to data, while the data centres,
which do not apply any restrictions, make up from 10% (Europe,
including the Russian Federation) to 35% (Africa; Figure 6.14).
The practice of geographic restrictions is predominately
practised by data centres located in Asia/Pacific and Latin
Africa Asia/pacific
America. Restrictions during a certain time period are also
common in the Asia/Pacific region.
we do not restrict at all
Yes 31% Yes 69% we restrict access to

certain data types
No 69% No 31% we restrict access to
data collected in certain
geographic areas
we restrict access
during a certain period
of time (embargo)
any other restrictions
Figure 6.12. Illustration of how many of the data centres surveyed

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
have a national data policy on the management and sharing of data.
Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 56 focal points). Figure 6.13. The percentage of data centres which restrict/do not
restrict access to data. Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 57
focal points).

we do not restrict at all we do not restrict at all

we restrict access to we restrict access to
certain data types certain data types
data collected in certain data collected in certain
geographic areas geographic areas
we restrict access we restrict access
during a certain period during a certain period
of time (embargo) of time (embargo)
any other restrictions any other restrictions
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Africa Asia
we do not restrict at all we do not restrict at all

certain data types certain data types
data collected in certain data collected in certain
geographic areas geographic areas
we restrict access we restrict access
during a certain period during a certain period
of time (embargo) of time (embargo)
any other restrictions any other restrictions
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 6.14. The percentage of data centres which do/do not restrict access to data by region. Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 57 focal
points).
Latin America EU/East + Ru
I don’t know 21.43%
Yes 57% Yes 70%

No 0% No 22%
Yes 64.29% I don’t know 43% I don’t know 8%
No 14.29%
Africa Asia/pacific
Figure 6.15. The distribution of data centres that do or do not apply

the IOC Oceanographic Data Exchange Policy adopted as Resolution
IOC-XXII-6. Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 56 focal points).
Yes 62% Yes 69%

No 15% No 8%
I don’t know 23% I don’t know 23%
Figure 6.16. Distribution of data centres that do or do not apply the

IOC Oceanographic Data Exchange Policy by region. Source: IODE
survey, 2016 (answered by 56 focal points).

The timely, free and unrestricted international exchange of The regional analysis shows the highest application of the
oceanographic data is essential for the efficient acquisition, IOC data policy in data centres located in Europe (including
integration and use of ocean observations gathered by the the Russian Federation) and Asia/Pacific, followed by Africa
countries of the world for a wide variety of purposes, including (Figure 6.16). Latin America data centres show low awareness
the prediction of weather and climate, the operational of the application of the policy in their data centres.
forecasting of the marine environment, the preservation of
life, the mitigation of human-induced changes in the marine
and coastal environment, as well as for the advancement of 6.5.6. Data sharing with other networks
scientific understanding that makes this possible. Another way to illustrate the extent of data sharing is to look at
Recognizing the vital importance of these purposes to all whether data and information from data centres are contributed
humankind and the role of IOC and its programmes in this to international systems, in terms of data actively sent or made
regard, IOC Member States agree to an IOC policy for the available to, for example, world data centres, GDACs or other
international exchange of oceanographic data and its associated such international systems. The survey showed that, globally,
metadata. Globally, 64% of the IODE data centres apply the IOC the majority (74%) of data centres actively cooperate and share
Oceanographic Data Exchange Policy, but 21% indicated in the information/data with other international systems and networks
survey that they did not know if their Member State applied the (Figure 6.17).
IOC Oceanographic Data Exchange Policy (Figure 6.15). However, there are significant differences from region to
region with respect to if and how data and information are
shared among the international or regional data systems. The
6
Yes
European data centres are the most active in sharing data with
other systems and networks, whereas Africa reported little data
No
sharing with larger data systems (Figure 6.18). Global systems,
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
such as OBIS, Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and
Argo, receive data from all regions.
Figure 6.17. Illustration of whether data and information from data
centres are contributed to international systems or not (i.e. data
actively sent or made available to, for example, world data centres,
global data assembly centres or other such international systems).
Source: IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 57 focal points).
Yes Yes
No No
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Africa Asia/Pacific
Yes Yes
No No
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Figure 6.18. Illustration by region of whether data and information from data centres are contributed to international systems or not (i.e. data
actively sent or made available to, for example, world data centres, global data assembly centres or other such international systems). Source:
IODE survey, 2016 (answered by 56 focal points).

REFERENCES
References
Austin, C. C., Bloom, T., Dallmeier-Tiessen, S., Khodlyar, V. K.,

Murphy, F., Nurnberger, A., Raymond, L., Stockhause, M.,
Vardigan, M., Tedds, J. and Whyte, A. 2016. Key components
of data publishing: Using current best practices to develop
a reference model for data publishing. International Journal
of Digital Librarianship, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 77-92. Leadbetter,
A., Raymond, L., Chandler, C., Pikula, L., Pissierssens, P.
and Urban, E. 2013. Ocean Data Publication Cookbook. Paris,
UNESCO.UN, DOALOS. 2010. Marine Scientific Research. A
revised guide to the implementation of the relevant provisions of
UNCLOS. New York, UN.

7
International
organizations
supporting
ocean science
© US-NOAA
7. International
organizations
supporting
ocean science
Luis Valdés,1 Jan Mees2 and
Henrik Oksfeldt Enevoldsen3
2 – Flanders Marine Institute, Ostend, Belgium
Valdés, L., Mees, J. and Enevoldsen, H. 2017. International organizations supporting

ocean science. In: IOC-UNESCO, Global Ocean Science Report—The current status of
ocean science around the world. L. Valdés et al. (eds). Paris, UNESCO, pp. 146–169.
148 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © Shutterstock.com/evenfh

International organizations supporting ocean science
Introduction
7.1. Introduction sectors, within and across nations. Because ocean management
is by tradition sector-oriented (for example: capture fishing
and aquaculture, shipping, offshore oil and gas, and offshore
When considering the motivations and benefits of international
renewable energy) and therefore fragmented, ocean matters
collaboration in ocean science, the policy and administrative
are debated in a vast array of inter-governmental, non-
dimensions deserve some reflection. For much of the twentieth
governmental, and multistakeholder forums and coalitions.
century, marine scientific activity and advice was concentrated
These are regulated by a number of bilateral and multilateral
in a small number of countries. During the last few decades
binding agreements, and non-binding instruments dealing
of the twentieth century, science and innovation have become
with various matters of ocean management and relating to a
increasingly and genuinely global (Royal Society, 2011). Many
multitude of sectors. As the number of intervening organizations
of the major global challenges of the twenty-first century have
grows, so do risks of duplication, overlapping competencies and
scientific dimensions (Owen et al., 2012) and more science is
lobbyism, potentially constraining political action or justifying
now being undertaken by more people in more places, forcing
inaction. In fact, the divergence between the scientific and
managers and decision-makers to expand their views and
political ‘tempo’ can undermine science policy efforts; the
continuously update their scientific knowledge. This applies
high pace of the scientific and technological innovation poses
for scientists themselves and for those non-scientists who are
challenges for governments and the public to adjust quickly
involved in international scientific or conservationist civil society
to emerging and urgent scientific and environmental issues.
organizations.
The increasing use of ocean space and resources, and rising
Within science, researchers themselves manage the production
interest of civil society in ocean matters, has also led to a sense
of knowledge in many ways. They regulate the production of
that existing sector-oriented regional and international policy
knowledge, control what counts as knowledge – through
arrangements are not able to efficiently and effectively address
peer review and replication – and manage how science is
communicated by means, such as conference presentations
complex ocean issues. These new developments partially 7
explain the emergence of numerous new actors, mostly non-
and professional publications (European Commission, 2009).
governmental organizations (NGOs), with ‘watch-dogging’ and
In addition, scientists heavily influence processes of research
rapid response capacity, in the scientific diplomacy landscape.
funding through peer review and grant panels, and they guide
decisions about the hiring and promotion of fellow scientists. Many institutions and initiatives dealing with ocean issues exist,
at local, national, regional and global levels. They often overlap
External management seeks to provide, regulate and distribute
geographically and/or in their mandates or subject matter
science by: (i) upstream funding of some types of research
agendas, which results in weak coherence. In this regard,
over others, thus channelling scientific research in specific
the large number of existing organizations involved in ocean
directions; (ii) enforcing standards for people and organizations;
management face challenges in relation to their perceived
(iii) attaching certain attributes, such as property rights,
objectivity and dependability.
to scientific knowledge and the products of innovation; (iv)
downstream regulation or restricting what are considered the This chapter aims to provide an overview of existing international
misapplications and misuses of new science and technology; legal and institutional frameworks supporting2 ocean science,
and (v) educating the public and encouraging debate about the management and related issues. It aims to guide the reader
products and processes of science (European Commission, through a complex landscape of organizations, international
2009). In addition, science diplomacy1 facilitates international legal instruments and governance processes in a logical and
cooperation and assists in the transfer of knowledge and meaningful way, presenting a functional understanding of the
technology among countries as well as capacity-building to organizations, how they are connected and clustered in groups
less developed countries. according to their interest, mandate and policy roles, among other
criteria. This chapter establishes linkages between institutions
In brief, ocean science policy concerns the prioritization
that deal directly or indirectly with ocean issues across
of scientific research areas, steering the production and
different spatial scales (regional and global) and frameworks
application of knowledge for environmental protection, food
(international, intergovernmental and non-governmental).
security, human health and well-being or any other number of
2 For the purpose of this chapter, the term ‘support’ includes a wide scope
1 Science diplomacy is the use of scientific collaborations among nations of elements such as: providing scientific guidance, stewardship, interest,
to address common problems and to build constructive international advocacy, advice, policy, management, governance, provision of products
partnerships. and/or services, information, lobbing, etc.

International organizations and processes relevant to ocean science and management
It must be noted that it is not the purpose of this chapter to Some have a broader scope, e.g. the United Nations (UN),
produce any recommendation to reconcile institutional agendas while others may have a subject-specific mandate and/or
(which are sometimes intersecting) related to management regional coverage, such as Regional Fisheries Management
and/or sustainable use of the ocean. However, the information Organizations (RFMOs) or organizations such as the
provided here and the conclusions drawn from this information Mediterranean Science Commission (CIESM, formerly the
may be useful for strengthening institutional coordination and/ International Commission for Scientific Exploration of the
or for empowering people to make informed, science-based Mediterranean Sea). The following types of intergovernmental
decisions. organizations are considered in this chapter:
Global organizations which comprise – and are open to –

nations worldwide, provided certain criteria are met, such
as the UN and its specialized agencies;
7.2. International organizations and
processes relevant to ocean Regional international legal instruments under the UN
umbrella, including UN subsidiary bodies established to
science and management facilitate regional management structures; and
Effective management of human activities in the ocean Regional international organizations, which are open to
requires multilateral and regional management frameworks members from a particular continent or specific region of
(Campbell et al., 2016; Thrush et al., 2016; Tjossem, 2016). This the world.
section discusses the wide array of organizations, instruments
and processes involved in ocean science and management, 7.2.1.1. The UN system for ocean science knowledge
ranging from short-term operational management to long-term and environmental management5
policy development and planning, and from conventional forms
Ocean affairs in the UN system are spread by sectors of activity
of administration to modern forms of participative decision-
among several UN entities. These sectors include fishing,
making (Appendix)3.
shipping, mining, pollution, science and many others. Depending
on their specific mandate, UN entities provide different services
7.2.1. International governmental such as technical assistance and capacity-development,
organizations (IGOs) research and data management, support of intergovernmental
processes, financial assistance, methodologies and outreach
An international governmental organization or intergovernmental (Valdés, 2017). In addition, agencies within the UN system
organization (IGO) is an organization composed primarily have authority to negotiate treaties and conventions, which are
of bodies of sovereign States (often referred to as member landmarks of international law.
States) or of other intergovernmental organizations. IGOs are
The UN array of agencies and organizations and the
established by a treaty, convention or other agreement that
international law enshrined in treaties and conventions
acts as a charter creating the group and, once ratified by the
constitute the foundations for the current UN architecture that
member States, provides the IGO with an international legal
deal with ocean science/knowledge and global environmental
personality.4 IGOs are key contributors to public international
management. The architecture is completed with two additional
law. They are party to numerous agreements and are important
pillars: global research programmes, together with other
facilitators of scientific collaboration.
initiatives on good practices for environmental management
Intergovernmental organizations differ in function, membership and governance instigated by the UN system; and science-policy
and membership criteria. They have various goals, mandates, interfaces (Valdés, 2017). These four constituent elements are
scopes and geographical coverage, often outlined in a treaty. assembled in a quadruple helix model (Figure 7.1)6 as proposed
by Valdés (2017).
3 The GOSR questionnaire (2015) included a section on ‘Regionally and
globally supporting organizations on ocean science’. The responses The robustness of the helix models lies in the fact that through
from the member States were used for the examples and compilation of the circulation of knowledge, new findings in science, know-how
organizations in this chapter, and a full list of organizations and acronyms
is presented in Appendix to this chapter.
4 Intergovernmental organizations in a legal sense should be distinguished
from groupings or coalitions of states, such as the Group of 7 (G7), which 5 For additional information on this topic see Valdés, 2017.
have not been founded by a constituent document and exist as a forum. 6 For more information on helix models see Carayannis and Campbell (2011)

Intergovernmental International law for the management of the natural

organizations
environment: International conventions and treaties are
IOC legally binding for countries that have formally ratified
WMO
them and are crucial enablers for sustainable development
FAO
IMO and management of the marine environment. They set
UNEP frameworks and targets (based on scientific knowledge
IAEA
but also on socio-economic scenarios) for international
UNFCCC, CBD GOOS, IOCCP efforts to protect the environment by regulating human
International Scientific
law LDC, MARPOL, WCRP, IGBP, Programmes activities and impacts. Intergovernmental organizations can
UNCLOS DIVERSITAS contribute to and participate in the negotiation of treaties
and conventions. Their secretariats and member States
IPCC stimulate dialogue among them as well as with social actors
IPBES in order to adapt legislation to address emerging issues,
WOA
SOFIA new scientific knowledge and socio-economic circumstances
(Valdés, 2017). Some examples of international marine
Science-policy interfaces
treaties/conventions7 are (in alphabetic order): Convention
(translating science into the on Biological Diversity (CBD), Convention on the Conservation
advisory process)
of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Convention on the
Figure 7.1. Quadruple helix model showing the UN architecture for Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other
ocean science knowledge and environmental governance (the list
Matter (London Convention or LDC), International Convention
of organizations and entities shown here is not exhaustive). Source:
redrawn from Valdés (2017). for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and
or decisions made in one helix sub-system become knowledge

Sediments (BWM Convention), International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), United
7
input to a different helix sub-system (Carayannis and Campbell, Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) and United
2010). According to Valdés (2017), in order to secure stability in Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
this quadruple helix and to facilitate sustainable development, (Appendix).
each of the four described pillars (helices) has a special and
Scientific programmes for sustainability: These
necessary role with societal and scientific relevance, as follows:
programmes foster scientific knowledge generated
Intergovernmental entities: UN agencies and organizations by natural, social and human sciences for sustainable
are the backbone of the multilateral political system, providing development – including the understanding of ecosystem
political legitimacy to decisions. These organizations are functioning and the connections to human health, well-
critical, as they formulate the collective need of nations and being and security – to enable political decisions to be
provide the ‘will to do and to act’. They also assign resources made on the basis of solid scientific evidence (Valdés, 2017).
and act as promoters of international law (Valdés, 2017). Currently, some of the Global Environmental Change (GEC)
For the purpose of this study, the following 13 entities have programmes and projects existing since 1992 are in transition
been identified that are directly involved – or have a specific into a new overarching initiative named Future Earth. 8
mandate – in ocean matters (in alphabetic order): Food These GEC programmes were launched and supported by
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), intergovernmental and non-governmental international
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), International organizations, such as the International Council for Science
Labour Organization (ILO), International Maritime (ICSU), WMO, UNESCO, IOC-UNESCO and UNEP.
Organization (IMO), Intergovernmental Oceanographic
The science-policy interface: This is a set of processes
Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO), International
that enable most of the scientific knowledge produced by
Seabed Authority (ISA), United Nations Department of
scientific programmes for sustainability to be digested and
Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA), United Nations
translated into policy-relevant information. Therefore, this
Division on Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (UN-
helix provides comprehensive information on the issues
DOALOS), United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), United
7 These conventions were referred to in the responses of IOC member
Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), World States to the GOSR questionnaire (2015).
Bank (WB), and World Meteorological Organization (WMO). 8 http://www.futureearth.org/

demanded by international law and intergovernmental or coordinating mechanisms that are not binding for their
organizations, so that the latest scientific findings are members. Other RFBs have a management mandate and
reflected in high-level policy discussions (such as Conference have binding regulatory powers for the managed area. These
of the Parties, the governing bodies of international Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) and
conventions and other governance meetings). There are Arrangements (RFMAs) focus on fisheries management at the
several science-policy interface processes in the UN regional level (Figure 7.2a). Currently, there are more than 50
system. One of the best known, by the general public and RFBs worldwide, only about half of which are RFMOs with a
policy-makers, is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate management mandate, and only a limited number of RFMOs
Change (IPCC) which distils and assimilates climate change are able to institute binding measures on members in areas
research and publishes its conclusions in the form of the beyond national jurisdiction.
renowned Assessment Reports.9 Other relevant science-
The UNEP Regional Seas Programme, launched in 1974, aims
policy interfaces are the State of World Fisheries and
to address the accelerating degradation of the world’s ocean
Aquaculture (SOFIA), the World Ocean Assessment (WOA)
and coastal areas through the sustainable management and
and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
use of the marine and coastal environment. Today, more than
Ecosystem Services (IPBES) (Valdés, 2017).
143 countries participate in 13 Regional Seas programmes
Many times, and mostly for external observers, it may seem established under the auspices of UNEP (Figure 7.2b).
that two or more organizations overlap or duplicate in their
The IOC regional sub-commissions cover: the Caribbean and
mandates and/or activities. Sometimes this is a misperception
Adjacent Regions (IOCARIBE), the Western Pacific (WESTPAC),
of the mandate/approach relating to certain activities, which
and Africa and the Adjacent Island States (IOCAFRICA). The
are in most cases complementary, because there is generally
IOC has also established regional committees: for the Central
a will to cooperate rather than compete (Valdés, 2017).
Indian Ocean (IOCINDIO) and the Black Sea (BSRC). These are
Nevertheless, the UN General Assembly (UNGA), in successive
intergovernmental subsidiary bodies of the IOC, responsible
resolutions (such as 56/12, 57/141 and 58/240), requested the
for the coordination and supervision of scientific and service
UN Secretary-General to ensure an effective, transparent and
activities at the regional level.
regular inter-agency coordination mechanism among relevant
entities of the UN secretariat as well as related organizations The promotion and implementation of various regional scientific
involved in ‘oceans and coastal issues’ within the UN system programmes and projects has been supported by a number
(Valdés, 2017). This was the origin of UN-Oceans (Section 7.2). of UN organizations and funded by the Word Bank and the
Global Environmental Facility (GEF). For example, GEF has
been supporting 23 Large Marine Ecosystems (LME) projects
7.2.1.2. Regional instruments
since 1998, leading to the establishment of multisectoral LME
under the UN umbrella
Commissions in some regions (Chapter 8).
The motto ‘think globally, act locally’ is valid for the UN system.
Willing to facilitate regional management structures, the UN has 7.2.1.3. Regional international organizations
promoted or adopted under its umbrella a number of regional
subsidiary bodies such as FAO regional fisheries organizations, Regional international organizations are open to members
UNEP regional seas programmes and IOC regional sub- from a particular continent, region or ocean basin in the world.
commissions. The information and the analysis provided by The origin of regional international marine organizations goes
these regional actors bring real benefits at the global level back to 1902, when the International Council for the Exploration
when they address the ocean as a whole. Nevertheless, on some of the Sea (ICES) charter was officially adopted by 8 countries
occasions, they deserve additional efforts to go beyond regional (growing very rapidly up to the present 20 member States).
particularities and tropism. The founders of ICES envisioned an international scientific
collaboration that would achieve the production of knowledge10
According to FAO (2012), regional fisheries bodies (RFBs)
on a scale that would be impossible based on investigations by
are mechanisms through which States and organizations
a single nation (Rozwadowski, 2002). The establishment of ICES
work together towards the conservation, management and/
predated the establishment of CIESM in 1919 and the International
or development of fisheries and related issues. Some RFBs
have an advisory mandate, and provide advice, decisions 10 ICES, together with the International Association for the Physical Sciences
of the Oceans (IAPSO), an NGO founded in 1919, was instrumental in
the adoption of the Standard Seawater used during most of the twentieth
9 So far, the IPCC has published five Assessment Reports. century (Culkin and Smed, 1979).

a) Main FAO regional fisheries management organizations and regional seas covered by conventions
NASCO NAMMCO
Helsinki
OSPAR
PSC IBSFC
ICES Bucharest
IPHC
NAFO Barcelona
PICES GFCM
ICCAT
Kuwait IWC
NPFAC Cartagena SRFC
Jeddah Pacific
WECAFC CECAF RECOFI Ocean
IATTC
Atlantic
OLDEPESCA Nairobi APFIC
IWC Ocean Abidjan
CEPFTA COREP WIOTO IOTC
SPC Pacific Lima SEAFO

SWIOFC
Ocean
EAF Indian
CPPS Ocean
CTMFM
MHLC
OAPO
FFA CCSBT CCSBT
CCAMLR IWC CCAMLR
Regional Fisheries Management Organization Regional Sea covered by a Convention

7
b) Main UNEP regional seas programmes and initiatives
Arctic Region
Baltic Region
North-East
Atlantic Region Black Sea Region
North-West
Caspian Region Pacific Region
Mediterranean
Region ROPME
Sea Area
Wider Caribbean (Persian Gulf)
Region Red Sea and
North-East Gulf of Aden Southeast Asian
Pacific Region Region Region
Eastern
West and Central Africa Region
African Region
East Asian
Sea Region
South Pacific
South-East Region
Pacific Region
Antarctic
Region
UNEP administered Regional Seas programmes Non-UNEP administered Regional Seas programmes
Caspian Region
Figure 7.2. Maps showing: a) the main FAO Regional Fisheries Management Organizations and regional seas covered by conventions; and b) the
main UNEP Regional Seas programmes and initiatives. Sources: (a) FAO, 2009 and UNEP, 1982 (updated 2010); (b) UNEP, 1982 (updated 2017).

Hydrographic Organization11 (IHO) in 1921. Their vision quickly won their interest to include ocean affairs, such as the European
them international recognition that still exists today, even with the Commission and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
later emergence of UN agencies. Their role and achievements and Development (OECD).13Relevant regional conventions14
in promoting science and management were crucial for include: Convention for Cooperation in the Protection, Management
understanding the expansion of such typology of international and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the
organizations to other ocean basins and regional seas. Atlantic Coast of the West, Central and Southern Africa Region
(Abidjan Convention), Convention for the Protection of the
Regulation of ocean uses and exploitation of resources in the
Marine Environment and the Coastal Region of the Mediterranean
regional seas and in areas beyond national jurisdiction needs
(Barcelona Convention), Convention on the Protection of the Black
collective action on an international scale. This stewardship
Sea Against Pollution (Bucharest Convention), Convention for
is provided by international/intergovernmental organizations
the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the
and is one of the main drivers for their establishment (Olson,
Wider Caribbean Area (Cartagena Convention), Convention on
1965; Ostrom, 1990).
the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area
It was after World War II that international science policy (HELCOM Convention), Regional Convention for the Conservation
organizations became widespread and alliances of governments of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment (Jeddah Convention),
established international organizations in order to use them Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection
as international councils for policy and regulation. Since the of the Marine Environment from Pollution (Kuwait Convention),
1970s, the world has seen an acceleration in the founding of Convention for the Protection, Management and Development
IGOs (Section 7.4). of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African
Regional institutions are linked to the potential recipients of Region (Nairobi Convention), and Convention for the Protection
policies12 and as a consequence these councils were established of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR
worldwide, around the different ocean basins and seas. Most Convention).
of these councils are multipurpose organizations and some
are supported by parallel regional conventions such as the
7.2.2. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the
North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) and the Convention on the Protection The term ‘non-governmental organization’ (NGO) was first
of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM). coined in 1945, when the UN was created. The UN made it
It is also important to note that although the regional IGO possible for certain approved specialized international non-
network remains mostly segmented and regionalized, there state agencies to be awarded ‘observer’ status at its assemblies
is evidence of increasing cooperation among different councils and some of its meetings (Ulleberg, 2009). Formally, a NGO is
and conventions worldwide. a not-for-profit organization that is independent from states
and international governmental organizations. They are usually
Well-established and renowned marine regional organizations,
funded by donations and some avoid formal funding from
commissions and consultative parties include the Arctic Council,
governments. NGOs are highly diverse organizations, engaged
Antarctic Treaty System, Black Sea Commission, Commission
in a wide range of activities related to ocean science, education,
for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
environmental protection, funding and others.
(CCAMLR), CIESM, Coordinating Body on the Sea of East Asia,
ICES, North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES), NGO is now widely used as a synonym for advocacy, voluntary
Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS), Regional or philanthropy organizations that act to protect various public
Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red interests in many fields, including science, environmental
Sea and Gulf of Aden, Regional Organization for the Protection
of the Marine Environment (ROPME) and the South Pacific
13 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is
Community. Other relevant regional organizations were created a global organization, but it has its roots in the Organisation for European
with purposes other than marine policy, but have expanded Economic Cooperation (OEEC) which was established in 1948 to run the
US-financed Marshall Plan. Encouraged by its success and the prospect
of carrying its work forward on a global stage, Canada and the US joined
OEEC members in signing the new OECD Convention on 14 December 1960.
11 IHO is an intergovernmental organization with almost global membership; The OECD was officially born on 30 September 1961, when the Convention
only a few States (all of which are in Africa or the Caribbean) have not entered into force. Today, the OECD incorporates 35 member countries
signed the charter. worldwide.
12 For example, the European Union (EU) is the main recipient of new policy 14 These regional conventions were referred to in the responses of IOC
ideas developed by ICES and CIESM. member States to the GOSR questionnaire (2015).

protection and conservation. They vary in their degree of of scientific articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and in
formality, composition, structure, financing and thematic reports/grey literature.
coverage. Whereas IGOs are hierarchical and organized ‘top-
Large science-based NGOs, such as ICSU, have achieved
down’, NGOs tend to be self-organizing network structures,
outstanding products, from the creation and promotion of
built on bottom-up schemes, bringing together scientists and
global research programmes that were subsequently adopted
activists who collaborate not because they are told to, but
by the UN system, such as the World Climate Research
because they want to (Parmentier, 2012).
Program (WCRP), International Geosphere-Biosphere Program
Ocean science policy in NGOs is seen in a broader perspective, (IGBP), International Human Dimension Programme on Global
covering all interactions among players, whether formal or Environmental Change (IHDP), Diversitas and Future Earth.
informal, that shape these interactions. Transnational NGOs SCOR, together with the IOC, made the second International
have become an integral part of the international ocean Indian Ocean Expedition possible. Also, SCOR and POGO
management architecture and contribute to the implementation were instrumental in launching the International Quiet Ocean
of the multilateral environmental agenda. The nature of NGO Experiment (IQOE). The EMB Position Papers and related
contributions in marine management, science and conservation products successfully influence16 the European Commission’s
is almost as diverse as the nature of NGOs themselves. In fact, framework programmes and national marine research funding
it is a nearly impossible task to enumerate the array of NGOs. schemes in Europe.
According to their functions (Parmentier, 2012; Crosman,
The scientific capacity of some NGOs is more developed than
2013), five different typologies of NGOs relevant to the marine
others. For example, for more than 20 years, Greenpeace
environment can be identified: (i) science-based, (ii) advocacy/
International has had a Science Unit based at the University
policy development and agenda-setting, (iii) education,
of Exeter, UK, where a team of full-time scientists advises
environmental awareness/conservation management, (iv)
watch-dogging and rapid response and (v) funding and capacity-
the organization’s campaigners and undertakes research
that helps build the case for their campaigns. Some scientific
7
building. Some NGOs are involved in only one, but most NGOs
organizations rely on international scientific collaboration and
touch on two or more of these functions.15
scientists voluntarily donating time and expertise (e.g. SCOR
and SCAR) to overcome capacity constraints.
7.2.2.1. Science-based NGOs
Many relevant NGOs are intrinsically science-based, such as 7.2.2.2. Advocacy/policy development and
ICSU, International Association for the Physical Sciences of agenda-setting NGOs
the Oceans (IAPSO), Partnership for Observation of the Global
Many NGOs actively contribute to the development and
Oceans (POGO), Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research
improvement of the policies of public administrations, with
(SCOR), Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR)
the aim of influencing legislation and regulation at local,
and Conservation International (CI). They benefit from in-
national, regional and global levels. They do this to improve
house academic and scientific expertise or may even be led
their performance and effectiveness in order to gain formal
by scientists, as are ICSU, the Union of Concerned Scientists
endorsement and legitimacy for their demands. These NGOs
(UCS) and the European Marine Board (EMB). These NGOs are
often organize their own events and processes with the goal
important platforms at the crossroads of science and policy,
of creating opportunities for public administrations to interact
linking scientists with governmental, international agencies and
with them. They may also participate formally or informally in
in some cases the private sector. The nature of the scientific
the processes established by public administrations.
work undertaken by these NGOs can be separated into three
different roles: (i) the review of scientific knowledge and of Advocacy organizations, such as Greenpeace, WWF, the
assumptions arising from that knowledge; (ii) the development Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC) and Oceana, have
of marine research agendas and the promotion of scientific been instrumental in the development of many international
research programmes; and (iii) laboratory and on-site scientific agreements: the moratorium on commercial whaling (joint
research. Their work is often showcased through the publication
16 The Marine Board ‘Navigating the Future’ series provides regular pan-
European summaries of the current status of marine research, priority
recommendations and future scientific challenges in the context of
15 A non-exhaustive list of NGOs involved in ocean science and governance European societal needs. ‘Navigating the Future IV’ was designed to
can be found at <http://www.un.org/depts/los/Links/NGO-links.htm>. inform the Commission calls under the EU Horizon 2020 programme.

‘IWC project’), the 1973 Convention on International Trade in specialized in the investigation of environmental crimes. As part
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the of its ‘Species in Peril’ programme, EIA documents and seeks to
ocean dumping ban of wastes (including radioactive wastes) at prevent massive kills of dolphins, porpoises and whales.
sea under the London Convention. In addition, these and other
Very often, these NGOs receive a lot of public support, as
NGOs (e.g. Global Forum on Oceans, Global Ocean Commission,
they are seen to respond faster than public authorities when
World Ocean Council) have identified sustainable development
environmental disasters affecting the marine environment
in the ocean (i.e. blue economy) as an area where policy action
occur (e.g. after the Erika and Prestige oil spills, the Deepwater
is possible and required.
Horizon offshore oil platform accident in the Gulf of Mexico, or
the Fukushima event).
7.2.2.3. Education, environmental awareness and
conservation campaigns
7.2.2.5. Funding and capacity-building
Many NGOs are active in launching awareness campaigns
Activities falling into this category include building capacity,
to raise ‘hot’ environmental issues. These campaigns can
providing opportunities for hands-on involvement in
take many different forms, from activism at sea to education
management, and direct provision of funding for NGOs and
campaigns at regional or local scales. They also interact with
other organizations involved in marine science. Some NGOs
stakeholders (including government agencies) to promote
and charitable foundations provide economic expertise and
effective respectful conservation management practices.
often give access to funding sources for the efforts of other
As mentioned above, NGOs can play a science advocacy role in individuals or organizations. Capacity-building includes
the development of international legal instruments. At more facilitating stakeholder involvement in decision-making
local and regional scales – in response to the concerns aired processes, institution building, and facilitating – or acting as a
by NGOs over the future of bluefin tuna stocks in the Atlantic hub for – collaborative management.
and elsewhere – numerous retail chains and restaurants are
Funding provision can be in multiple forms as pure research
advertising the fact that they have removed this species from
funding, fellowships or support work that government support
their stalls and menus (this was championed by the Seafood
alone could not provide, especially in developing countries.
Choices Alliance). The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) was
Examples include the Coral Reef Alliance, which provides
set up as a fishery certification programme and seafood eco-
funds to Caribbean and Pacific NGOs to help meet operational
label to recognize and reward sustainable fishing. Other NGOs
needs; the WWF which administers grants from foundations,
(e.g. MedPAN, Coral Reef Alliance, Save Our Seas, Conservation
routing funds to local NGOs as needed; and the Elkhorn Slough
International) were created for conservation management
Foundation which purchases land and/or rights of use to
purposes and advocate for the promotion of conservation
preserve the environment.
measures such as marine protected areas, marine reserves,
marine parks and no-take zones. Capacity-development has gradually become the centre of
attention in the development discourse over the past few
years. NGOs have willingly adopted capacity-development
7.2.2.4. ‘Watch-dogging’ and rapid response
activities as a consequence of this new ‘turn’ in the development
The sea offers innumerable opportunities for NGOs to test and conversation, and the perception that NGOs are reliable actors
demonstrate the effectiveness of their watchdog function, which for rapid interventions in an environmental crisis. In this regard,
constitutes a way for them to scale-up their actions and obtain NGOs provide knowledge, facilitation and guidance that are
visibility. ‘Watch-dogging’ includes monitoring, preventing or needed for environmental, socio-economic and ecological
stopping certain activities, such as activities that are illegal or monitoring in order to create a local knowledge base and build
incompatible with a conservation agenda. support for conservation; e.g. the Blue Carbon Initiative is
supported by CI, the International Union for Conservation of
Various NGOs have been instrumental in watch-dogging illegal,
Nature (IUCN) and IOC.
unreported and unregulated fishing in the Southern Ocean.
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society takes direct action, while Charitable foundations—which as ‘not-for-profit’ organizations
some other NGOs (e.g. the Conservation Law Foundation can be considered as NGOs—fund marine science projects
and the Environmental Investigation Agency, EIA) generate worldwide (Chapter 4). Examples include: the Pew Charitable
lawsuits designed to force compliance with existing law. EIA has Trusts (whose ambitious Global Ocean Legacy Program

UN-Oceans and UN constraints to lead ocean science and policy assessment
developed its own ‘Seascapes’ and also launched the have the approval of political institutions for the legitimacy of
‘Marviva’ project, a public-private partnership between the their policy orientations. For example, the persisting problem
Governments of Ecuador, Colombia, Panama and Costa Rica, of fleet overcapacity was considered as an important issue for
plus philanthropic personalities with business and social ties RACs in Europe.
in those countries); the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (which was
Research and capacity-building programmes are sometimes
the donor for Census of Marine Life); and the Prince Albert II of
established by hybrid organizations. Examples include the
Monaco Foundation (fully dedicated to oceanography).
GEF Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction (ABNJ) Programme
led by FAO, and the successful international programme
7.2.3. Hybrid organizations Census of Marine Life (CoML), which was a partnership of
intergovernmental/international organizations (e.g. IOC, FAO,
Hybrid organizations represent an increasingly common UNEP, PICES), international NGOs (e.g. ICSU and SCOR) and
approach designed to enable cooperation between the different private foundations and corporations (e.g. National Geographic
social arrangements, networks and institutions that mediate Society and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation).
between the institutions of science and politics (Miller, 2001).
The GEF ABNJ Programme brings together UNEP, UNDP,
A hybrid organization mixes elements, value systems of various
the World Bank, RFMO/As, the private sector and NGOs, with
sectors of society, i.e. the public sector, the private sector and
the FAO serving as the Global Programme Coordination Unit.
the voluntary sector. These hybrid organizations vary in degree
It has a global Steering Committee and a Technical Advisory
of formality, composition, structure, financing and thematic
Group which work to ensure participation of key partners from
coverage. Illustrative examples include the Global Partnership
the policy, technical and scientific communities, as well as
for Oceans (GPO) initiated by the World Bank, IUCN and the
industry. The ABNJ Programme aims to promote efficient and
EU Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) under the EU Common
Fisheries Policy.
sustainable management of fisheries resources and biodiversity
conservation in the ABNJ and to meet related global targets
7
GPO, launched in 2012 under the auspices of the World Bank, agreed in international fora.
is a growing coalition of more than 100 partners including
CoML was a ten-year programme that engaged a wide and global
governments, international organizations, civil society groups
network of researchers established in more than 80 nations to
and members of the private sector. GPO seeks to draw on the
assess and explain the diversity, distribution and abundance
knowledge, expertise and financial support of all its partners to
of life in the ocean. The final report was launched in 2010. In
address major threats to ocean and coastal resources, including
addition to extensive contributions to marine science, CoML
overfishing and habitat loss in a number of priority regions
has created major legacies including the Ocean Biogeographic
around the world.
Information System (OBIS) database, the world’s largest open
IUCN, created in 1948, is a membership union composed access, online repository of spatially referenced marine life
of governments, multilateral agencies, NGOs, companies data that continues under the auspices of the IOC as part of its
and corporate foundations. IUCN provides governments and mandate to facilitate the exchange of oceanographic data and
institutions at all levels with the impetus to achieve universal information among participating Member States (Chapter 6).
goals, on matters including biodiversity, climate change
and sustainable development. One of the most remarkable
achievements from IUCN was its contribution to the
establishment of the CITES convention. 7.3. UN-Oceans and UN constraints
RACs can be seen as international boundary organizations to lead ocean science and policy
mixing scientific, socio-economic and political elements and assessment
mediating between stakeholders – such as science institutions,
fisheries associations, producer organizations, market Ocean and coastal issues have unfortunately received low
organizations, environmental NGOs – and politics in order to visibility and priority within the UN system (Mounir and Inomata,
contribute to the sustainable use of marine resources under 2012; UK National Commission for UNESCO Secretariat,
the EU Common Fisheries Policy (e.g. Aps et al., 2009). RACs 2015). Many ocean entities in the UN system are part of higher
are instruments to facilitate consensus among parties; they rely structures, often sector-oriented (Valdés, 2017). For many of
on science for the credibility of their knowledge and claim to

Table 7.1. Areas of activity declared by the UN-Oceans organizations in 2014 (adapted from Valdés, 2017).
IOC- UNEP- IMO- DOALOS-

WMO FAO UNDP IAEA UNHCR UNCTAD UN DESA
UNESCO CBD WMU ISA
Sustainable development
Science
Marine environment
Marine biodiversity
Fisheries
Exploitation non-living
resources
Cables & pipelines
Marine safety & security
People at sea and education
Underwater cultural heritage
these, the oceans were, and remain, a non-central responsibility complementary activities to better address environmental and
in their overall remit (Holland and Pugh, 2010). socio-economic challenges. A good example is the cooperation
established among several specialized agencies to attend
UN-Oceans was established by the UN High-Level Committee
the UNFCCC COPs with a common programme of events
on Programmes in 2003 to inter alia establish an effective,
(Valdés, 2017).
transparent and regular inter-agency coordination mechanism
on ocean and coastal issues within the UN system, as well as Figure 7.4 is a mapping exercise showing the regional and global
to facilitate, as appropriate, inputs to the annual report on governmental and non-governmental organizations involved in
Oceans and the Law of the Sea of the Secretary-General and the management of ocean environmental issues according to
to the Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans its technical mandate and its regional or global coverage (left
and the Law of the Sea (ICP). This coordination mechanism panel). For illustration purposes only a few organizations were
was evaluated in 2011–2012 (Mounir and Inomata, 2012), and plotted, but it is obvious that the figure can be populated with
the new terms of reference were approved by the UN General many other organizations and tailored ad hoc by any interested
Assembly in 2013 at its 68th session.
UN-Oceans is currently composed of 16 relevant programmes,

DOALOS-ISA Law
entities, organizations and specialized agencies of the UN and UN-DESA
the secretariats of relevant UN conventions (e.g. CBD, UNCLOS).
It aspires to reinforce assessment on ocean management and Trade & Development
enable more coherent and strategic approaches across all
UNCTAD
UN agencies. Most of the UN-Oceans members responded in
2014 to a questionnaire describing their main areas of work in UNDP
UNHCR WMO
relation to ocean matters (Table 7.1). IAEA
The scatterplot in Figure 7.3 shows the statistical distance UNEP
FAO
(similarities) among the different elements17 after Table 7.1 was
IOC-UNESCO Environment
converted in a matrix of zeros and ones. While this highlights IMO-WMU & Science
the potential overlap between the mandates/focus areas of
UN agencies with regards to ocean matters, it also illustrates
the opportunities that exist to harness/leverage synergies and
Figure 7.3. UN-Oceans elements represented in a non-
multidimensional 2D distance plot (scatterplot 2D distance matrix
17 UN-DOALOS and ISA, UNEP and CBD, and IMO and WMU, are presented 1-Pearson r). Source: adapted from Valdés (2017).
collectively as they are dependent or directly connected organizations.

person. The final purpose is to show that there is a need for an current fragmentation and the lack of an overarching and
intergovernmental organization with a global technical mandate operational body with a strong and common voice is a weakness
and global coverage with the legitimacy and authority to speak for an architecture that otherwise counts with the necessary
with one voice on behalf of the ocean. It seems that this space elements of the quadruple helix (i.e. authority, law, research and
or niche is appropriate for UN-Oceans (Valdés, 2017). science-policy interface processes; Figure 7.1; Valdés, 2017).
If the marine NGOs are mapped in a similar exercise The issue is that the UN preference for a sector-by-sector
(Figure 7.4, right panel) then we see that there are several approach to marine management cannot sustain marine
organizations occupying the space that is not actually occupied ecosystems as a whole (McGinnis, 2012). This inevitably
by any intergovernmental body (other than UN-Oceans). This leads to some confusion over which agency should take the
is a natural reaction from civil society in response to the lead on a given issue (UK National Commission for UNESCO
need to have voices speaking up to defend the ocean and to Secretariat, 2015). Consideration could be given to expanding
demand solutions on emerging issues, something that for UN-Oceans’ mandate and scope. It could perhaps be a more
an intergovernmental body is an overly long and complicated product-oriented body, starting by having its own ‘stamped’
process (Valdés, 2017). products as UN-Oceans publications (Valdés, 2017). In addition,
a dedicated team of staff would be indispensable for a UN-
Ocean and coastal issues nowadays include everything from
Oceans mechanism to become an operative entity taking
marine environmental protection (e.g. capture fisheries and
an overall coordination role to implement UN priorities on
aquaculture, marine ecosystem degradation, marine pollution,
the ocean. Based on the thematic exercise summarized in
climate change, ocean carbon), to shipping, protection of
Figure 7.3, it seems that a UN-Oceans-like organization might
workers, tsunamis, nuclear events, piracy and terrorism. These
try to coordinate an enormous portfolio of topics and activities
issues are governed/regulated by different UN organizations.
which can only be addressed by a multilateral legal entity, well-
The UN system should no longer be seen as a discrete authority
on ocean and coastal issues (Mounir and Inomata, 2012). The
staffed and budgeted (Valdés, 2017). 7
MAPPING OCEAN GOVERNANCE
Intergovernmental organizations (not exhaustive) NGOs & Hybrid (n.e.)
Sector oriented Sector oriented
CECAF DOALOS-ISA
NAFO NASCO UN-DESA PEW POGO
IWC
MARS
GFCM UNTAC UNDP CI
ICCAT WMO
IDDRI
IAEA
UNHRC
NEAFC UNEP IUCN
FAO SCOR
IOC-UNESCO ICSU
IMO-WMU
Regional Global Global
PEMSEA
AC
OCEANA
CIESM PICES GOF
HELCOM UN-OCEANS GOC
ICES
GREENPEACE WON
OSPAR
GPO
Broad mandate Broad mandate
Figure 7.4. Scheme of international governmental and non-governmental lead organizations intervening in ocean management and governance
clustered according to their technical mandate and the regional or global coverage (not exhaustive, see the appendix for acronyms). Source:
adapted from Valdés (2017).

The importance of NGO action in realizing international goals
7.4. The importance of NGO action in negotiation agenda and to influence the positions of key states.
Other authors (e.g. Humphreys, 2008) argue that NGOs’ most
realizing international goals important contributions occurred over time rather than in
any specific negotiation; for example, they have succeeded in
NGOs have become service providers where governments are reframing environmental concern from a romantic issue to one
unable to respond to challenges or fulfil their responsibilities of ecological and human rights.
(Ulleberg, 2009), working with States and international
governmental organizations to implement international ocean Despite mounting evidence that NGOs make a difference in
environmental protection and conservation. In this regard, global environmental politics, the question of under what
international environmental NGOs have become an integral conditions NGOs have influence generally remains unanswered.
part of the international ocean management architecture NGO activities, resources and engagement with international
and contribute to the implementation of the multilateral negotiations give some indication but this does not provide
environmental agenda (Crosman, 2013). detailed information on impact and there can be confusion
between correlation and causation (Betsill and Corell, 2008).
NGOs gained power, participation and pluralism in social Whereas NGOs may influence many policy actions, international
appraisal of environmental science diplomacy. This is called scientific assessments are always conducted by IGO-related
‘Track Two dialogue’ or ‘Track Two diplomacy’ (Montville, scientists in a quality-assured, separate procedure.
1991; Betsill and Corell, 2008), which means the transnational
coordination that involves non-official members of the In summary, many NGOs complement, and sometimes compete
government. In contrast to government diplomats, track two with, governmental agencies in their environmental agendas,
diplomacy consists of experts, scientists, academicians and but regardless of its advantages, track two diplomacy also has
other figures that are neither involved in government affairs, several weaknesses: (i) NGOs often participate in policy and
nor represent constituencies that are bound by territory, but by scientific meetings as observers and have no formal voting
common values, knowledge and/or interests related to a specific authority, making it difficult for NGO actors to influence the
issue. Therefore, participants in track two diplomacy express negotiating process and limiting their ability to influence political
views that are independent of any national government and have power structures; (ii) NGO participants rarely have resources
more freedom to exchange ideas and come up with compromises necessary for sustained leverage during negotiations; (iii)
on their own (Montville, 1991; Betsill and Corell, 2008). track two diplomacy is more effective in democratic societies;
(iv) NGOs are in most cases not accountable to the public for poor
Today’s scientific world is characterized by self-organizing decisions; and (v) because of their multiplicity, NGOs can lack
networks, bringing together scientists who collaborate not coordination and common strategies and goals. With a plethora
because they are told to but because they want to. These of NGOs playing varying roles in the conduct, promotion, support
networks, motivated by the bottom-up exchange of scientific and application of ocean science, understanding the different
insight, knowledge and skills, span the globe and are changing roles of these actors is important to streamline ocean science-
the focus of science from the national to the regional and global policy interactions and maximize effectiveness.
level (e.g. Global Ocean Ecosystem Dynamics (GLOBEC), CoML,
etc). Policy-makers have not always recognized the importance
of these linkages to the quality and direction of science,
tending to emphasize research investment to the detriment 7.5. A race for the ocean:
of developing policies that support and foster such networks
(Royal Society, 2011; Parmentier, 2012).
The expansion of
international organizations
There are examples of NGOs that have had success in achieving
their goals or have had a level of influence on international
National academies and royal societies of science, many of
environmental negotiations, for instance the dumping of
which gained strong reputations, date back to the seventeenth
radioactive waste, the ban on commercial whaling and the
century. But it was only after the Second World War that
Kyoto Protocol negotiations (Ringius, 1997; Corell and Betsill,
international science policy organizations became widespread
2001; Andresen and Skodvin, 2008). Even if they sometimes have
and alliances of governments established legal and permanent
little measurable effect on the outcome of the negotiations,
intergovernmental organizations in order to use them as
NGOs shape the process by working behind the scenes to
international councils for policy regulation. Since the 1970s, the
frame the debate and raise concerns about issues on the
founding of IGOs as well as NGOs flourished quickly (Figure 7.5a).

A race for the ocean: The expansion ofinternational organizations
After the Industrial Revolution, it was recognized that scientific to the existing need to strengthen and give coherence to the
knowledge could be translated into increased wealth, security international science community and in part to their ability to
and improved standards of living, and that this should be influence world affairs (Royal Society, 2011, Karns et al., 2015).
harnessed by States and integrated into large economic
At that time science was believed to proceed most efficiently
establishments. It was in the early 1950s that two international
and productively when left to scientists. Certainly, this bottom-
organizations, UNESCO and OECD, began to promote science,
up approach was the attitude of the scientific societies and it
policy and innovation among their member States (Finnemore,
continues to be the attitude of most scientists’ professional
1993). Giving science a visible role in these new multilateral
organizations and of individual scientists active in international
organizations was a way of recognizing the importance of
research and innovation. UNESCO’s early science programmes
science to the world emerging after World War II; the fact that
were designed to serve science and scientists rather than
they succeeded in giving a voice to science was due in part
States. In fact, science policy and promoting science capabilities
of member States were not even mentioned in the UNESCO
charter (Finnemore, 1993). It was later that the situation
reverted to a top-down policy approach. Minutes of UNESCO
a)
conferences from that time ‘describe the decline in participation
(1900)
by scientists, educators and writers and the increased presence of
(1910)
‘government technicians’ who viewed themselves as government
(1920) spokespersons’ (Finnemore, 1993). The move from the bottom-
(1930) up to top-down policy approach represented a shift in the
balance of power between UNESCO’s two constituencies.
(1940)
It was said that this shift was ‘the price for financial support’
(1950)
(Finnemore, 1993). 7
(1960)
In the last 50 years, science policy-making organizations
(1970) (UN agencies, international organizations and secretariats
(1980) to international conventions) have sprung up in virtually
(1990) all developed countries and in most developing countries.
The appearance of these new pieces of state machinery are
(2000)
explained in the literature as demand-driven (Finnemore, 1993;
(2010) Stirling, 2008), such as when a region perceives that a problem
is affecting a group of nations (e.g. marine pollution), those
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
nations find in science policy bureaucracy a route to a common
Number of international organizations
solution (e.g. creating a new international convention). Obviously,
b) this international stewardship favours the creation of regional
Africa
international institutions linked to the potential recipients of their
Arab States policies and, as consequently these councils were established
Asia worldwide, around different ocean basins and seas.
Europe The number of ocean-related NGOs has likewise exploded

Latin America over the past century (Turner, 2010) stimulated by the fact that
& Caribe
these organizations increasingly participate in international
North America
political processes. Since the 1990s, one finds an acceleration
Oceania of the founding of NGOs (Figure 7.5a): the 1972 United Nations
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Conference on the Human Environment, Stockholm, was
Number of international organizations attended by representatives of more than 250 NGOs; at the 1992
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development,
● IGO ● NGO
Rio de Janeiro, 1,400 NGOs were accredited; and more than
3,200 organizations were accredited to the 2002 World Summit
Figure 7.5. a) Number of international organizations (IGOs and NGOs)
created by decade since 1900; and b) number of international on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg (Betsill and
organizations by regions. Corell, 2008).

Final remarks
The regional distribution of NGOs in Figure 7.5b shows that

References
they have developed mainly in North America and Europe and
demonstrates the aspirational vision of most international NGOs
to be influential to policy leaders of most developed countries. Andresen, S. and Skodvin, T. 2008. Non-state influence in the
international whaling commission, 1970 to 2006. NGO
diplomacy. M. M. Betsill and E. Corell (eds) The Influence of
Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental
7.6. Final remarks Negotiations. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 119–47.
Aps, R., Fetissov, M., Kell, L. and Lassen, H. 2009. Baltic Sea regional
Advisory Council as a hybrid management framework for
As we consider the importance of pluralism in marine sustainable fisheries. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the
science diplomacy, we also need to bear in mind the power Environment, Vol.122, pp. 163-72.
that science can have in and over society and in our lives Betsill, M. M. and Corell, E. 2008. NGO diplomacy: The influence
as many of the major global challenges of the twenty-first of nongovernmental organizations in international
environmental negotiations. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
century have scientific dimensions. This raises the question
Campbell, L. M., Gray, N. J., Fairbanks, L., Silver, J. J., Gruby,
of how international institutions balance and assist State R. L., Bradford Dubik, B.A. and Basurto, X. 2016. Global
representatives to disseminate science policy models (e.g. oceans governance: New and emerging issues. Annual Review
by financing capacity-building in science and technology and of Environment and Resources, Vol. 41, No.2, pp. 517-543.
promoting an equitable distribution of policy organizations and Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D. F. J. 2010. Triple helix, quadruple
helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation
implementation agencies worldwide).
and the environment relate to each other? A proposed
The perception that ocean management and governance is key framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable
development and social ecology. International Journal of Social
to its sustainability is reflected in recent discussions taking Ecology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 41–69.
place in UN agencies and international fora dealing with ocean
Carayannis, E. G. and Campbell, D. F. J. 2011. Open innovation
issues and aimed at improving coordination among institutions diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education
and stakeholders (e.g. ocean fertilization, biodiversity in areas and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: building on the quadruple
beyond national jurisdiction, SDG 14 and others; see Chapter and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “Mode 3”
knowledge production system. Journal of the Knowledge
8). Whereas NGOs may have influence on international ocean
Economy, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 327–72.
environmental protection – through advocacy roles, the
Corell, E. and Betsill, M. M. 2001. A comparative look at NGO
provision of evidence-based scientific advice, or by facilitating
influence in international environmental negotiations:
international science collaboration – IGOs may serve similar Desertification and climate change. Global Environmental
roles but have an additional function to provide formal science- Politics, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 86–107.
policy support. Crosman, K. M. 2013. The roles of non-governmental organizations
in marine conservation. Master of Science Thesis. University
Improved and shared knowledge of the ocean is seen as a of Michigan. Culkin, F. and Smed, J. 1979. The history
prerequisite for an effective system of marine management. of standard seawater. Oceanological Acta, Vol. 2, No. 3,
Guidance could be developed on how to coordinate, integrate pp. 355‑64.
or implement the various international commitments and European Commission. 2009. Global Governance of Science.
demands for scientific knowledge of the ocean to support Directorate-General for Research, Science, Economy and
Society. Office for Official Publications of the European
marine management. Given the multitude of challenges facing Communities, Luxembourg.
the global ocean and the plethora of organizations involved in
FAO. 2009. The State of World fisheries and Aquaculture 2008. Rome,
oceans governance, there is a need to enable ocean science- FAO.
policy interactions through a number of avenues, and this would
FAO. 2012. Ocean Governance and the Outcomes of Rio+20. Committee
be better supported by stronger coordination mechanisms on Fisheries, Thirtieth Session. COFI/2012/6/Rev.1. Rome,
and reforms – such as implementation of existing and new FAO.
international treaties working in the framework of the SDGs – Finnemore, M. 1993. International organizations as teachers of
to address new challenges. norms: the United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization and science policy. International
Organization, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 565-97.
Holland, G. and Pugh, D. 2010. Troubled Waters: Ocean Science and
Governance. Cambridge (UK), Cambridge University Press.

REFERENCES
Humphreys, D. 2008. NGO influence on international policy on Ulleberg, I. 2009. The Role and Impact of NGOs in Capacity
forest conservation and the trade in forest products. M. M. Development: From Replacing the State to Reinvigorating
Betsill and E. Corell (eds) The Influence of Non governmental Education. Paris, International Institute for Educational
Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations, Planning, UNESCO.
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 149–76.
UNEP. 1982 (updated 2010). Achievements and Planned Development
Karns, M. P., Mingst, K. A. and Stiles K. W. 2015. International of UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme and Comparable
Organizations: The politics and processes of global governance. Programmes Sponsored by Other Bodies. UNEP Regional Seas
Boulder, CO, Lynne Rienner Publishers. McGinnis M. V. 2012. Reports and Studies No. 1. Nairobi, UNEP.
Ocean governance: The New Zealand dimension. A Summary
Valdés, L. 2017. The UN architecture for ocean science knowledge
Report. Wellington (New Zealand), School of Government,
and governance. P. A. L. D. Nunes, L. E. Svensson and A.
Victoria University of Wellington.
Markandya (eds) Handbook on the Economics and Management
Miller, C. 2001. Hybrid management: boundary organizations, for Sustainable Oceans. Cheltenham (UK), UNEP, Edward
science policy, and environmental governance in the climate Elgar Publishing, pp. 381-95.
regime. Science, Technology and Human Values, Vol. 26, No. 4,
pp. 478‑500.
Montville, J. 1991. Track two diplomacy: The arrow and the olive branch:
A case for track two diplomacy. V. D. Volkan, J. Montville
and D. A. Julius (eds), The Psychodynamics of International
Relations: Vol. 2. Unofficial Diplomacy at Work, pp.161-75.
Lexington, MA, Lexington Books.
Mounir M.Z. and Inomata T. 2012. Evaluation of UN-Oceans. Geneva,
Joint Inspection Unit, United Nations.Olson, M. 1965. The
Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of
Groups. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions
for Collective Action. New York, Cambridge University Press. 7
Owen, R., Macnaghten, P. and Stilgoe, J. 2012. Responsible research
and innovation: From science in society to science for society,
with society. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 751–60.
Parmentier, R. 2012. Role and impact of international NGOs in global
ocean governance. Ocean Yearbook, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 209-29.
Ringius, L. 1997. Environmental NGOs and regime change: the case
of ocean dumping of radioactive waste. European Journal of
International Relations, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 61-104.
Royal Society. 2011. Knowledge, Networks and Nations: Global Scientific
Collaboration in the 21st Century. Policy document 3/1.
London, Royal Society.Rozwadowski, H. M. 2002. The Sea
Knows No Boundaries. A Century of Marine Science under ICES.
Seattle, WA, ICES and University of Washington Press.
Stirling, A. 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power,
participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of
technology. Science, Technology, and Human Values, Vol. 33,
No. 2, pp. 262-94.
Thrush, S. F., Lewis, N., Le Heron, R., Fisher, K. T., Lundquist, C.
J. and Hewitt, J. 2016. Addressing surprise and uncertain
futures in marine science, marine governance, and society.
Ecology and Society, Vol. 21, No. 2, p. 44.
Tjossem, S. 2016. Fostering Internationalism through Marine Science.
Basel (Switzerland), Springer International Publishing.
Turner, E. A. L. 2010. Why has the number of international
non-governmental organizations exploded since 1960?
Cliodynamics, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 81-91.
UK National Commission for UNESCO Secretariat. 2015. An evaluation
of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission’s role in
global marine science and oceanography. London, UK National
Commission for UNESCO, Policy brief 13.

APPENDIX
Appendix
Caribbean Regional Fisheries Mechanism (CRFM, 2003,
Belize/Belize)Caspian Environment Programme (CEP, 1998,
Astana/Kazakhstan)
Commission for Inland Fisheries and Aquaculture of Latin

Marine science intergovernmental organizations, America and the Caribbean (COPESCAALC, 1976, Santiago de
international instruments and mechanisms, listed Chile/Chile)
alphabetically Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea against
Pollution (Black Sea Commission BSC, 1992, Istanbul/Turkey)
Entries are organized alphabetically. Brackets following the
entry contain the standard acronym (if any) for the organization, Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish
followed by the year of creation and the city and State hosting Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Convention
the Secretariat (if any). Data downloaded from http://uia.org/ (WCPFC, 2004, Kolonia/Federated States of Micronesia)
ybio?name= (or from the websites of the organizations).
Convention for Cooperation in the Protection, Management
A and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of
the Atlantic Coast of the West, Central and Southern Africa
Action Plan for Protection, Development and Management Region (Abidjan Convention, 1984, Abidjan/Côte d’Ivoire)
of the Marine Environment of the Northwest Pacific Region
(NOWPAP, 1991, Busan/Republic of Korea) Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine
Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region (Cartagena
Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the Convention, 1983, Kingston/Jamaica)
North Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances (1989, Bonn
Agreement, London/UK) Convention for the Protection, Management and Development
of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African
Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels Region (Nairobi Convention, 1985, Mahé/Seychelles)
(ACAP, 2001, Hobart/Australia)
Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of
Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR, 1998, London/UK)
Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS,
1991, Bonn/Germany) Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1993, Montreal/
Canada)
Antarctic Treaty System (ATS, 1959, Buenos Aires/Argentina)
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild
Arab Federation of Fish Producers (AFFP, 1976, Tunis/Tunisia) Animals (1979, CMS or Bonn Convention, Bonn/Germany)
Arctic Council (AC, 1996, Tromsø/Norway) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Asia-Pacific Fishery Commission (APFIC, 1948, Bangkok/ Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973, Geneva/Switzerland)
Thailand) Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP Stockholm
convention, 2001, Geneva/ Switzerland)
B
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
Ballast Water Management Convention (BWM, 2017, London/
of Wastes and other Matter (LDC, 1972, London/UK)
UK)
Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM,
Pollution (Bucharest Convention, 1992, Bucharest/Romania)
1974, Helsinki/Finland)
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
Benguela Current Commission (BCC, 2013, Swakopmund,
Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar convention, 1971,
Namibia)
Gland/Switzerland)
Bureau International des Expositions (BIE, 1931, Paris/France)
Coordinating Body on the Seas of East Asia (COBSEA, 1981,
C Bangkok/Thailand)
Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP, 1981, Kingston/ Council of the Eastern Pacific Tuna Fishing Agreement
Jamaica) (CEPTFA, not in force)

APPENDIX
E Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity

and Ecosystem Services (IPBES, 2007, Nairobi/Kenya)
East African Marine Fisheries Research Organization
(EAMFRO, 1951, disintegrated in 1977) International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA, 1957, Vienna/
Austria)
European Environment Agency (EEA, 1990, Copenhagen/
Denmark) International Baltic Sea Fishery Commission (IBSFC, 1973,
Warsaw/Poland)
European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA, 2006, Vigo/Spain)
International Commission for Scientific Exploration of the
European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA, 2002, Lisbon/
Mediterranean Sea, The Mediterranean Science Commission
Portugal)
(CIESM, 1910, Monaco/Monaco)
European Space Agency (ESA, 1975, Paris/France)
International Commission for the Southeast Atlantic
European Union (EU, 1993, Brussels/Belgium) Fisheries (ICSEAF, 1969, replaced by SEAFO)
F International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from

Ships (MARPOL, 1973, London/UK)
Federation of Arab Scientific Research Councils (FASRC,
1976, Baghdad/Iraq) International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-
fouling Systems on Ships (IMO AFS, 2001, London/UK)
Fisheries Advisory Commission for the Southwest Atlantic
(CARPAS, 1961, Rome/Italy) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES,
1902, Copenhagen/Denmark)
Fishery Committee for the Eastern Central Atlantic (CECAF,
International Hydrographic Organization (IHO, 1919, Monaco/
1967, Accra/Ghana)
Monaco) 7
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO, 1945, Rome/Italy) International Labour Organization (ILO, 1919, Geneva/
Switzerland)
Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the Caspian Sea (2003, Geneva/Switzerland) International Maritime Organization (IMO, 1948, London/UK)
International North Pacific Fisheries Commission (INPFC,

G
1993, Vancouver/Canada)
General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM,
International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC, 1923,
1952, Rome/Italy)
Seattle/USA)
Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine
International Seabed Authority (ISA, 1994, Kingston/Jamaica)
Environment from Land-Based Activities (1995, Nairobi/
Kenya) International Whaling Commission (IWC, 1946, Impington/UK)
Group on Earth Observations (GEO, 2005, Geneva/Switzerland) IOC Regional Committee for the Central Indian Ocean (1988,
IOCINDIO, Teheran/Iran)
I
IOC Sub-Commission for Africa and the Adjacent Island
Indian Ocean Commission (IOC, 1982, Ebene/Mauritius) States (IOCAFRICA, 2011, Nairobi/Kenya)
Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC, 1993, Victoria/ IOC Sub-Commission for the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions
Seychelles) (IOCARIBE, 1982, Cartagena de Indias/Colombia)
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC, 1959, San IOC Sub-Commission for the Western Pacific (WESTPAC,
Diego/USA) 1979, Bangkok/Thailand)
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
J
(IOC-UNESCO, 1960, Paris/France)
Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 1988,
Environmental Protection (GESAMP, 1969, London/UK)
Geneva/Switzerland)

APPENDIX
K Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of

East Asia (PEMSEA, 1994, Quezon City/Philippines)
Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the
Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution (Kuwait Permanent Commission for the South Pacific (CPPS, 1952,
Convention, 1978, Kuwait City/Kuwait) Guayaquil/Ecuador)
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME, 1993,

L
Akureyri/Iceland)
Latin American Fisheries Development Organization
(OLDEPESCA, 1982, Lima/Peru) R
London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Regional Commission for Fisheries (RECOFI, 1999, Cairo/Egypt)
Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention,
Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and
1972, London/UK)
Gulf of Aden Environment (Jeddah convention, 1982, Jeddah/
Saudi Arabia)
N
Regional Fisheries Advisory Commission for the Southwest
Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (NACA, 1990,
Atlantic (CARPAS, not active since 1974)
Bangkok/Thailand)
Regional Fisheries Committee for the Gulf of Guinea (COREP,
Nordic Council for Scientific Information (NORDINFO, 1976,
1984, Libreville/Gabon)
Copenhagen/Denmark)
Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Information and
North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO, 1992,
Training Centre Wider Caribbean (REMPEITC, 1994,
Tromsø /Norway)
Willemstad/Curaçao)
North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO,
Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Response Centre for
1984, Edinburgh/UK)
the Mediterranean Sea (REMPEC, 1976, Valletta/Malta)
North-East Asia Subregional Programme for Environmental
Regional Organization for the Conservation of the
Cooperation (NEASPEC, 1993, Incheon/Republic of Korea)
Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA, 1955,
North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC, 1980, Jeddah/Saudi Arabia)
London/UK)
Regional Organization for the Protection of the Marine
North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission (NPAFC, 1992, Environment (ROPME, 1980, Safat/Kuwait)
Vancouver/Canada)
Regional Programme of Action for the Protection of the Arctic
North Pacific Fur Seal Commission (NPFSC, 1958, disbanded Marine Environment from Land-Based Activities (RPA, 1998,
in 1988) Oslo/Norway)
North Pacific Marine Science Organization (PICES, 1992,
S
Sidney/Canada)
Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO, 1979,
(SPREP, 1982, Apia/Samoa)
Dartmouth/Canada)
South Asia Cooperative Environment Programme (SACEP,
O 1982, Colombo/Sri Lanka)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC,
(OECD, 1961, Paris/France) 1967, Bangkok/Thailand)
P South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization (SEAFO, 2001,

Swakopmund/Namibia)
Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA, 1977, Honiara/
Solomon Islands) South Pacific Community (SPC, 1947, Nouméa/New
Caledonia)
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC, 1985, Vancouver/Canada)

APPENDIX
South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organization World Meteorological Organization (WMO, 1947, Geneva/
(SPRFMO, 2011, Wellington/New Zealand) Switzerland)
South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC, World Tourism Organization (UNWTO, 1975, Madrid/Spain)
2004, Maputo/Mozambique)
World Trade Organization (WTO, 1995, Geneva/Switzerland)
Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC, 1985, Dakar/
Senegal) Transnational Non-Governmental Organizations
listed alphabetically
U
Union for the Mediterranean (UfM, 1995, Barcelona/Spain) Entries are listed alphabetically by organization name.
Brackets following the entry contain the standard acronym (if
United Nations (UN, 1945, New York/USA) any) for that organization, followed by the year of creation and
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development the city and State hosting the Secretariat (if any).
(UNCTAD, 1964, Geneva/Switzerland)
A
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS,
Advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea (ACOPS, 1952,
1982, New York/USA)
Cambridge/UK)
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 1965, New
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (1934, New York/USA)
York/USA)
Arab Foundation for Marine Environment (AFME, 1995,
United Nations Division of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-
Alexandria/Egypt)
DESA, 1948, New York/USA)
United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the

Asian Pacific Network for Global Change Research (ARCP, 7
1996, Kobe/Japan)
Sea (UN-DOALOS, 1982, New York/USA)
Asian Pacific Society of Marine Biotechnology (APSMB, 1995,
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Taipei/Taiwan, China)
Organization (UNESCO, 1945, Paris/France)
Association of Marine Laboratories of the Caribbean (AMLC,
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP, 1972,
1957, Kralendijk/Bonaire/ Netherlands)
Nairobi/Kenya)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change B

(UNFCCC, 1992, Bonn/Germany)
Black Sea Coastal Association (BSCA, 1997, Varna/Bulgaria)
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR,
Blue Marine Foundation (2010, London/UK)
1951, Geneva/Switzerland)
United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO, C

1967, Vienna/Austria) Centre for Mediterranean Studies (CMS, 1987, Zagreb/Croatia)
United Nations Oceans (UN-Oceans, 2003, New York/USA) Conservation International (CI, 1987, Arlington/USA)
W Consortium for Ocean Leadership (2007, Washington/USA)
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC, Coral Reef Alliance (CORAL, 1994, San Francisco/USA)
2003, Kolonia/Federated States of Micronesia) Cousteau Society (1973, Hampton/USA)
World Bank (WB, 1944, Washington/USA)
D
World Health Organization (WHO, 1948, Geneva/Switzerland)
Deep Sea Conservation Coalition (DSCC, 2004, Amsterdam/
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO, 1967, Netherlands)
Geneva/Switzerland)
World Maritime University (WMU, 1983, Malmö/Sweden)

APPENDIX
E International Marine Minerals Society (IMMS, 1987, Honolulu/

USA)
European Bureau for Conservation and Development (EBCD,
1989, Brussels/Belgium) International Ocean Institute (IOI, 1972, Msida/Malta)
European Marine Board (EMB, 1999, Ostend/Belgium) International Ocean Institute-Pacific (IOI-PI, 1993, Suva/Fiji)
European Society for Marine Biotechnology (ESMB, 1995, International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF, 2008,
Tromsø/Norway) McLean/USA)
Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA, 1984, London/UK) International Social Sciences Council (ISSC, 1952, Paris/
France)
European Network of Marine Research Institutes and
Stations (MARS, 1995, Yerseke/Netherlands) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG, 1919,
Postdam/Germany)
F
L
Friends of the Earth (1971, Amsterdam/Netherlands)
Living Oceans Society (1998, Sointula/Canada)
G
M
Gaia Foundation (1984, London/UK)
Marine Conservation Society (MCS, 1977, Ross-on-Wye/UK)
Galapagos Conservancy (GC, 2006, Fairfax/USA)
Marine Stewardship Council (MSC, 1997, London/UK)
Global Coral Reef Alliance (GCRA, 1990, Cambridge/USA)
Marine Reserves Coalition (MRC, 2011, London/UK)
Global Forum on Oceans, Coasts and Islands (GOF, 2002,
Newark/USA) Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC, 2013, Rome/Italy)
Global Ocean Commission (GOC, 2013, Oxford/UK) Mediterranean Coastal Foundation (MEDCOAST, 1990, Mugla/
Turkey)
Global Plan of Action for the Conservation, Management and
Utilization of Marine Mammals (1977, Nairobi/Kenya) Mediterranean Wetlands Initiative (MedWet, 1991, Arles/
France)
Green Cross International (CGI, 1993, Geneva/Switzerland)
Greenpeace International (1971, Amsterdam/Netherlands) N
Network of Marine Protected Area Managers in the

I
Mediterranean (MedPAN, 1990, Marseille/France)
International Association of Biological Oceanography (IABO,
1966, Auckland/New Zealand) O
International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Oceana (1999, Washington DC/USA)
Oceans (IAPSO, 1919, Trieste/Italy)
Ocean Alliance (1971, Gloucester/USA)
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS, 1921, London/UK)
OceanCare (1989, Wädenswil/Switzerland) Ocean
International Committee for Marine Conservation (ICMC, Conservancy (1972, Washington DC/USA)
1997, Hochheim/Germany)
Ocean Culture and Environment Action Network (2003,
International Council for Science (ICSU, 1919, Paris/France) OCEAN, Okinawa/Japan)
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD, Ocean Futures Society (1999, Santa Barbara/USA)
1990, Winnipeg/Canada)
Ocean Watch (1989, Pyrmont/Australia)
International Marine Environment Protection Association
Office of Economic Cooperation for Mediterranean and Middle
(INTERMEPA, 2006, Athens/Greece)
East (OCEMO, 2011, Marseille, France)
International Marine Mammal Association (IMMA, 1974, New
Organization of Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC,
Brunswick/Canada)
1992, Istanmbul/Turkey)

APPENDIX
Organization for the Phyto-Taxonomic Investigation of the Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA)
Mediterranean Area (OPTIMA, 1974, Chambésy/Switzerland) (1993, Zanzibar/Tanzania)
Wetlands International (1995, Wageningen/USA)

P
Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (1987, Chippenham/
Pacific Institutes of Marine Science (PIMS, 2002, Hong-Kong/
UK)
China)
Wildlife Conservation Society (1985, New York/USA)
Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans (POGO,
1999, Plymouth/UK) World Association of Marine Stations (WAMS, 2011,
Fiskebäckskil/Sweden)
Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation (2006, Monaco/
Monaco) World Ocean Council (WOC, 2009, Honolulu/USA)
Protection of the Arctic Marine Environment (PAME, 1993, World Ocean Network (WON, 1999, Boulogne-sur-Mer/
Akureyri/Iceland) France)
R World Resources Institute (WRI, 1982, Washington DC/USA)
Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF, 1990, Key World Underwater Federation (CMAS, 1959, Rome/Italy)
Largo/USA) World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF, 1961, Gland/
Reef World Foundation (1999, Anglesey/UK) Switzerland)
S Hybrid Organizations listed alphabetically

Save Our Seas Foundation (2003, Geneva/Switzerland)
Entries are listed alphabetically by organization name. Brackets
7
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR, 1958, following the entry contain the standard acronym (if any) for that
Cambridge/UK) organization, followed by the year of creation and the city and
State hosting the Secretariat (if any).
Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR, 1957,
Newark/USA) Coastal and Marine Union (EUCC, 1991, Leiden/Netherlands)
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (1977, Friday Harbor/ Global Partnership for Oceans (GPO, 2012, Washington/USA)
USA)
Group on Earth Observations (GEO, 2005, Geneva/
Seal Conservation Society (1996, Crossgar/Ireland) Switzerland)
Seas at Risk (SAR, 1986, Brussels/Belgium) Institute for Sustainable Development and International
Relations (IDDRI, 2001, Paris/France)
Seaturtle.org (1996, North Carolina/USA)
International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI, 1994, Tokyo/Japan)
Shark Savers (2007, San Francisco/USA)
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 1948,
T Gland/Switzerland)
The Nature Conservancy (TNC, 1951, Arlington/USA) Regional Advisory Councils (RACs, several venues in Europe)
The Ocean Foundation (TOF, 2003, Washington DC/USA)
The Pew Charitable Trusts (Pew, 1948, Philadelphia/USA)
Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS, 1969, Cambridge/USA)
West African Association for Marine Environment (WAAME,

1995, Dakar/Senegal)

8
Contribution
of ocean science
to the development
of ocean and coastal
policies and sustainable
development
© istockphoto.com/Wolfgang Steiner
8. Contribution of
ocean science to the
development of ocean
and coastal policies
and sustainable
development
Alan Simcock,1 Lorna Inniss2 and Henrik Enevoldsen3
1 – Joint Coordinator of the United Nations Group of Experts of the Regular Process (World Ocean
Assessment) 2009 onwards
2 – UN Environment (UNEP)
Simcock, A., Innis, L. and Enevoldsen, H. 2017. Contribution of marine science to the

development of ocean and coastal policies and sustainable development. In: IOC-
UNESCO, Global Ocean Science Report—The current status of ocean science around the
world. L. Valdés et al. (eds). Paris, UNESCO, pp. 170–187.
172 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 © istockphoto.com/?

Contribution of ocean science to the development of ocean and coastal policies and sustainable development
Introduction
8.1. Introduction hydrological services in the eighteenth and nineteenth century

(Blewitt, 1957; Postnikov, 2000; David, 2004). An early example
of international cooperation in such efforts was the voyage of
The best analogy for the development of the relationship
the British ship HMS Chanticleer, with support from the French
between ocean science and ocean policy is that of a rope tied
and Spanish navies, in the South Atlantic in 1828–1832 (Goodwin,
to a great weight. The rope consists of many strands that are
2004; Webb, 2010).
twisted together to produce a structure that can bear great
weight. The great weight represents the importance for the Scientific curiosity about the ocean is as old as science itself;
well-being of both humans and the rest of the living world of phenomena such as tides and currents could not but prompt
getting the right policies on the management of human impacts questioning. Scientific pioneers, such as Benjamin Franklin in
on the seven-tenths of the planet that is the ocean. Looking at the USA, started serious investigations. Franklin, for example,
how the different strands developed helps to understand how investigated the Gulf Stream in 1786 as a result of its impact on
ocean science influences policy and vice versa. This chapter the timing of mail packets across the North Atlantic (Deacon,
considers the organizational structures in which the science/ 1997). Pursuit of scientific enquiry in other fields led to major
policy interface is embedded, which affects significantly the maritime expeditions: a British expedition in 1768–1771 to
ways in which that interface works. The chapter continues the South Pacific organized by the British Admiralty and the
with six case studies that illustrate ways in which this interface Royal Society (the British academy of science) to observe the
has promoted conservation of the ocean and supported transit of Venus was accompanied by experts who carried out
sustainable management of its resources. It describes how observations of the oceanography and marine biology of that
ocean science, based on existing capacity and infrastructure area (David, 2004). The link between the Royal Society and the
(Chapter 3), investment (Chapter 4), outcomes (Chapter 5) Admiralty was pursued for many years, culminating in 1873–
and data management (Chapter 6), influences stakeholders. 1876 in the circumnavigation of the globe by HMS Challenger,
Finally, in the context of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable with a team of scientists and specially equipped laboratories,
Development, it looks at how further scientific understanding which is generally regarded as the starting point of modern
is needed to achieve, and monitor, the ten targets of Sustainable oceanography (Wyville Thomson and Murray, 1880–95; Rice,
Development Goal 14 (SDG 14 ‘Conserve and sustainably use 1999; Desmond, 2004). 8
the oceans, seas and marine resources’).
Across Europe, interest in marine science (and in particular
the interest in marine biology stemming from the general
development of biological sciences) led to setting up marine
8.2. The development of the research institutions, either by governments or by private
initiatives: Arcachon (1867), Roscoff (1872) and Banyuls (1881)
interface between marine in France; Naples (1871) in Italy; Sebastopol (1871) in Russia;
science and policy Plymouth (1884) in England; Santander (1886) in Spain; and
Heligoland (1892) in Germany (Desmond, 2004; Borja and
The three main strands that have underpinned the development Collins, 2004; Egerton, 2014). Similarly, in the USA, independent
of marine science are: the requirements of navies; scientific research institutions were set up at Woods Hole, Massachusetts
curiosity; and support for maritime industries (originally fishing (1888) and San Diego (1903—now the Scripps Institution of
and shipping, but now a much wider range including offshore Oceanography) (Ritter, 1912; Lillie, 1944). At more or less the
oil and gas exploration and exploitation, seabed mining and same time, physical and biological oceanography began to
renewable energy). be recognized as a specialism in universities; for example,
the first professorship of oceanography in the University of
The European wars of the eighteenth century gradually expanded
Liverpool (England) was established in 1919 (Rudmose Brown
the areas of conflict to cover much of the then known world: the
and Deacon, 2004).
European navies were in action with each other in the Atlantic,
the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean. Such action required The purely scientific aspects of marine research became
knowledge of sea conditions—particularly soundings and increasingly prominent towards the end of the nineteenth
currents. As early as 1720, the French Ministère de la Marine had century. In particular, the link between ocean currents and the
established an office to centralize French knowledge of marine movements of fish became a subject of scientific interest in
charts (McClellan and Regourd, 2000). This was followed by the Scandinavia. This led to the creation in 1902 of the International
British, Russian and other European oceanographic surveys and Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) – the first

Institutional arrangements for marine science
intergovernmental environmental body. ICES undertook an Nations General Assembly resolution 65/37A). This produced
initial five-year programme of collaborative research, eventually the first integrated global assessment of the world’s oceans
becoming a permanent and important body for marine science – World Ocean Assessment I – in January 2016. The essential
(Smed and Ramster, 2002; Egerton, 2014; Chapter 7). Seventy links between ocean and atmosphere have also been recognized
years later, a similar organization emerged in the North in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Pacific: in 1990 the North Pacific Marine Science Organization and the research that it has prompted – in particular the Special
(nicknamed PICES for a ‘Pacific ICES’) was established Report on Oceans and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, which
(PICES, 2016). is due to be completed in September 2019.
Just over 50 years ago, the necessity for worldwide collaboration

in marine research was acknowledged by the setting up of the
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
8.3. Institutional arrangements
(IOC‑UNESCO). The IOC has acted since then as a focal point for marine science
for organizing and supporting collaborative research, providing
a central repository for information on both physical and Because the driving forces for the development of marine
biological oceanography and promoting capacity-building for science have been manifold, the arrangements that have
marine research, especially in the Caribbean and South-East emerged in different countries of the world are equally diverse.
Asia (Scott and Holland, 2010). One crucial issue that has often emerged is the tension between
the parts of government responsible for the development of
Scientific support for maritime industries can be seen as
policy and the research institutions. On the one hand, it is
starting with the production of accurate charts and pilotage
important for the research undertaken to be what is needed
manuals as a by-product of survey work for national navies;
to satisfy policy needs. On the other hand, new, innovative
the British Admiralty Charts were issued commercially as
developments in science depend on basic, wide-ranging
early as 1821 (Andrew and David, 2004). However, more specific
investigation. Experience suggests that such high-quality
scientific support started in the mid-nineteenth century. In
science is best produced when the research is conducted
1843, Professor van Beneden, Professor of Zoology at the
independently of political pressures, and is subject to peer
University of Louvain, established a research station at Ostend
review with evaluation from a strictly scientific standpoint
in Belgium on his family oyster farm. A little later, to improve
(Haas, 2004; Ruggiero, 2010). Countries try to achieve these
the aquaculture of oysters in France, the Marine Biological
dual goals in the context of their individual organizational
Station was established in 1859 at Concarneau. Concerns
history, by applying different models of institutional ocean
about the development of sea-fisheries in the last quarter of
science organization.
the nineteenth century led to pressures to apply science to
better understand fish stocks and their distribution and fishing Many countries concentrate much of their marine scientific
techniques. Many governments of countries around the North research (apart from that conducted within universities) in a
Sea established fisheries laboratories and research institutes single institute of marine research, usually dependent on a
at that time. As the value of fisheries research was proven, most ministry that takes the lead on maritime and marine issues.
coastal countries followed suit. Depending on national history, this is often the ministry
responsible for the country’s naval forces (as in Brazil) or
In a little more than 125 years after the first marine research
the ministry responsible for agriculture and fisheries (as in
institutions were established, the various strands have become
Peru). Alternatively, a single marine research institute may
more closely linked, and most marine research institutions
be answerable to a range of ministries such as transport,
now address a wide range of oceanographic questions. The
natural resources and agriculture and fisheries (as in Ireland).
interlinked nature of all marine science, including not only
To safeguard the independence of the research, such an
physical and biological oceanography, but also social and
institute is often governed by a separate board appointed by
environmental aspects, has now been fully recognized by
the country’s government as a whole for a fixed term.
the establishment and organization by the United Nations
General Assembly in 2006 of the Regular Process for the With a view to safeguarding the independence of scientific
Global Reporting and Assessment of the State of the Marine research, the majority of research institutes are placed under
Environment, including Socio-Economic Aspects (United the supervision of a ministry for science, thus insulating

The science/policy interface in action
them from the immediate policy pressures of the specialist the World Ocean Assessment should include the identification
ministries. This approach was influentially developed in the of knowledge and capacity-building gaps.
United Kingdom in 1915, when the Department for Scientific
and Industrial Research was created. Similar structures
were developed and continue in, for example, Australia
(the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 8.4. The science/policy interface
Organization), India (the Department of Scientific and Industrial in action
Research) and Spain (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas). Such structures do not, however, rule out the An understanding of how marine science can work together
existence of other marine research bodies directly controlled with marine policy is essential for both the design of marine
by the relevant specialist ministry (e.g. the Instituto Español scientific research programmes and the development and
de Oceanografía in Spain). implementation of marine policy. Case studies of particular
issues can promote such an understanding. Six are briefly
One aspect of the relationship between specialist ministries
presented here: fisheries management in the North Sea,
and marine research establishments is the focus of research
harmful algal blooms, the spread of non-native organisms,
programmes. Scientists often want to pursue research which
anti-fouling treatments, the Benguela Current large marine
will bring them attention, respect and advancement in their
ecosystem, and geoengineering of carbon dioxide absorption.
chosen discipline. This research may not be as responsive
to the needs of policy-makers for research to resolve policy
issues. Various means have been tried to resolve this dilemma. 8.4.1. Fisheries management
Increasingly, marine research institutes are agreeing to in the North Sea
a customer/contractor relationship, under which their
programmes are focused on the requirements of a funding In the nineteenth century, concerns for fisheries management
ministry or agency, which pays for the specified research, in the North Sea focused mainly on defining who should benefit
without, however, having any management control over the
institute.
from the fishery, rather than on managing the impact of fishing
on the marine environment. This reflected an approach typified 8
in a remark by Thomas Huxley, a prominent supporter of Charles
Such arrangements frequently also ensure that a proportion Darwin’s theories. Speaking at a London Fisheries Exhibition in
of the research funding is for ‘blue sky’ research—research 1883, he said ‘In relation to our present modes of fishing, a number
that is not tied to any particular policy goal, but chosen for its of the most important sea fisheries…are inexhaustible’. He added
intrinsic scientific interest. As part of this ‘customer/contractor’ that the natural ‘destructive agencies’ at work on fish stocks
approach, some countries (such as New Zealand) are setting were so great that fisheries could not significantly increase the
their national research bodies up in such a way that they can death rate (Huxley, 1883).
also compete in the open market for research contracts.
Huxley’s qualification about ‘the present modes of fishing’ was
A sound balance between marine scientific research ‘customers’ crucial. Over the next few decades, technology converted the
and ‘contractors’ is crucial today and will be even more so in the fishermen’s activities into an even larger ‘destructive agency’
years ahead. As the use of the ocean becomes more extensive, than natural forces – a process which continued throughout
the need for knowledge is bound to increase and so are the the twentieth century. More reliable means of propulsion,
necessary resources to carry out scientific research and related larger fishing vessels (so that more could be caught before
ocean observations. Extensive and constructive dialogues among a return to port was necessary), refrigeration as a method of
the science community, marine industries, ocean managers preserving fish, new fishing gear, better navigation aids and the
and governments, both nationally and internationally, will be use of echo-location of fish – all these have enabled a massive
essential to ensure that necessary knowledge, covering the full increase in the size of the catch.
range of issues required to inform policy-making effectively, is By the 1930s, there was sufficient concern about over-fishing
developed without compromising scientific quality. Recognition for North Sea States to start to take action. Little progress,
of the need for greater research coordination and cooperation however, was made on regulation, largely because the scientific
was one of the reasons why the United Nations General knowledge of fish populations was still in its early stages. In the
Assembly agreed that part of the task of the Regular Process for 1930s and 1940s, better understanding of the fish life-cycles

The science/policy interfacein action
was achieved, and after the Second World War, fisheries science ICES recommended a complete moratorium on all catching of
continued to improve with major developments in the statistical North Sea cod. The European Commission proposed an 80%
understanding of how fish populations responded to natural reduction in the cod TAC. The Council of Ministers eventually
events and the pressures from fisheries (Hardy, 1959). agreed on only a 45% reduction in TAC, with the result that the
actual catches were too large for a sustainable fishery.
As the science improved, the need to maintain high levels of fish
catch and achieve a fair sharing of the North Sea catch between The fishers lost confidence in the system and began to evade
States led to further efforts at regulation, but it would be nearly it. The pressures from the TAC limits led to large amounts of
40 years before a system slowly emerged. A new convention was fish being discarded (because they would have been over the
agreed in 1946 – though it did not come into force until 1953. quotas) and ‘high-grading’ (the discarding of economically less
This provided for some conservation measures, but no limits worthwhile fish, to stay within the quota). These discards in
on fishing effort. Provision was made for further conservation turn led to a sevenfold increase in scavenging seabirds, fed by
measures on the advice of ICES, and ICES began to make the discards. At the same time, the evasion of the controls on
recommendations, but none were ever adopted. There was, landing fish undermined the data on which the scientists based
therefore, no effective set of agreements on fisheries, largely their assessments, so that forecasts became less reliable (Daw
because of the continuing arguments over the extent of national and Gray, 2005).
control of the sea. During the 1990s, the thrust of fisheries science slowly
In 1976, proposals were agreed for a European Community broadened: the initial emphasis on single-stock management
Common Fisheries Policy, implementing a commitment which developed into the ecosystem approach to fisheries
dated back to 1956 and providing for the introduction – in the future management, taking into account the interactions between
– of a system of European Community conservation measures. different fish species, the relationship between fish and other
Thus, although there was by then a good understanding of wildlife species and wider environmental issues such as
the science behind the performance of fish populations, legal pollution (North Sea Intermediate Ministerial Meeting, 1997).
uncertainty over fisheries jurisdictions and conflicting national Further, at the end of the 1990s, Aberdeenshire County Council
interests meant that there was little success in applying this (whose area covers a very large part of the Scottish fishing
scientific understanding to fisheries management. industry) decided to try to rebuild a climate of trust between
fishers, fisheries scientists and fisheries managers. A series
Into the middle of all these developments on the legal and of conferences around the North Sea organized by major local
management structures came an event in the real world that authorities invited multiple stakeholders (fishers’ organizations,
required urgent action. The collapse of the North Sea herring fisheries scientists, fisheries managers, environmental
stock under the pressure of over-fishing created the need managers and NGOs) to discuss the uncertainties of fisheries
for immediate action in the absence of an agreed framework science and the problems of fisheries management. This series
(Bjørndal and Lindroos, 2002). An agreement emerged for bans of conferences led to European Union’s Regional Fisheries
on herring fishing, resulting in the recuperation of the herring Advisory Councils (Chapter 7). New approaches were adopted
stocks so that catches could resume in the mid-1980s in the in other fields, so that by 2014 a complete reform of the EU
North Sea. Common Fisheries Policy had been achieved, to come into effect
This collapse made the States realise the need for an overall over the following few years. This is intended to incorporate the
framework and, after hectic negotiations over the period to EU’s international commitments to an ecosystem approach and
1983, the North Sea States ended up with a system based on the limitation of fishing effort to the maximum sustainable yield,
total allowable catches (TACs). These were negotiated annually to ban discards and to adjust fishing capacities to be in balance
with fishing opportunities (EU, 2016).
by fisheries ministers in December, for the following calendar
year, on the basis of advice from ICES. Ministers had a difficult From the point of view of the interface of marine science
political task: on the one hand, they could understand the need with marine policy the main messages of this history are: (i)
to follow scientific advice; on the other, they were under intense the need for a sound scientific understanding of aspects of
domestic political pressure to deliver to their national fishing the environment that should be regulated; (ii) the need for
fleets the potential economic opportunities. Not surprisingly, scientists to present material clearly to policy-makers, so that
these conflicting pressures proved irreconcilable. TACs were they understand the uncertainties inherent in the scientific
frequently set higher than the levels recommended by scientists. results; (iii) the need to involve all stakeholders so that they
This pattern continued well into the 2000s. For example, in 2002, understand the scientific messages; and (iv) the need to avoid

creating situations in which political pressures are likely to A wide range of disciplines needs to collaborate to understand
distort the science. and tackle the problems of excess nutrients resulting in
excessive algal growth and a consequent loss of dissolved
oxygen in the ocean. Studies have had to, and continue to
8.4.2. Excessive nutrients and algal blooms need to, link at least plankton and algae, the management
There are many facets to the problems caused by the excessive of sewage, agriculture and traffic, the chemistry of nitrogen
growth of marine algae – a broad grouping of photosynthesizing compounds, the toxicology of shellfish and hypoxic and anoxic
organisms found in the parts of the ocean to which light can zones, together with regular monitoring of the ocean’s physical
conditions, state of relevant coastal areas, seawater contents
penetrate. Some of these problems result from toxins produced
and chlorophyll.
by the algae. Others result from the sheer quantity of non-toxic
algae that can be produced. In addition to problems resulting from excessive growth of
non-toxic algae, there are also problems with algae species
Where there are massive blooms of non-toxic algae, one of
that produce toxins. Some phytoplankton species are toxic;
the frequent outcomes is the marées vertes (green tides) that
their blooms cause illness and death in humans, fish,
disfigure beaches in many parts of the world. Other outcomes
seabirds, marine mammals and other oceanic life, often as
are hypoxic and dead (anoxic) zones, where the action of
a result of toxin transfer through the food web. Six human
bacteria in the decay of algae and phytoplankton (microscopic poisoning syndromes are caused by consumption of seafood
plants) in the bloom causes declining oxygen concentrations contaminated by toxins from harmful algal blooms. Other
or even results in the effective absence of dissolved oxygen. threats to human health are posed by toxic aerosols and
Fish flee from such zones and the immobile sea-bed animals water-borne compounds derived from toxic algae that cause
die. These problems are found all around the world. More than respiratory and skin irritation.
500 sites are currently facing these problems continuously or
The harm from toxic algal blooms arises not only from the
during parts of the year (Diaz and Rosenberg, 2008), including
illnesses and deaths caused by poisoning but also from
large parts of the Baltic Sea, the Gulf of Mexico, nearly all the
major river estuaries of China and Manila Bay in the Philippines
the damage to shellfish and other fisheries that have to be
closed to protect people from poisoning, and the disruption of
8
(Sotto et al., 2014; GOERP, 2017).
ecosystems caused by deaths of fish and other top predators
Ocean science has revealed that the main cause of many of that ingest the algae or the toxins that they produce. Many toxic
these problems is the input to the sea of excessive amounts algal bloom events are reported annually from all parts of the
of nutrients, in particular nitrogen, which in undisturbed world, and the number is growing. Some of these increased
ecosystems regulates and limits primary production numbers are due to improved observation and recording but
(eutrophication). There are four main sources of nitrogen there is reliable evidence that there is a real increase in the
incidence of this problem, through the interaction of many
compounds (mainly nitrates) for the ocean: (i) compounds
factors including rising sea temperatures, increased inputs
containing nitrogen that are emitted from internal-combustion
of nutrients to the ocean, transfer of non-native species by
engines; (ii) sewage (i.e. human faeces and urine) and associated
shipping and changes in the balance of nutrients in the sea.
organic material from industrial processes (especially brewing
and distilling); (iii) agricultural run-off (including run-off Toxic algal blooms are complex phenomena that require the
from fertilizers applied in arable agriculture and slurry from involvement of many disciplines to address the problems that
livestock rearing); and (iv) emissions to air (mainly methane) they cause, ranging from molecular and cell biology to large-
from livestock. The effects of these sources can be limited in scale field surveys, numerical modelling and remote sensing.
various ways. Under the leadership of the IOC, the Scientific Committee
on Oceanic Research (SCOR), the United Nations Food and
The environmental, social and economic effects of these Agriculture Organization (FAO) and regional marine science
eutrophication problems are manifold. Tourists avoid affected organizations, major programmes have developed over the last
beaches. Fish and other marine life are killed and ecosystems 30 years to bring together all the many strands of science that
are disrupted, leading, for example, to the 1991 European are needed to understand and manage harmful algal blooms.
Community Nitrates and Urban Waste Water Directives and the In the early 1990s, an intergovernmental panel was set up by
Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program IOC and in the late 1990s, a coordinated international scientific
(GOERP, 2017). programme on the ecology and oceanography of harmful

algal blooms GEOHAB (Global Ecology and Oceanography of view to develop an international convention. By 1997, the IMO
Harmful Algal Blooms) was set up under the auspices of IOC invited States to use the guidelines to address this problem.
and SCOR. GEOHAB has brought about a major increase in More than 14 years of negotiations were needed to develop the
understanding of the processes that result in harmful algal 2004 International Convention for the Control and Management of
blooms, including their relationships to upwelling systems, Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM Convention). Another
stratification and eutrophication. It is now becoming possible 13 years have been needed to achieve sufficient ratifications
to forecast when they may occur and better techniques for for the convention to enter into force, expected to happen in
testing for toxins have improved the protection of human health September 2017 (IMO, 2016b).
and markets. At the same time, capacity-building under the
Scientific evidence has played an important role in winning the
programme is helping more States set up monitoring systems arguments for action in this field, such as widespread surveys
to ensure that food from the sea is not contaminated by algal of the scale and distribution of the problems of non-indigenous
toxins (Anderson et al., 2010). species (Figure 8.1). In 2000, for example, a survey identified 295
The successes in this field have shown the importance of non-indigenous species (NIS) in North America and concluded,
collaboration both between States and between scientific with some hesitation, that: (i) the rate of reported invasions has
disciplines. Much work has been required to establish the increased exponentially over the past 200 years; (ii) most NIS
cross-disciplinary links and to set up global monitoring and are crustaceans and molluscs, while NIS in taxonomic groups
reporting systems. The time span between detecting the dominated by small organisms are rare; (iii) most invasions
issue and policy action, the spatial variability and the different have resulted from shipping; (iv) more NIS are present along
scientific disciplines involved in investigating the problem of the Pacific coast than the Atlantic and Gulf coasts; and (v) native
harmful algae blooms emphasize the importance of long-term and source regions of NIS differ among coasts, corresponding
commitments in the field of marine science. to trade patterns (Ruiz et al., 2000).
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

identified 84 non-indigenous invasive marine species, which have
8.4.3. Movement of non-indigenous species
appeared in marine habitats outside their natural distribution
The dispersal of plants and animals over long distances has (GISD, 2014). Another study in 2008 found 205 species, of these:
been part of evolution. Some species (for example, the coconut approximately 39% are thought to – or are likely to – have been
– Cocos lucifer) have probably spread by sea without human transported only by fouling of ships’ hulls; 31% in ballast water;
intervention of any kind, although the present distribution of and 31% by one or other of these routes (Molnar et al., 2008).
coconuts appears to involve deliberate human transfers both Some regional reviews have also identified high numbers of
in the prehistoric and historic periods (Foale, 2003). Ships have non-indigenous species; for example, 120 in the Baltic Sea and
long played a role in transferring species from one part of the over 300 in the Mediterranean (Zaiko et al., 2011).
world to another. However, recently there has been a massive These surveys build on an enormous amount of groundwork
increase in ship traffic. International trade carried by ships where individual cases have been examined. The case of the
increased by between twofold (oil and gas) to fivefold (coal BWM Convention is therefore a good example of the need for
and ore) between 1970 and 2012 (UNCTAD, 2014). There has worldwide, detailed examination of the marine environment, and
therefore been a large increase in the potential for the transfer effective reporting that provides results that can be accessed
of marine species between different parts of the world. and used to produce an integrated global picture, detecting
One aspect of this is the potential for the carriage of species the cause of invasive species and, hopefully in the near future,
in ballast water—particularly for tanker ships where ships stagnating or decreasing distribution.
regularly return in ballast for their next load-bearing voyage. In
the late 1980s, Canada and Australia raised the issue in the IMO’s
8.4.4. Anti-fouling treatments
Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). In 1991,
the MEPC adopted guidelines for preventing the introduction of From the start of long-sea voyages, the hulls of wooden ships
unwanted organisms and pathogens from ships’ ballast water were attacked by the naval shipworm (Teredo navalis), which
and sediment discharges. In 1993, the IMO Assembly followed bored into and destroyed the wood. From around 1760, attempts
this up by asking the MEPC to review the guidelines with a were made to prevent this by covering the hulls with thin sheets

Figure 8.1. Major pathways and origins of invasive species infestations in the marine environment. Source: Nelleman et al., 2008 (GRID-Arendal,
H. Ahlenius, http://www.grida.no/resources/7191).
of copper. These were also found to help navigation by reducing in the laboratory by very low levels (a few parts per billion) of
the accumulation of barnacles, seaweed and other biofouling, TBT (Smith, 1981). At about the same time, the Pacific oyster
which slowed the speed of ships (Rosenberg and Gofas, 2010). (Crassostrea gigas) was introduced to aquaculture in Europe,
Even after steel hulls replaced wooden ones, the impact of
accretions of marine life has been important for the operation
especially in France. Shell malformations appeared in these 8
oysters, and these were found to increase in proportion to
of shipping. Biofouling reduces ship speed owing to the extra
the amount of surrounding boating activity. Furthermore, this
drag, which increases fuel consumption and engine stress. A
effect diminished if the affected oysters were re-laid in waters
biofilm 1 mm thick can increase the ship hull friction by 80%,
removed from boating activity (Alzieu and Portmann, 1984).
which translates into a 15% loss in speed. Furthermore, a 5%
increase in biofouling increases ship fuel consumption by 17% The scientific evidence was sufficiently clear that countries
with a 14% increase in greenhouse gas emissions. In 1980, the began prohibiting the use of TBT as an anti-fouling treatment
US Navy estimated that 18% of its fuel consumption was due on boats of less than 25 m. This caused a major outcry and
to biofouling (Bixler and Bhushan, 2012).
campaign from the yachting community, who saw large numbers
Given these substantial economic implications, it is not of amateur sailors being disadvantaged for the benefit of a ‘few
surprising that a great deal of effort has been applied to oyster farmers’. Nevertheless, the authorities in many States
finding effective anti-fouling treatments. In the 1960s and persisted with this regulation/prohibition (Corrick, 1985).
1970s, techniques were developed for embedding compounds
of tributyltin (TBT), long known as an effective biocide, into The scientific evidence of endocrine disruption and other adverse
resin bases that would slowly abrade (under the effect of water effects, particularly in molluscs, continued to accumulate. In
flowing past) and thus continuously release the TBT. Anti-fouling 1990, the IMO recommended that governments should eliminate
treatments based on this approach proved highly effective and the use of anti-fouling paints containing TBT. This resolution
were quickly and widely adopted (Piver, 1973). was intended as a temporary restriction until the IMO could
It was not long after that adverse effects from the introduction implement a more far-reaching measure. The 2001 International
of TBT anti-fouling treatments started to be detected. As early Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships,
as 1981, the appearance of male traits in female mud snails was which entered into force in 2008, prohibits the use of organotin
being observed, and it was noted that this could be produced compounds as biocides in anti-fouling paints (IMO, 2016a).

The case of TBT anti-fouling paints shows the importance of coordinate the governance of human activities in the LME. In
regular monitoring of the ocean. The level of TBT at which harm 2013, the Benguela Current Commission was established, to
was caused is so low that, at the time, it could not be detected promote a coordinated regional approach to the long-term
by chemical analysis; only the observation of reaction of biota conservation, protection, rehabilitation, enhancement and
to the presence of the chemical enabled it to be detected. sustainable use of the LME. This is the first inter-governmental
commission in the world to be based on the Large Marine
Ecosystem concept of ocean governance (BCC, 2017).
8.4.5. Benguela Current Commission
The process of establishing the Benguela Current Commission
The world ocean is a single, interlinked system, but in order
shows how a thorough examination of the science of a marine
to understand it and to manage human impacts on it, it is
region can create the knowledge base needed for improved
necessary to divide it into more manageable units. As a result
international collaboration and thus strengthen the political
of many studies, originally started by the National Oceanic and
will for the necessary agreements.
Atmospheric Agency of the United States, a series of Large
Marine Ecosystems (LMEs) has been identified. Sixty-six LMEs
are usually recognized, being defined by geomorphic features 8.4.6. Geo-engineered sequestration
such as the extent of the continental shelves, oceanographic
of carbon dioxide
features such as major ocean currents and ecological factors
giving rise to distinct ecosystems. Due to the problems of climate change, much thought has gone
Off the west coast of Africa, the Benguela Current LME is into the possibilities of mitigating emissions of greenhouse-
dominated by the current of that name off the coasts of Angola gases, especially carbon dioxide. One suggestion involved large-
and Namibia and the western coast of South Africa. In the context scale ocean fertilization, by adding iron or other nutrients to
of its international waters portfolio, the Global Environmental surface waters. The intention would be to enhance microscopic
Facility (GEF) strongly endorses the strategy of country-driven marine plant growth, on a scale large enough to significantly
LME management. Through its International Waters focal increase the uptake of atmospheric carbon by the ocean and to
area, GEF promotes the incorporation of an interdisciplinary remove it from the atmosphere for time periods long enough
approach, along with a development component to improve to provide global climatic benefit. This suggestion grew out of
the management of marine resources (IOC-UNESCO and scientific ideas developed in the late 1980s. The suggestion was
UNEP, 2016). controversial and in 2008, the ninth meeting of the Conference
of the Parties to the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity
GEF places priority on the development of a Strategic Action
decided that no further ocean fertilization activities – for
Programme (SAP) that addresses changing sectoral policies
whatever purpose – should be carried out in non-coastal waters
and activities responsible for the root causes of transboundary
until there was stronger scientific justification, and that it be
environmental concerns. The SAP for the Benguela Current
LME was implemented between 2002 and 2008. During that assessed through a global regulatory mechanism.
time period, 75 projects hosted by a wide variety of marine At the same time, the contracting parties to both the 1972
science bodies and supported by GEF through the United Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping
Nations Development Programme were conducted, and a of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention) and the 1996
comprehensive picture of the status of the LME was generated. Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution
Subjects studied included the cumulative impact of offshore by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Protocol) – the
marine diamond mining, the biodiversity of the estuarine, global instruments regulating the dumping of wastes in the
coastal, near-shore and offshore environments of the region sea – adopted a resolution agreeing that the scope of those
and the important fisheries of the area. Extreme environmental instruments includes ocean fertilization activities. Under this
events, including the sustained warming of the ocean (‘Benguela denomination is any activity undertaken by humans with the
Niño’) and large-scale eruptions of sulphur, were also assessed.
principal intention of stimulating primary productivity in the
This major improvement in the knowledge of the LME resulted oceans (not including ordinary aquaculture, mariculture or the
in an acknowledgement by the Governments of Angola, Namibia creation of artificial reefs). They also agreed to consider in more
and South Africa that improved arrangements were needed to detail what that conclusion implied.

Looking ahead
The IOC decided to commission a scientific report on the issue will be important for sustaining ocean and human health, i.e.
and provide it as input to the debate. The report was prepared achieving SDG 14 and in particular its SDG target 14.a (increase
with the assistance of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere scientific knowledge, develop research capacity and transfer
Study, an international programme that focuses research effort marine technology…).
on air-sea interactions and processes, and which is sponsored
The information, that the world community needs to understand
by the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, SCOR,
the ocean, can be divided into four main categories: (i) the
the World Climate Research Programme and the International
physical structure of the ocean; (ii) the composition and
Commission on Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Pollution.
movement of the ocean’s waters; (iii) the biota of the ocean;
The report concluded that, while experiments had shown that and (iv) the ways in which humans interact with the ocean. In
inputs of iron to high-nutrient regions can greatly increase the general, the North Atlantic and its adjacent seas are probably
biomass of phytoplankton and bacteria, and thus the drawdown the most thoroughly studied – though even there, major gaps
of carbon dioxide into surface water, it is not yet known how remain. Parts of the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean in
iron-based ocean fertilization might affect zooplankton, fish and the northern hemisphere are better studied than those in
seafloor biota. Furthermore, the report concluded that there the southern hemisphere. Least is known about the Arctic,
is even less information on the effectiveness and effects of Southern and the Indian Ocean.
fertilizing low-nutrient regions. The report also pointed out that
The following examples present a scientific perspective of ocean
large-scale fertilization could have widespread (and difficult to
research topics relevant to SDG 14 targets.
predict) impacts locally, but also far removed in space and time.
It recommended careful study of the issue and monitoring of
any experiments (Wallace et al., 2010). 8.5.1. Physical structure of the ocean
The report was influential in helping the discussions under Our knowledge of the geomorphic features of the ocean has
the London Convention and London Protocol. In 2010, been greatly enriched over the past 25 years by local and global
the contracting parties to these instruments adopted the studies. Although charting the oceans has been in progress for
Assessment Framework for Scientific Research Involving
Ocean Fertilization and in 2013, the contracting parties of the
more than seven centuries in coastal waters and for 250 years
along the main routes across the open ocean, many features
8
London Protocol adopted amendments, which incorporated still require more detailed examination. The designation of
ocean fertilization and other marine geo-engineering activities exclusive economic zones (EEZs) has led many countries to
as well as provisions for regulation of these into the Protocol carry out more detailed surveys as a basis for managing their
(GOERP, 2017). activities in those zones. Ideally, all coastal States would have
This example shows how a well-organized and well-focused such detailed surveys as a basis for their EEZ management.
scientific report can help international negotiations to improve Surveys beyond national jurisdiction will sensibly be organized
the management of human activities and reduce the impacts internationally (for example the GEBCO Seabed 2030 project).
on the marine environment. Such surveys will contribute to SDG target 14.2 (…manage and
protect marine and coastal ecosystems…).
It is possible to characterize the physical structure of the ocean

in areas beyond national jurisdiction, but the reliability and
8.5. Looking ahead detail of such characterizations varies considerably among
different parts of the ocean. Improvements in information of
An important part of any report looking at ocean science around that kind are highly desirable to understand the interaction
the world is to identify the gaps in knowledge. Part of the work between the physical structure and the biota of the ocean, in
of the first global integrated assessment of the ocean – World terms of conserving biodiversity and managing living marine
Ocean Assessment I – was to identify the knowledge gaps that resources. Effective comparison between different parts of
hamper the understanding of the ocean and the management the world requires comparable approaches, which are best
of human activities affecting the ocean in order to deliver the organized internationally. Such information will contribute
services and maintain the ocean resources the world needs towards SDG targets 14.3 (Minimize and address the impacts
(GOERP, 2017). Filling knowledge and associated capacity gaps, of ocean acidification…) and 14.7 (…increase economic benefits
investing in ocean science and tracking the impact of marine to small island developing States (SIDS) and least developed
research, as presented in the Global Ocean Science Report, countries (LDCs) from sustainable use of marine resources…).

Looking ahead
8.5.2. State of the ocean waters Information on biodiversity in the ocean and the number and
distribution of the many marine species is also highly useful for
Gaps persist in knowledge of changes in sea temperature (both understanding the health and reproductive success of individual
at the surface and at depth), sea-level rise, salinity distribution,
populations. Many species contain separate populations that
carbon dioxide absorption, and nutrient distribution and cycling.
have limited interconnections. Since many populations are
The atmosphere and the ocean form a single linked system.
found in more than one national jurisdiction and some both in
Much of the information needed to understand the ocean is also
areas within and beyond national jurisdiction, effective surveys
needed to understand climate change and it is thus important to
ensure that oceanic and atmospheric research is coordinated. require international cooperation.
This information will also be important for SDG 13 (Take urgent Fish stock assessments are essential to the proper management
action to combat climate change and its impacts) and for the of fisheries. A good proportion of the fish stocks fished in large-
work under the auspices of the 1992 United Nations Framework
scale fisheries are the object of regular stock assessments.
Convention on Climate Change and the 2016 Paris Agreement.
However, many important fish stocks are still not regularly
Ocean acidification is a consequence of carbon dioxide assessed. More significantly, stocks important for small-scale
absorption, but understanding the implications for the ocean fisheries are often not assessed, which has adverse effects in
requires more than just a general understanding of how carbon ensuring the continued availability of fish for such fisheries.
dioxide is being absorbed, as the degree of acidification varies This is an important knowledge gap to fill. Likewise, there are
locally. The causes and implications of those variations are
gaps in information about the interactions between large-scale
important for understanding the impact on marine biota. Such
and small-scale fisheries for stocks over which their socio-
information will further contribute towards SDG target 14.3
economic interests overlap, and between recreational fishing
(ocean acidification). The Global Ocean Acidification Observing
and other fisheries for some species, such as some trophy fish
Network is being put in place, involving many national
administrations, universities and marine research institutes (marlins, sailfish and others) and other smaller species.
with the participation of IOC and the International Atomic Information on marine species and on fish stocks is important
Energy Agency. for SDG target 14.4 (…effectively regulate harvesting and end
In order to track primary production (on which the overfishing, and implement science-based management
overwhelming majority of the ocean food web relies), routine plans…), as well as 14.2 (management and protection of marine
and sustained measurements of dissolved nitrogen and and coastal ecosystems), 14.7 (economic benefits for SIDS
biologically active dissolved phosphorus are highly desirable and LDCs) and 14.B (provide access for small-scale artisanal
across all parts of the ocean. Such research involves satellite fishers to marine resources and markets). Better information
observation and gliders and floats (for example Argo floats; on fish stocks in areas beyond national jurisdiction is also
Chapter 3), and therefore generally requires international
important for the development of a new international legally-
cooperation. Such information is crucial not only to achieve
binding instrument for the conservation and sustainable use
SDG target 14.2 (manage and protect management of marine
of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, under the
and coastal ecosystems), but also SDG target 14.1 (…prevent
1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea–because of
and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds…
especially that related to nutrient inputs). the depth of the ocean, ocean areas beyond national jurisdiction
represent over 90% of the space occupied by life on earth in all
its forms. Further new data will support the implementation of
8.5.3. Biota of the ocean legislation put in place via illegal, unreported and unregulated
fishing (IUU) regulations, which combats the depletion of
Plankton are fundamental to life in the ocean. Information on
their diversity and abundance is important for many purposes. fish stocks, the destruction of marine habitats, distortion of
Such information has been collected for over 70 years in competition, disadvantages for honest fishers, and weakening
some parts of the ocean (such as the North Atlantic) through of coastal communities, particularly in developing countries1
continuous plankton recorder surveys and sustained ship (FAO, 2001; SDG target 14.6).
based time-series (Chapter 3). Such information is important to
1 Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008—EU system to prevent, deter and eliminate
complement information on primary production (Section 8.5.2). illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

Looking ahead
8.5.4. Ways in which humans interact diseases that are either the direct result of inputs of waterborne
with the ocean pathogens or toxic substances, or the indirect result of toxins
from algal blooms. This information is relevant for targets in
Some of the issues relating to the ocean and to ocean biota SDG 3 (ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all
(for example, ocean acidification and fish stock assessments) ages) as well as for SDG target 14.7 (increase economic benefits
are linked to the way in which humans affect some aspects of for SIDS and LDCs) for example tourism and recreation, as well
the ocean (for example, through carbon-dioxide emissions or as manufactured products, for example construction material
fisheries). However, there are many more areas in which we or charcoal (GOOS, 2003; GOOS, 2005).
do not yet know enough about human activities that affect or
The existing offshore mining industries are very diverse and,
interact with the ocean to enable us to manage those activities
consequently, their impacts on the marine environment do
sustainably.
not have much in common. Where they occur in the coastal
For shipping, much information is available about where ships zone, it is important that those responsible for integrated
go, their cargo and the economics of their operations. However, coastal zone management have good information on what is
important gaps remain in our knowledge about how their happening, particularly in relation to discharges of tailings and
routes and operations affect the marine environment. Those other disturbances of the marine environment (Ramirez-Llodra
issues include primarily the noise that they make, continued et al., 2015). As offshore mining expands into deeper waters and
discharges of oil and the extent to which non-native invasive areas beyond national jurisdiction, it is indispensable to ensure
species are being transported. This information is needed for that information about their impacts on the marine environment
SDG target 14.1 (prevention and reduction of pollution). is collected and published. Such information supports the
successful implementation of SDG target 14.2 (management
Land-based inputs to the ocean have serious implications
and protection of marine and coastal ecosystems).
for both human health and the proper functioning of marine
ecosystems. In some parts of the world, those have been Our knowledge of marine debris has many gaps. Unless we
studied carefully for over 40 years. In others, little systematic understand better the sources, fates, and impacts of marine
information is found. There are two important gaps in current debris, we shall not be able to tackle the problems that it raises. 8
knowledge. The first is how to link different ways of measuring Although the monitoring of marine debris is currently carried
discharges and emissions. Much information is available from out in several countries around the world, the protocols used
local studies about inputs, but those are frequently measured are not aligned, preventing comparisons and the harmonization
and analysed in different ways, thereby making comparison of data. Because marine debris is so mobile, the result is
difficult or impossible. There are sometimes good reasons for a significant gap in knowledge. More scientific data are
using different techniques, but ways of improving the ability needed to evaluate the impacts of marine debris on coastal
to achieve standardized results and to make comparisons are and marine species, habitats, economic well-being, human
essential to give a full global view, which will be needed to health and safety, and social values. Marine food chains are
understand the connectivity of the ocean, affecting local and altered by marine debris, potentially impacting human health.
regional coastal and ocean health. Global understanding is More information on the origin, fate and effects of plastic
required to effectively design local conservation and protection microparticles and nanoparticles is highly desirable. The Joint
of marine ecosystems, in order to maintain the provision of Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Protection
marine ecosystem services, for example carbon sequestration (GESAMP—an advisory body sponsored by nine United Nations
and food provision. Secondly, different regions of the world have agencies and programmes) has carried out a global assessment
developed different approaches for assessing the overall quality of microplastics in the marine environment. Likewise, because
of their local waters. Good reasons for such differences almost of their potential biocidal effects on phytoplankton, there is a
certainly exist, but knowledge of how to compare the different gap in knowledge about titanium dioxide nanoparticles when
results would be helpful, particularly in assessing priorities subject to ultraviolet light. All this information is necessary for
among different areas. Again, all this is needed to achieve for achieving SDG target 14.1 (prevention and reduction of marine
SDG target 14.1 (prevention and reduction of pollution). pollution, including marine debris).
Another area with many knowledge gaps is the extent to which Many aspects of integrated coastal zone management are
people (and, consequently, economies) are suffering from still under development. Those responsible for managing

Looking ahead
coastal areas need information on, at least, coastal erosion,

References
land reclamation from the sea, changes in sedimentation as
a result of coastal works and changes in river regimes (such
as damming rivers or increased water abstraction), the ways Alzieu, C. and Portmann, J. E. 1984. The effect of tributyltin on
in which the local ports are working and dredging is taking the culture of C. gigas and other species. British Shellfish
place and the ways in which tourist activity is developing (and is Association, Proceedings of the 50th annual shellfish
conference I. London, Shellfish Association, pp. 87-104.
planned to develop), and the impacts that those developments
and plans are likely to have on the local marine ecosystem Anderson, D. M., Reguera, B., Pitcher, G. C. and Enevoldsen, H.O.
2010. The IOC International Harmful Algal Bloom Program:
(and, for that matter, the local terrestrial ecosystems). This
History and science impacts. Oceanography, Vol. 23, pp. 72-
information is needed for SDG target 14.2 (management of 85.
marine and coastal ecosystems). It will also be important for Andrew, C. and David, F. 2004. Hurd, Thomas Hannaford. Oxford
SDG target 14.7 (economic benefits to SIDS and LDCs), since Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford, Oxford University
SIDS and coastal LDCs depend largely on effective use of their Press.
coastal zones. BCC (Benguela Current Commission). 2017. http://www.benguelacc.
org/index.php/en/ (Accessed 31 March 2017).
Closing those gaps in our knowledge would amount to an
Bixler, G. D. and Bhushan, B. 2012. Biofouling: lessons from nature.
ambitious programme of research. Research is already taking
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A.
place on many more issues on which more information is Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 370, pp.
desirable (for example, on how the genetic resources of the 2381-417.
ocean can be used and what the practical possibilities are for Bjørndal, T. and Lindroos, M. 2002. International management of
seabed mining). Collaboration and sharing will be important for North Sea herring. Discussion paper No. 12/2002. Bergen
(Norway), Institute for Research in Economics and Business
making the best uses of scarce research resources.
Administration.
Blewitt, M. 1957. Surveys of the Seas: A Brief History of British
Hydrography. London, MacGibbon & Kee.
Borja, Á. and Collins, M. 2004. Oceanography and Marine Environment
of the Basque Country. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Corrick, M. 1985. Killer Yachts. London, The Guardian, 27 July.
David, A. C. F. 2004. Cook, James. Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Daw, T. and Gray, T. 2005. Fisheries science and sustainability in
international policy: a study of failure in the European Union’s
Common Fisheries Policy. Marine Policy, Vol. 29, pp. 189-97.
Deacon, M. 1997. Scientists and the Sea, 1650–1900: A Study of Marine
Science. Second edition, reprint. Abingdon (UK), Routledge.
Desmond, A. 2004. Huxley, Thomas Henry. Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Diaz, R. J. and Rosenberg, R. 2008. Spreading dead zones and
consequences for marine ecosystems. Science, Vol. 321, pp.
926-29.
Egerton, F. N. 2014. Formalizing marine ecology, 1870s to 1920s.
Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, Vol. 95, pp. 347-
430.
EU (European Union Parliament). 2016. Fact Sheet: The European
Common Fisheries Policy: Origins and Development http://
www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.
html?ftuId=FTU_5.3.1.html (Accessed 14 December 2016).
Foale, M. 2003. The Coconut Odyssey: The Bounteous Possibilities of
the Tree of Life. Canberra, Australian Centre for International
Agricultural Research. FAO. 2001. International Plan of

REFERENCES
Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Nelleman, C., Hain, S. and Alder, J. (eds). 2008. Dead Water – Merging
Unregulated Fishing. Rome, FAO. of climate change with pollution, over-harvest, and infestations
in the world’s fishing grounds. GRID-Arendal, Norway, United
GISD. 2014. International Union for the Conservation of Nature,
Nations Environment Programme.
Global Invasive Species Database. http://www.issg.org/
database/species/search.asp?sts=sss&st=sss&fr=1&x= North Sea Intermediate Ministerial Meeting. 1997. Statement of
12&y=9&sn=&rn=&hci=8&ei=-1&lang=EN (Accessed 25 Conclusions of the Intermediate Ministerial Meeting on the
November 2014). Integration of Fisheries and Environmental Issues 13-14 March
1997. Bergen, Norway (http://www.ospar.org/site/assets/
GOERP (Group of Experts of the Regular Process; Innis, L. and
files/1239/imm97_soc_e.pdf accessed 20 May 2016).
Simcock, A., coordinators). 2017. The First Global Integrated
Marine Assessment: World Ocean Assessment I. United Nations PICES. 2016. The Journey to PICES (http://meetings.pices.int/about/
Regular Process for Global Reporting and Assessment of the history accessed 10 December 2016).
State of the Marine Environment, including Socioeconomic
Piver, W. T. 1973. Organotin compounds: Industrial applications and
Aspects. New York, United Nations and Cambridge (UK) and
biological investigation. Environmental Health Perspectives,
New York, Cambridge University Press.
Vol. 4, p. 61.
Goodwin, G. 2004. Foster, Henry, rev. Elizabeth Baigent. Oxford
Postnikov, A. V. 2000. The Russian navy as chartmaker in the eighteenth
Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford, Oxford University
century. Imago Mundi, Vol.52, pp. 79-95.
Press.
Ramirez-Llodra, E., Trannum, H. C., Evenset, A., Levin, L. A.,
GOOS. 2003. The Integrated, Strategic Design Plan for the Coastal Ocean
Andersson, M., Finne, T. E., Hilario, A., Flem, B., Christensen,
Observations Module of the Global Ocean Observing System.
G., Schaanning, M. and Vanreusel, A. 2015. Submarine and
Report No. 125, IOC Information Documents Series N°1183.
deep-sea mine tailing placements: A review of current
Paris, UNESCO.
practices, environmental issues, natural analogs and
GOOS. 2005. An Implementation Strategy for the Coastal Module of knowledge gaps in Norway and internationally. Marine
the Global Ocean Observing System. Report No. 148; IOC Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 97, Nos. 1-2, pp. 13-35.
Information Documents Series N°1217. Paris, UNESCO.
Rice, A. L. 1999. The Challenger Expedition—Understanding the
Haas, P. M. 2004. Science policy for multilateral environmental Oceans: Marine Science in the Wake of HMS Challenger.
governance. N. Kanie and P. M. Haas (eds) Emerging Forces in London, Routledge.
Environmental Government, Tokyo, United Nations University
Ritter, W. E. 1912. The Marine Biological Station of San Diego.
Press.
8
University of California Publications in Zoology, Vol. 9, pp. 137-
Hardy, A. 1959. The Open Sea: Its Natural History – Part II. Fish and 248.
Fisheries. London, Collins.
Rosenberg, G. and Gofas, S. 2010. Teredo navalis Linnaeus, 1758.
Huxley, T. H. 1883. Inaugural Address to the Fisheries Exhibition of MolluscaBase. 2016. (Accessed through: World Register
1883. Clark University Huxley File http://aleph0.clarku.edu/ of Marine Species at http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.
huxley/SM5/fish.html (Accessed 10 October 2012) php?p=taxdetails&id=141607 on 17 December 2016).
IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2016a. International Rudmose Brown, R. N., rev. Margaret Deacon. 2004. Sir William
Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems Abbott Herdman. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
on Ships (http://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/ Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-on-the-
Ruggiero, L. 2010. Scientific independence and credibility in
Control-of-Harmful-Anti-fouling-Systems-on-Ships-(AFS).
sociopolitical processes. The Journal of Wildlife Management,
aspx (Accessed 10 December 2016).
Vol. 74, pp. 1179-82.
IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2016b. Ballast Water
Ruiz, G. M., Fofonoff, P. W., Carlton, J. T., Wonham, M. J. and Hines,
Management http://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/Environment/
A. H. 2000. Invasion of coastal marine communities in North
BallastWaterManagement/Pages/Default.aspx (Accessed 14
America: Apparent patterns, processes and biases. Annual
December 2016).
Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 31, pp. 481-531.
Lillie, F. R. 1944. The Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory.
Scott, D. P. D. and Holland, G. 2010. The early days and evolution
Chicago, Chicago University Press.
of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. G.
McClellan, J. E. III and Regourd, F. 2000. The colonial machine: French Holland and D. Pugh. Troubled Waters. Cambridge (UK),
science and colonization in the Ancien-Régime. Osiris. Vol. 15, Cambridge University Press, pp. 61-80.
pp. 31‑50.
Smed, J. and Ramster, J. W. 2002. Overfishing, science, and politics:
Molnar, J. L., Gamboa, R. L., Revenga, C. and Spalding, M. D. 2008. the background in the 1890s to the foundation of ICES. ICES
Assessing the global threat of invasive species to marine Marine Science Symposia, Vol. 215, pp.13-21.
biodiversity. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 6,
Smith, B. S. 1981. Tributyltin compounds induce male characteristics
pp. 485-92.
on female mud snails Nassarius obsoletus = Ilyanassa
obsolete. Journal of Applied Toxicology, Vol.1, No. 3,
pp. 141‑44.

REFERENCES
Sotto, L. P. A., Jacinto, G. S., Villanoy, C. L. 2014. Spatiotemporal

variability of hypoxia and eutrophication in Manila Bay,
Philippines during the northeast and southwest monsoons.
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 85, pp. 446–54.
UNCTAD. 2014. Review of Marine Transport. UNCTAD/RMT/2014,
Geneva.
IOC-UNESCO and UNEP. 2016. The Open Ocean: Status and Trends.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi.
Wallace, D. W. R., Law, C. S., Boyd, P. W., Collos, Y., Croot, P.,
Denman, K., Lam, P. J., Riebesell, U., Takeda, S. and
Williamson, P. 2010. Ocean Fertilization: a Scientific Summary
for Policy Makers. IOC Brochure 2010-2. Paris, IOC/UNESCO.
Webb, A. J. 2010. The hydrographer, science and international
relations: Captain Parry’s contribution to the cruise of M.S.
Chanticleer 1828-9. Mariner’s Mirror, Vol. 96, pp.62-71.
Wyville Thomson, C. and Murray, J. 1880–1895. Scientific Results of
the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger During the Years 1873-76,
Edinburgh (UK), Neil.
Zaiko, A., Lehtiniemi, M., Narščius, A. and Olenin, S. 2011.
Assessment of bioinvasion impacts on a regional scale: a
comparative approach. Biological Invasions, Vol. 13, No. 8,
pp. 1739-65.

Annexes
Annex A
Contributors
[1] Member of the Global Ocean Science Report’s
Editorial Board
[2] Author of parts of the Global Ocean Science Report
ANNEX A
CONTRIBUTORS
Allan Cembella [1] Henrik Oksfeldt Enevoldsen [2]
Allan Cembella is Professor and Head of Section, Ecological Henrik Oksfeldt Enevoldsen holds a cand.scient degree in A
Chemistry, at the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Aquatic Botany from University of Aarhus, Denmark. He has
Marine Research in Germany. His academic appointments been a programme specialist at IOC-UNESCO since 1991 and
include a Full Professorship at Bremen University and he is has worked in particular with the development of research
on the graduate faculty of the Max Planck Institute for Marine and management capacity, data compilation and sharing, for
Microbiology, Bremen, Germany. Prof. Cembella is a founding harmful algal events, nutrient pollution and other aspects of
member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the SCOR/IOC ocean science. He has on a number of occasions over the last
Science Programme GEOHAB and chaired a Core Research two decades been interim Head of Ocean Science Section at the
Project on HABs in Fjords and Coastal Embayments. He served IOC Secretariat, the latest being 2015-2016. He is Head of the
as the first Vice-President of the International Society for the IOC Science and Communication Centre on Harmful Algae at
Study of Harmful Algae (ISSHA) and has been a longstanding the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
member of the ICES/IOC Working Group on Harmful Algal
Bloom Dynamics (WGHABD). He is now German representative
to the IOC Intergovernmental Panel for HABs (IPHAB) and was Hernan Garcia [2]
recently re-elected as Vice-President. Hernan Garcia leads the scientific stewardship and quality
control of the measured chemical oceanographic data in the
World Ocean Database (WOD) and the World Ocean Atlas (WOA).
Alexandra Chadid Santamaria [1]
He also documents chemical ocean variability based on the
Alexandra Chadid Santamaria is an oceanographer and officer WOD and WOA products. His interests extend to integration of
of the Colombian Navy at the Colombian Ocean Commission science-based observational data into useful decision-relevant
(CCO). She holds a master’s degree in Marine Management ocean data products, services, strategic planning and climate
from Dalhousie University, and bachelor degrees in Nautical research. Currently, he leads the NCEI Arctic Team, is Director
Sciences and Physical Oceanography. Currently, as the Head of the ICSU World Data Service (WDS) for Oceanography, and
of Coastal and Marine Affairs at the CCO, she manages issues serves as the US National Data Management coordinator for the
such as ocean science, ocean governance, maritime education International Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange
and the National Ocean Expeditions programme. Her work is of the IOC-UNESCO. Since joining NOAA, he has contributed to
focused on proposing policies regarding ocean and coastal national and international science and science data stewardship
spaces and bringing those policies into action, coordinating projects.
diverse stakeholders from government, academia and the
private sector.
Lars Horn [1], [2]
Lars Horn is Special Advisor to the Research Council of

Martha Crago [1], [2]
Norway (RCN). He holds a B.Sc. in Marine Engineering from
Martha Crago is the Vice-President of Research at Dalhousie the University of Newcastle, England. His previous experience
University. Her previous university administrative positions includes ship-owning companies, shipping management,
include Vice-President of International and Governmental technical services ships, semi-submersibles, marine
Relations at the Université de Montreal, the Dean of Graduate engineering and construction supervision. His responsibilities
and Postdoctoral Studies and Associate Provost at McGill at RCN include general management, innovation in industry,
University. She was the founder of the Canadian Consortium marine strategy development, fisheries, aquaculture,
of Ocean Research Universities and of the Institute for Ocean ecosystems, Chair European Marine Board, management of
Research Enterprises, and is a Director on the boards of the strategic processes, and marine science policy.
Network of Centres of Excellence in Marine Environment
Observation Prediction Response (MEOPAR) and Ocean Network
Canada (ONC). In addition, she has been on advisory councils for
Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Ocean and the National
Research Council of Canada’s Institute of Marine Biosciences.

ANNEX A
CONTRIBUTORS
Kazuo Inaba [1], [2] Kirsten Isensee [2]
Kazuo Inaba received his B.Sc. in Biology from the Faculty of Kirsten Isensee has been a project specialist at the
Science, Shizuoka University in 1985 and his Ph.D. from the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo in 1990. His since 2012. Her work focuses on ocean carbon sources and
previous roles include: Assistant Professor, Faculty of Science, sinks, trying to distinguish the natural and anthropogenic
University of Tokyo (Misaki Marine Biological Station) 1990– influences on the marine environment. She supports several
1996; Visiting Scientist, Worcester Foundation, MA, USA, 1996; activities and facilitates collaboration between scientists,
Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Science, University of policy-makers and stakeholders, including networks such
Tokyo 1996-2004; and Visiting Associate Professor, National as the Global Ocean Acidification Observing Network, the
Institute for Basic Biology 2002. He became a professor and International Blue Carbon Initiative, the International Group
director of the Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of for Marine Ecological Time Series and the Global Ocean Oxygen
Tsukuba in 2004. Since 2009, he has been the president of the Network. She received her diploma and her Ph.D. in Marine
Japanese Association for Marine Biology (JAMBIO). In 2010, Biology from the University of Rostock, Germany. During her
he was invited to become a steering member of the World studies, she specialized in the impact of ocean acidification and
Association of Marine Stations (WAMS). He has been devoting his climate change on the marine environment.
research on the structure, mechanism and diversity/evolution of
cilia and flagella using a variety of marine organisms, including
sperm and embryos from marine invertebrates and fish, marine Claire Jolly [1]
planktons, ctenophores and marine algae. Claire Jolly is a Senior Policy Analyst and Head of Unit in the
Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Lorna Veronica Inniss [2]
(OECD). She heads the Ocean Economy Group and the OECD
Lorna Veronica Inniss is the Coordinator of the UN Environment’s Space Forum. Ms Jolly has 18 years of experience in business
Secretariat of the Cartagena Convention for the Protection and and technology policy analysis, having worked for both public
Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean and private organizations in aerospace, energy and defence, in
Region. A national of Barbados, Dr Inniss has over 25 years’ Europe and North America, before joining the OECD in 2003. Her
experience in the management of coastal ecosystems in the dual background is in international economics (Univ. Versailles
Caribbean and worked previously as Director of the Barbados and Cornell University) and aerospace engineering (ENSTA,
Coastal Zone Management Unit. Dr Inniss holds a B.Sc. (Hons) Paris). She is an alumna of the Institute for Higher National
in Biology from the University of the West Indies (UWI), an Defence Studies in Paris (Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense
M.Sc. in Environmental Planning and Management, as well as Nationale, IHEDN).
a Ph.D. in Oceanography and Coastal Sciences from Louisiana
State University, USA. Dr Inniss was the Acting Director of the
Coastal Zone Management Unit in Barbados for 4 years, and Bob Keeley [2]
Deputy Director for the 10 years prior. She served as the elected Bob Keeley worked for the Canadian Government in the
Chair of the UN Intergovernmental Coordination Group for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at the ocean data archive
Caribbean Tsunamis and Coastal Hazards Warning System from centre for 33 years before retiring in 2010. He was a member
2008 to 2012, and was one of two Joint Coordinators of a Group and leader of a number of national and international committees
of Experts established by the United Nations General Assembly concerned with data management. In 2009, he presented one
to deliver the first ever Integrated World Ocean Assessment. of the keynote addresses at the OceanObs’09 Conference. He
and Silvie Pouliquen of France chaired the Data Management
Team of the Argo programme for its first three years. He chaired
the JCOMM Data Management Programme Area for four years.
Before and since retiring, he has been on the Advisory Board for
the SeaDataNet Project in Europe. He has also assisted IODE in a
number of capacities, assisting in the organization and operation
of meetings, providing documentation to the IODE OceanTeacher
Global Academy, and assisting in training sessions.

ANNEX A
CONTRIBUTORS
Youn-Ho Lee [1], [2] Linda Pikula [2]
Youn-Ho Lee is the professor and principal research scientist Linda Pikula is the NOAA Regional Librarian for the NOAA A
at the Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology (KIOST), Central Library in Silver Spring, Maryland. Her duty station is
currently serving as the head of the Strategy Development Miami, Florida where she coordinates library services for the
Section. He has been the vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory and
Oceanographic Commission Sub-Commission for the Western the National Hurricane Center. She advises the NOAA North-
Pacific since 2012. His work includes issues on the molecular South Consortium of Libraries on collaborative activities.
ecology, population genetics and molecular phylogenies of Linda’s professional activities currently focus on institutional
marine organisms. Prof. Lee graduated from Seoul National repositories, data publication and bibliometrics. She is a
University and received his Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the member of the NOAA Environmental Data Management Dataset
Scripps Institution of Oceanography of University of California, Identifier working group, and the NOAA Office of Atmospheric
San Diego. Research (OAR) Public Access to Results of Federally Funded
Research (PARR) Group. Linda is the IOC, IODE US NOAA
National Coordinator for Marine Information and the Chair of the
Jan Mees [1], [2] IOC, IODE Group of Experts in Marine Information Management.
Jan Mees is the general director of the Flanders Marine
Institute (VLIZ, Ostend, Belgium). Trained as a marine
Peter Pissierssens [2]
biologist and ecologist, he holds an M.Sc. in Zoology, an M.Sc.
in Environmental Sanitation and a Ph.D. in Marine Biology, Peter Pissierssens is the Head of the IOC Project Office for IODE,
all from Ghent University, Belgium, where he is part-time Ostend, Belgium with nearly 25 years of experience in project
professor. His research interests include marine biodiversity, management related to ocean data and information exchange.
ecology and taxonomy. Jan Mees is chair of the European Originating from Belgium, Peter Pissierssens managed IOC
Marine Board, a pan-European network that provides a platform programmes and projects related to oceanographic data
for its member organizations to develop common priorities, to management, information management, bathymetry and
advance marine research and to bridge the gap between science tsunami warning and mitigation. In November 2007, he moved to
and policy, in order to meet future marine science challenges Ostend, Belgium as the Head of the IOC Project Office for IODE,
and opportunities. which is the IODE Secretariat but also the global headquarters
of the OceanTeacher Global Academy, a training centre network
for ocean data and information management, and secretariat of
Seonghwan Pae [2] the Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS). The IODE
Seonghwan Pae holds a Ph.D. in Wildlife Biology from Kyunghee network federates over 100 oceanographic data centres as well
University, Seoul, Republic of Korea. As a Principal Researcher as marine libraries. In 2015, he was also given coordination
at KIMST (Korea Institute of Marine Science and Technology responsibilities for IOC’s capacity development programme.
Promotion), he has been dedicated to the management of
diverse areas of R&D projects such as ocean research and
Lisa Raymond [2]
observation, construction of an icebreaker (research vessel),
planning and construction of a second Antarctic research Lisa Raymond is the Co-Director of the MBLWHOI Library and
station, construction of ocean research stations, the Cooperative Director of Library Services at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Project on Korea-China Bilateral Committee on Ocean Science, Institution, responsible for the planning, development and
the Cooperative Project on Marine Science and Technology administration of the MBLWHOI Library and for the coordination
between Korea and Latin America, the marine bio-resource of the programmes of the science libraries of the Woods Hole
bank, and a biotechnology programme. From 2014 to 2016 he Oceanographic Institution. Lisa’s research activities focus on
was an Assistant Programme Specialist at IOC-UNESCO in data publication and citation. She also works on data curation,
Paris. accessibility and long-term preservation of legacy data.
Lisa is an active member of the International Association of
Aquatic and Marine Science Libraries and Information Centers
(IAMSLIC) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU). She has
been associated with the Library for over 25 years.

Annex A
CONTRIBUTORS
Greg Reed [2] Martin Schaaper [1], [2]
Greg Reed is an internationally recognized expert for Martin Schaaper, a Dutch national, is Head of Section,
oceanographic data management with significant experience Science, Culture and Communication at the UNESCO Institute
in the development, implementation and operation of ocean for Statistics, based in Montreal, Canada. He is responsible
data and information management infrastructures at national, for global data collections, methodological developments,
regional and international scales. He has a strong interest in capacity-building and publications in the three areas under
international cooperation and has served as Co-chair of the his supervision. Before joining UIS in 2009, Martin worked for
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission’s International eight years for the OECD, where he was responsible for the
Oceanographic Data and Information Exchange (IODE) cooperation with non-OECD countries in the fields of STI and ICT
Committee for two consecutive terms. He is the Chief Editor statistics, and six years for various small companies, working
for OceanTeacher, the IODE capacity development system for on a contract basis for Eurostat.
oceanographic data and information management. He has
taken a lead role in developing a capacity-building framework
for oceanographic data and information management for the Alan Simcock [2]
IODE programme, including participation as course coordinator Alan Simcock has been Joint Coordinator of the United Nations
and lecturer at more than 40 international training courses on Group of Experts for the global integrated assessment of
aspects of data management and GIS. the ocean since 2009. He was born in Plymouth, Devon, and
educated there and at Oxford University. From 1965, he worked
on a variety of issues in the UK Department of the Environment.
Susan Roberts [1]
He also served as Private Secretary to successive UK Prime
Susan Roberts is the Director of the Ocean Studies Board at the Ministers from 1969 to 1972. From 1991 to 2001, he was head
US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. of the Marine Environment Division of the DoE. In addition, he
She began her career as a Programme Officer for the Ocean was Chairman of the OSPAR Commission for the Protection of
Studies Board in 1998 and became the Director of the Board in the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic from 1996
2004. Dr Roberts specializes in the science and management of to 2000, and Co-Chair of the UN Informal Consultative Process
living marine resources. She has served as study director for 18 on the Oceans and Law of the Sea (UNICPOLOS) in 2000, 2001
reports produced by the National Academies on topics covering and 2002. From 2001 to 2006, he was Executive Secretary of the
a broad range of ocean science, marine resource management OSPAR Commission.
and science policy issues. Her research publications include
studies on fish physiology and biochemistry, marine bacterial
symbioses, and cell and developmental biology. Dr Roberts Ariel H. Troisi [2]
received her Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the Scripps Ariel H. Troisi is Head of Oceanography at the Servicio de
Institution of Oceanography. Prior to her position at the Ocean Hidrografía Naval (SHN), Argentina and Technical Coordinator of
Studies Board, she worked as a postdoctoral researcher at the the National Commission on the Outer Limit of the Continental
University of California, Berkeley and as a senior staff fellow Shelf (COPLA). He has been involved for several decades in
at the National Institutes of Health. She is a member of the US ocean observations and data collection, becoming the Director
National Committee for the Intergovernmental Oceanographic of the NODC in 1999, and the IOC/IODE Regional Coordinator
Commission (IOC), American Association for the Advancement for Data Management of the Network for Latin America and
of Science, American Geophysical Union, and the Association the Caribbean in 2009. He co-chaired IOC/IODE from 2011
for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. Dr Roberts to 2015. As of June 2015, Ariel has been Vice-chair of the
is an elected Fellow of the Washington Academy of Sciences. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC-UNESCO).
Ariel’s professional activities currently focus on science and
institutional policy and management, as well as in regional and
global coordination.

ANNEX A
CONTRIBUTORS
Luis Valdés [2]
Luis Valdés was the Head of Ocean Sciences at the A

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
from 2009 to 2015, and formerly (2000–2008) he was the
Director of the Centro Oceanográfico de Gijón – Instituto
Español de Oceanografía (CO Gijón-IEO). With more than 33
years of experience in marine research and field studies related
to marine ecology and climate change, he established in 1990
the time series programme, based on ocean sampling sites and
marine observatories, which is maintained by Spain in the North
Atlantic. He has a long experience in science management
and has advised various governmental, intergovernmental
and international organizations as well as research funding
agencies. He also served as the Spanish Delegate in the IOC-
UNESCO and in ICES, where he chaired different Working Groups
and Committees, including the Oceanographic Committee.

Annex B
Acronyms and
abbreviations
Annex B
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
A CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered

Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
ADU Associate Data Unit
CL Circular Letter
AfrOBIS Ocean Biogeographic Information System for
sub-Saharan Africa CLIVAR Climate Variability and Predictability (one of the
four core projects of the World Climate Research
AIMS Australian Institute of Marine Science
AMLC Association of Marine Laboratories of the CLME
Programme)
Caribbean Sea Large Marine Ecosystem
B
Caribbean
CMA Caribbean Marine Atlas
AODN Australian Ocean Data Network
CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory
AORA Atlantic Ocean Research Alliance Species of wild animals
ARC Average of Relative Citation CNRS National Centre for Scientific Research, France
Argo Free-drifting profiling floats (Original French: Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique)
ARIF Average of Relative Impact Factor
CoCoNet Coast to Coast Networks of Marine Protected
ASTII African Science, Technology and Innovation Areas
Indicators
CONICET National Scientific and Technical Research
AtlantOS Atlantic Ocean Observing Systems Council, Spain
(Original Spanish: Consejo Nacional de
AU–NEPAD African Union–New Partnership for Africa’s Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas)
Development
COP Conference of the Parties
AUV Autonomous Underwater Vehicle
Copernicus European Union Programme aimed at developing
AWA African consortium in West Africa European information services based on satellite
Earth Observation and in situ (non-space) data
B CPPS Permanent Commission for the South Pacific
BCC Benguela Current Commission (Original Spanish: Comisión Permanente del
Pacífico Sur)
Black Sea SCENE Black Sea Scientific Network
CPR Continuous Plankton Recorder
BPR Bottom Pressure Recorder
CSIC Spanish National Research Council, Spain
BRIC Grouping acronym: Brazil, Russia, India and (Original Spanish: Consejo Superior de
China Investigaciones Científicas)
BSRC Black Sea Regional Committee
BWM Convention International Convention for the Control and
D
Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and DBCP Data Buoy Cooperation Panel
Sediments
DEFRA Department of Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, UK
C
DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada,
CAFF Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna Canada
CARICOMP Caribbean Coastal Marine Productivity DOALOS Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea
Programme (UN)
Caspinfo Caspian environmental and industrial data and DOI Digital Object Identifier
information service
DSCC Deep Sea Conservation Coalition
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic E
Marine Living Resources
E/V Exploration Vessel
CCLME Canary Current Large Marine Ecosystem
EC European Commission
CCORU Canadian Consortium of Ocean Research
Universities ECV Essential Climate Variable
CDI Common Data Index EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
CI Conservation International EIA Environmental Investigation Agency
CIESM Mediterranean Science Commission EMB European Marine Board

(Original French : Commission Internationale EMBLAS Environmental Monitoring in the Black Sea
pour l’Exploration Scientifique de la
Méditerranée) EMBRC European Marine Biological Resources Centre
EMFF European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

ANNEX B
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
EMODNET European Marine Observation and Data Network GOOS-Africa Global Ocean Observing System for Africa
EMSO European Multidisciplinary Seafloor and water GO-SHIP Global Ocean Ship-based Hydrographic
column Observatory Investigations Programme
EOV Essential Ocean Variable GOSR Global Ocean Science Report (IOC-UNESCO)
ERDF European Regional Development Funding GOSUD Global Ocean Surface Underway Data / Underway
Sea Surface Salinity Data Archiving Project
EU European Union
GPO Global Partnership for Oceans
EUDAT European Data Infrastructure
GTSPP Global Temperature and Salinity Profile
Eurofleets Searchable database of the cruise programmes Programme
of selected research vessels from European
operators
H
F HC Head Count
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United HELCOM Helsinki Convention on the Protection of the
Nations Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area
FP European Union Framework Programme HPC High Performance Computing
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading units
I
FTE Full Time Equivalent
IAMSLIC International Association of Aquatic and Marine
Science Libraries and Information Centres
G
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
G7 Group of Seven (Canada, France, Germany, Italy,
Japan, UK and USA) IAPSO International Association for the Physical
Sciences of the Oceans
G20 Group of Twenty (Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, EU, France, Germany, India, IBI-ROOS Ireland-Biscay-Iberia Regional Operational
Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Oceanographic System
Mexico, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South
Africa, Turkey, UK and USA) ICAM Integrated Coastal Area Management
Programme (IOC-UNESCO)
GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility
ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of
GBP Pound Sterling Atlantic Tunas
GCLME Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem ICES International Council for the Exploration of the
Seas
GCOS Global Climate Observing System
ICP Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the
GDAC Global Data Assembly Centre Law of the Sea
GDP Gross Domestic Product ICSU International Council for Science
GEBCO General Bathymetric Chart of the Oceans IDS Institute of Development Studies
GEC Global Environmental Change IEO Spanish Institute of Oceanography, Spain
GEF Global Environmental Facility (Original Spanish: Instituto Español de
Oceanografía)
GEOHAB Global Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful
Algal Blooms IF Impact Factor
GEOTRACES International Study of Marine Biogeochemical IFREMER French Research Institute for the Exploitation of
Cycles of Trace Elements and their Isotopes the Sea
(Original French : Institut Français de Recherche
GERD Gross Domestic Expenditure on Research and pour l’Exploitation de la Mer)
Development
IGBP International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
GESAMP Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Environmental Protection IGMETS International Group for Marine Ecological Time
Series
GIS Geographic Information System
IGO International Governmental Organization
GISD Global Invasive Species Database
IHDP International Human Dimension Programme on
GLOSS Global Sea Level Observing System Global Environmental Change
GODAR Global Oceanographic Data Archaeology and IHO International Hydrographic Organization
Rescue
ILO International Labour Organization
GOERP Group of Experts of the Regular Process
IMO International Maritime Organization
GOOS Global Ocean Observing System

ANNEX B
IOC Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission M

(UNESCO)
MadBIF Madagascar Biodiversity Information Facility
IOCAFRICA IOC Sub-Commission for Africa and the Adjacent
Island States MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships
IOCARIBE IOC Sub-Commission for the Caribbean and
MARS Marine Research Institutes and Stations
IOCCP
Adjacent Regions
International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project MCDS Marine Climate Data System B
IOCINDIO IOC Regional Committee for the Central Indian MedGOOS Mediterranean Global Ocean Observing System
Ocean MEDIN Marine Environmental Data and Information
IODE International Oceanographic Data and Network
Information Exchange (IOC-UNESCO) MedOBIS Mediterranean node of Ocean Biogeographic
IQuOD International Quality Controlled Ocean Database Information System
IOGOOS Indian Ocean Global Ocean Observing System MedPAN Network of Marine Protected Area managers in
the Mediterranean
IPBES Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Services MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change MESA Monitoring for Environment and Security in
Africa
IQOE International Quiet Ocean Experiment
MIM Marine Information Managers
IQUOD International Quality Controlled Ocean Database
MMI Marine Microbiology Initiative
IR Institutional Repository
MOLOA Mission Observing the West African Coast
ISA International Seabed Authority
MOMSEI Monsoon Onset Monitoring and its Social and
ISO International Organization for Standardization Ecosystem Impact
ISSC International Social Science Council MREKEP Marine Renewable Energy Knowledge Exchange
Programme
IT Information Technology
MSC Marine Stewardship Council
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
MSP Marine Spatial Planning
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated
MyOcean Pan-European capacity for ocean monitoring and
forecasting
J
JAMBIO Japanese Association for Marine BiologyJCOMM
N
Joint IOC-WMO Technical Commission for
Oceanography and Marine Meteorology N/A Not Available or No Answer
JCOMMOPS JCOMM in-situ Observing Platform Support N/C Not Calculated
centre
NAML National Association of Marine Laboratories,
JERICO Joint European Research Infrastructure Network USA
for Coastal Observatories
NAMMCO North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee
NEAR North-East Asian Regional
J-OBIS Japan Ocean Biogeographic Information System
Centre NERC Natural Environment Research Council, USA
JPI Joint Programming Initiative NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NIS Non-Indigenous Species
L NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
LDC London Convention on the Prevention of Marine Administration, USA
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other NODC National Oceanographic Data Centre
Matter
NOWPAP Northwest Pacific Action Plan
LDCs Least Developed Countries
NRC National Research Council, USA
LifeWatch E-Science European Infrastructure for
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research NS Publications from reference entity N in a given
research area
LME Large Marine Ecosystem
NT Publications from reference entity N in a
LTER Long Term Ecological Research reference set of papers

ANNEX B
O ROPME Regional Organization for the Protection of the

Marine Environment
OBIS Ocean Biogeographic Information System
ROV Remotely Operated Vehicle
OBIS-USA US Node of the Ocean Biogeographic Information
System
S
OceanExpert Directory of Marine and Freshwater
Professionals SAHFOS Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science
OCEANIC Ocean Information Centre SAMOA SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action
OceanSites Worldwide system of long-term, deepwater SAP Strategic Action Programme
reference stations
SCAR Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
ODINAFRICA Ocean Data and Information Network for Africa
SCOR Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research
ODINCARSA Ocean Data and Information Network in the
SDG Sustainable Development Goal (UN)
Caribbean and South America
SeaDataNet Pan-European infrastructure for ocean and
ODINWESTPAC Ocean Data and Information Network for the
marine data management
WESTPAC region
SEAOBIS Southeast Asia Regional Node of the Ocean
ODIP Ocean Data Interoperability Platform
Biogeographic Information System
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
SI Specialization Index
Development
SIDS Small Island Developing States
OEEC Organisation for European Economic Cooperation
SOFIA State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture
OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic SOOS Southern Ocean Observing System
OTN Ocean Tracking Network SPINCAM Southeast Pacific data and Information
Network in support of integrated Coastal Area
Management
P
SST Sea Surface Temperature
PERSEUS Policy-oriented marine Environmental Research
for the Southern European Seas SVP Surface Velocity Programme
PICES North Pacific Marine Science Organization
T
PIMS Perry Institute of Marine Science, USA
TAC Total Allowable Catch
PIRATA Pilot Research moored Array in the Tropical
Atlantic TBT Tributyltin
POGO Partnership for Observation of the Global Oceans TMN Tasmania Maritime Network
POP Persistent Organic Pollutant
U
PROPAO Regional Programme of Physical Oceanography
in Africa UCS Union of Concerned Scientists
(Original French : Programme Régional
d’Océanographie Physique en Afrique de l’Ouest) UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics
UK United Kingdom
R UN United Nations
R&D Research and Development UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and
r2 Correlation Coefficient Social Affairs
RAC Regional Advisory Council (EU) UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat
Desertification
RC Relative Citation
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
RDA Research Data Alliance
UNCSD United Nations Conference on Sustainable
RFB Regional Fisheries Body Development
RFMA Regional Fisheries Management Arrangement UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development
RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
RICYT Network for Science and Technology Indicators—
Ibero-American and Inter-American UNEP United Nations Environment Programme (now
UN Environment)
RIF Relative Impact Factor

Annex B
ANNEX
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change
UNGA United Nations General Assembly
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development
Organization
B
UN-Oceans Interagency collaboration mechanism on ocean
and coastal issues within the UN system
UNOLS University-National Oceanographic Laboratory
System
UPMC Pierre and Marie Curie University, France
USA United States of America
W
WAMS World Association of Marine Stations
WB World Bank
WCRP World Climate Research Programme
WESTPAC IOC Sub-Commission for the Western Pacific
WHOI Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA
WIOMSA Western Indian Ocean Marine Science
Association
WMO World Meteorological Organization
WOA World Ocean Assessment (UN)
WOCE World Ocean Circulation Experiment
WOD World Ocean Database
WoRMS World Register of Marine Species
WoS Web of Science
WWF World Wildlife Fund
X
XS Publications from entity X in a given research
area
XT Publications from entity X in a reference set of
papers

Annex C
Global Ocean Science
Report questionnaire
ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
Name
Organization
Country
Postal contact details

C
Email contact details
Part A Ocean science landscape
I. Please list the key governmental institutes specializing in ocean science1 in your country.
II. If not, which national organization is ‘responsible’ for ocean science?
III. Does your country have a National Science and Technology strategy? (Title and/or link to the document)
IV. Does your country have a National Ocean Science strategy? (Title and/or link to the document)
Part B Research investment
Funding for ocean science
The data requested in Tables 1-3 should relate to actual funding for ocean science made by governmental institutions at different
levels - regional, national and international. If they are not available, please provide estimated data calculated using budget allocations
for ocean science or other methodologies and explain as a note. Ocean science funding should be reported in US Dollars.
1 Ocean science, as used in this report, includes all research disciplines related to the study of the ocean: physical, biological, chemical, geological, hydrographic,
health and social sciences, as well as engineering, the humanities and multidisciplinary research on the relationship between humans and the ocean. Definition
by The Expert Panel on Canadian Ocean Science, 2013, Ocean Science in Canada: Meeting the challenge, seizing the opportunity, Council of Canadian Academies.

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
1.1. Total governmental funding for ocean science based on received regional, national and international
funding in your country.
Total governmental International

Regional funding for National funding for Monetary unit
funding for funding for
Year ocean science ocean science (i.e. millions,
ocean science ocean science
(A) (B) thousands)
(A+B+C) (C)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Type of period considered
Calendar year
Fiscal year; starting month:

Notes:
1.2. Total governmental funding for ocean science broken down by sector of performance.
Sector of performance
Total Private
Year Government Business enterprise
(A+B+C+D+E) non-profit Higher education (C)
(A) (D)
(B)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Notes:

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
1.3. Total governmental funding for ocean science broken down by field of science.
Field of ocean science

Total
Year Fisheries 2
Observations3 Other ocean science Business enterprise
(A+B+C+)
(A) (B) (C) (D)
2013
2012
2011
2010 C
2009
Notes: 23
Part C Research capacity and infrastructure
1. Human resources in ocean science
Using the information provided on ocean science funding (given in Part B), all human resources listed in the tables below should
be related to governmental funds at either regional, national or international level.
1.1. Ocean Science personnel by occupation
Researchers are professionals engaged Technicians and equivalent staff are persons Other supporting staff includes skilled and
in the conception or creation of new with technical knowledge and experience who unskilled craftspeople, secretarial staff
knowledge, products processes, methods participate in ocean science by performing participating in ocean science projects or
and systems, and also in the management scientific and technical tasks involving the directly associated with such projects, e.g.
of the projects concerned. application of concepts and operational staff and crew on vessels.
methods normally under the supervision of
researchers.
i. Ocean science personnel by occupation – headcounts (HC) (mainly or partially employed).
Occupation
Total Technicians and Other supporting
Year Researchers Not specified
(A+B+C+D) equivalent staff staff
(A) (D)
(B) (C)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2 Questions related to fisheries include mariculture and aquaculture.

3 Questions related to observations include: monitoring in general, data repositories, measurements to track harmful algae blooms and pollution, satellite
measurements, buoys and moorings.

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
ii. Ocean science personnel by occupation – full-time equivalents (FTE)

FTE – 1 FTE is equal to 1 person working full time for 1 year. (e.g. 30% of the time dedicated 0.3 FTE, 6 months 0.5 FTE)
Occupation
Year Total (A+B+C+D) Technicians and Other supporting

Researchers Not specified
equivalent staff staff
(A) (D)
(B) (C)
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
Notes:
1.2. Ocean science personnel by gender.
i. Ocean Science personnel by gender – headcounts (HC) (please provide information for 2013 or the latest year you
can obtain data).
Total ocean science personnel Of which researchers
Year Not specified Not specified

Total Female Male Total Female Male
by gender by gender
(A+B+C) (A) (B) (D+E+F) (D) (E)
(C) (F)
ii. Ocean science personnel by gender – full time equivalents (FTE) (please provide information for 2013 or the latest
year you can obtain data).
Total ocean science personnel Of which researchers
Year Not specified Not specified

Total Female Male Total Female Male
by gender by gender
(A+B+C) (A) (B) (D+E+F) (D) (E)
(C) (F)
Notes:

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
1.3. Demographic distribution of researchers, not including undergraduate or graduate students, engaged in
ocean science – headcounts (HC) (please provide the information for 2013 or the latest year you can obtain
data).
Technicians and Other supporting

Age class Not specified
Year Age class equivalent staff staff
< 30 years (D)
(B) (C)
C
1.4. Researches by field of ocean science and sector of employment.
i. Researchers by field of science and sector of employment – headcounts (HC).

Reference year (please provide the information for 2013 or the latest year you can obtain data):
Total Sector
Field of science researchers Government Government
(A+B+C+D+E) (A) (A)
Total (i+ii+iii) Total (i+ii+iii) Total (i+ii+iii)
i. Fisheries i. Fisheries i. Fisheries
ii. Observations ii. Observations ii. Observations
iii. Other ocean iii. Other ocean iii. Other ocean
science science science
ii. Researchers by field of science and sector of employment – full-time equivalents (FTE).
Reference year (please provide the information for 2013 or the latest year you can obtain data):
Sector
Total
Field of science researchers Private Higher Business
Government Not specified
(A+B+C+D+E) non-profit education enterprise
(A) (E)
(B) (C) (D)
Total (i+ii+iii)
i. Fisheries
ii. Observations
iii. Other ocean
science
Notes:

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
2. Research equipment and facilities for ocean science.
2.1. Please specify the number of laboratories, field stations and other institutions (e.g. dedicated faculties)
which concentrate their work on ocean sciences in your country.
Number of facilities, e.g. laboratories, field stations

Field of science
and other institutions
Total (i+ii+iii)
i. Fisheries
ii. Observations
iii. Other ocean science
2.2. Please provide data on major equipment (> 0.5 million USD) associated with ocean science; specify the year
of implementation and if possible, give further information about the devices (excluding research vessels
and ships).
Number of devices Occupation

Equipment
and year of
(short description) 2013-2009 2008-2004 2003-1999 Before 1999
implementation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Notes:
2.3. Please provide information about how many research vessels, vessels partly used for ocean science, and
ships of opportunity are operated by your nation. Please also specify their size.
Number of Occupation
Equipment
equipment and year
(short description) 2013-2009 2008-2004 2003-1999 Before 1999
of implementation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
2.4. Please name research vessels bigger than 55 m.
2.5. Please specify research time (days per year for 2013 or latest year with available data) on those vessels for
international and national investigation.
Research
Vessel
International cooperation National investigation
C
Research vessels
Vessels partly used for ocean science
Ships of opportunity
Notes:
2.6. Please specify whether the data obtained during research cruises are available (open access) or are freely
available after a certain period of embargo; please provide the number of years data are under embargo,
or state whether access is restricted for international and national investigation. (Percentage for 2013 or
latest year with available data).
Vessel International cooperation National investigation
Embargo (with Embargo (with

Restricted Restricted
Open access following open Open access following open
access access
access) access)
Research vessels
Vessels partly used
for ocean science
Notes:
2.7. Please specify research type (percentage for 2013 or latest year with available data) for the different kind
of ships.
Type of research per year

Vessel
Fisheries Observations Other ocean science
Research vessel
Vessel partly used for ocean
science

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
Part D Oceanographic data and information exchange
I. What are the main ocean science data information and management organizations/institutions in your country?
II. Please give a short description of the marine long-term observation research strategy in your country.
III. Please list and explain currently funded monitoring of the ocean and/or time series stations.
Part E Capacity-building and transfer of technology
I. Please list national efforts and mechanisms to absorb and keep graduates in ocean-related jobs and activities (e.g. Ph.D.
programmes, young scientist funding resources, exchange programmes, early career support).
II. Please list the ocean-related training programmes, other than national, that are/were conducted in your country during the past
5 years, including regular and irregular programmes. For international programmes, please specify the cooperating countries.
III. Have there been any country-specific constraints in developing long-term capacity in your country? Please elaborate.
IV. What are the mechanisms that are in place to facilitate the participation of outside national experts in your country’s national
programmes and policy-making?
Guest positions
Exchange programmes
Board memberships
Advisory capacity
Others
There are none
Notes:

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
V. Please list the ocean-related technology transfer/innovation activities supported by your country.
VI. Please estimate the percentage of ocean-related technology transfer/innovation in your country in relation to the three main
categories.
Fisheries Observations Other ocean science
C
Part F Regionally and globally supporting organizations on ocean science
VII. Where does the primary responsibility for national marine policy-making lie? With the ministry of:
Science and technology
Environment
Fisheries
Agriculture
Foreign ministry
Ministry of marine affairs
Interministerial body
Notes:
I. What are the sources of information for making decisions on national marine policy? (if possible, estimate the percentage if you
choose more than one option)
Sources of information Yes /No Percentage

National efforts and sources
Regional sources
International sources
Others
Notes:

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
II. Please specify in which ocean-related conventions and treaties your country participates.
Membership Participation Expertise from

UN conventions and treaties
Regional governmental and non-
governmental bodies
International governmental and non-
governmental bodies
Regional programmes
International programmes
Notes:
III. Are there any marine/ocean science-related international project offices, e.g. to run scientific programmes, located in your
country? If so, please name them and specify in which city the office is located.
Part G Sustainable development
I. Within the area of your country, are there Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) or marine reserves of the biosphere? Please specify
the name, size of the area, date from which it has been protected, and the type of habitat.
Marine Protected Area/ marine

Size of the area (unit) Protection in force since Type of habitat
reserves of the biosphere
Notes:
II. Please estimate the economic importance of ocean-related tourism for your county. Please try to identify the percentage of the
national GDP.

ANNEX C
GOSR QUESTIONNAIRE
Part H Non-quantitative part
I. Please list the three primary emerging issues/questions for ocean science in your country. In your opinion, which research,
technology and/or innovation offers the most potential related to the seas and oceans over the next 20-30 years? (max. 200 words)
II. What are the barriers for a higher involvement of your country in international collaboration? Please explain if these barriers are
related to intellectual property rights, legal, administrative, financial issues, technological gaps or lack of knowledge/knowledge
transfer. Please indicate if there are any actions (solutions) which you would recommend to overcome those barriers. (max. 200
C
words)
III. Are there specific research, technology development and/or innovation needs at sea basin level? If so, please explain what those
needs are and indicate the corresponding sea basin. (max. 200 words)
IV. From your country’s point of view, what needs to be done today to fulfil the work of ocean science? (max. 150 words)
V. Please list three examples of how you think the ocean policy/internationally organized support to ocean science should/could
be improved (max. 200 words)

Annex D
GOSR data and
information management
survey 2016
ANNEX D
IODE SURVEY
1. Introduction
The questionnaire seeks to gain information about current ocean science data and information management in your country. Your
response will be used for the production of the first IOC Global Ocean Science Report (GOSR); see http://www.unesco.org/new/
en/natural-sciences/ioc-oceans/sections-and-programmes/ocean-sciences/global-ocean-science-report/. This questionnaire
will supplement the responses previously provided to the survey questionnaire for GOSR included in IOC Circular Letter No. 2560.
Questions marked with * are mandatory.
The information collected through this survey will also be used for an information document for the next IODE Committee Session
(March 2017), providing a picture in time of the status of our network of data and information centres.
While the questions are written in English, please feel free to answer (free text fields) in French or Spanish if you are more comfortable
with those languages. D
2. Current data and information capability
1. Please provide the following information on yourself and your organization.

Name
Institution
City/Town
Country
Email address

ANNEX D
IODE SURVEY
2. In what type of centre(s) do you work?

NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT WORK IN ANY OF THE FOUR CENTRE CATEGORIES BELOW THEN PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETE THE SURVEY
IODE National Oceanographic Data Centre (NODC) IODE Associate Data Unit (ADU)
Regional OBIS Node
Marine Library
3. In what capacity are you responding to the survey? (if you have several roles, please complete the survey
separately for each one)
IODE national coordinator for data management
IODE national coordinator for marine information (library) management
ADU focal point
Other (please specify):
4. What is the current capacity (staffing) in numbers of full-time staff in your data/information centre?
1
2-5
6-10
more than 10
5. Of your centre’s current staff (overall), what percentage of their salary is funded from external (project) sources?
0%
1-25%
26-50%
51-75%
76-100%
Comments (difficulties in terms of sustainability...):
6. What is the current capacity (infrastructure) in your data or information centre (number of computers, servers...)
and what problems are you facing related to infrastructure? (See also question 18)

ANNEX D
IODE SURVEY
7. Is your centre involved in any of the following types of collaboration? (tick one or more):
National (between your centre and other national institutions)
Regional (e.g. Europe, Africa, South-East Asia)
International (in addition to IODE)
Please provide more information on the collaborations (project names...):
8. Is your centre collaborating with other IOC programmes, projects (in addition to IODE)?
D
Ocean science (harmful algal blooms, ocean CO2...)
Ocean observation and services (GOOS)
Marine policy (including marine spatial planning, large marine ecosystems, integrated coastal area management)
I do not know
Specify projects/activities you are involved in:
9. What observational data types are regularly collected and managed by your data centre?:
Biological data (incl. plankton, benthos, pigments, animals, plants, bacteria...)
Physical data (waves, currents, hydrography, sea level, temperature, salinity, optics, acoustics)
Geological and geophysical (sediments, bathymetry...)
Chemical (nutrients, pH, CO2, dissolved gases, ...)
Pollutant (monitoring)
Fisheries data
10. What data/information products does your centre provide to your clients:
Online access to metadata
Online access to data
Online access to library catalogue
Online access to e-documents and e-publications
Published ocean data (e.g. ‘snapshots’ of datasets as used for publications)

ANNEX D
IODE SURVEY
GIS products (maps, atlases)
Portals
Numerical model data
CD-ROM products
11. What services does your centre provide to your clients?
Data archival
Personal data repository
Cloud computing space
Virtual research laboratory
Web services (see http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Web_Services.html)
Provision of DOI for data set
Data analysis tools
Data visualization tools
Data quality control tools
Communication tools (hosting of web sites, mailing lists, group discussion support, project management tools...)
Special tools (vocabularies, format descriptions, gazetteers...)
Access to documented methods, standards and guidelines
12. What are the URLs of the section of your centre’s data/information centre web site that deals with your online
products and services? (enter up to 5):
URL1
URL2
URL3
URL4
URL5

ANNEX D
IODE SURVEY
13. Do you have a national data (sharing) policy on the management and sharing of data?
Yes
No
Provide details of the policy, URL where it can be accessed and contact email to find out more.
14. Does your data centre restrict access to data?
We do not restrict at all D

We restrict access to certain data types
We restrict access to data collected in certain geographic areas
We restrict access during a certain period of time (embargo)
Any other restrictions:
15. Does your centre apply the IOC Oceanographic Data Exchange Policy adopted as Resolution IOC- XXII-6? (see
http://www.iode.org/policy)
Yes
No
I don’t know
16. Who are the clients and end users of the data, products or services provided by your centre?
Only users in my own institution
National researchers in my own country
Researchers in any country
Policy-makers of my own ministry
Policy-makers in other ministries of my country
Policy-makers in any country (e.g. through UN commitments)
Military
Civil protection
Private sector (e.g. fisheries, hotels, industry...)

ANNEX D
IODE SURVEY
School children
General public
17. Are data and information from your centre contributed to international systems (meaning that you actively send
data, or make data available, to e.g. world data centres, GDACs or other such international systems)?
Yes
No
Provide details:
18. Does your centre have specific capacity (development) needs? If so, what are these needs?
We need basic training in data/information management
We need advanced training in certain topics
We need internships in other data/information centres
We need equipment
We need better internet connectivity
We need opportunities to share our experience at conferences
We need better networking (community building) with colleagues
We need more funding
19. Is your centre involved in IODE, but you would like IODE to focus more on certain aspects? (be as specific as
possible):
20. List any data or information you would like to access from other data centres/systems but to which you currently
do not have access, and also list the reasons you cannot access these data.
Thank you for your collaboration

Annex E
International
scientific conferences
221
ANNEX E
INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONFERENCES
Table Annex E. List of international conferences, divided by major focus, illustrating the percentage of male and female participants, the number
of participants and countries represented.
Hosting Number of Number of

Year Conference name Male [%] Female [%]
country participants countries
Environmental science conferences
2012 UK Planet under Pressure 59 40 2 999 104
Ocean science
2013 USA Aquatic Sciences Meeting 55 45 1 879 44
2014 Spain 2nd IORC 56 44 555 70
2015 Spain Aquatic Sciences Meeting 52 48 2 468 62
2009 Italy OceanObs'09 79 21 637 36
Marine ecosystems functions and processes
2009 Canada 3rd GLOBEC OSM 72 28 311 34
2010 Argentina 3rd Jellyfish Blooms Symposium 52 48 95 27
2011 Chile 5th Zooplankton Symposium 49 51 297 36
2013 Japan 4th Jellyfish Bloom Symposium 69 31 136 29
2014 Norway IMBER - Future Ocean 61 39 465 45
Ocean and climate
2012 Korea (Rep.) 2nd Effects of CC on the World’s Ocean 75 25 362 39
2012 USA 3rd OHCO2W 51 49 538 36
2015 Brazil 3rd Effects of CC on the World’s Ocean 53 47 274 37
2013 France GEOHAB 55 45 51 21
2014 New Zealand 16th IC Harmful Algae 53 47 394 35
2014 USA Oceans and Human Health 43 57 87 11
Ocean technology and engineering
2011 Spain Oceans’11 82 18 403 31
2012 Spain IC Coastal Engineering 80 20 795 45
Mediterranean Sea
2010 Italy CIESM Congress 50 50 1 000 N/A
2013 France CIESM Congress 49 51 1 000 N/A
North Atlantic Ocean
2012 Norway ICES Annual Science Conference 67 33 647 31
2013 Iceland ICES Annual Science Conference 65 35 688 36
2014 Spain ICES Annual Science Conference 58 42 569 34
Pacific Ocean
2012 Japan PICES Annual Meeting 80 20 466 22
2013 Canada PICES Annual Meeting 67 33 365 11
2014 Korea PICES Annual Meeting 72 28 365 18

Annex F
Bibliometric indicators
(2010–2014)
ANNEX F
BIBLIOMETRIC INDICATORS (2010–2014)
Table Annex F.1. Bibliometric indicators by country in ocean science (2010–2014)
Continent Country Paper Citation ARC ARIF GR SI
World 372 852 2 206 429 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00
South America 22 258 98 007 0.80 0.87 1.24 1.57
Brazil 13 211 51 042 0.75 0.83 1.29 1.39
Argentina 3 780 18 740 0.88 0.97 1.20 1.86
Chile 3 577 20 541 0.95 0.94 1.20 2.32
Colombia 998 4 619 0.72 0.78 1.14 1.17
Venezuela 553 2 459 0.54 0.73 0.80 2.05
Uruguay 442 3 613 1.22 1.04 1.15 2.29
Peru 407 3 352 1.52 1.11 1.36 2.10
Ecuador 280 1 584 0.83 1.12 1.85 2.71
Bolivia 116 755 0.94 1.03 1.49 2.31
Nicaragua 37 284 N/C 0.94 0.67 2.19
El Salvador 23 135 N/C N/C 2.75 2.16
Guyana 18 36 N/C N/C 7.00 3.22
Paraguay 13 33 N/C N/C 1.20 0.77
Suriname 11 41 N/C N/C 0.50 3.30
Oceania 25 072 205 383 1.35 1.20 1.24 1.76
Australia 20 937 174 009 1.38 1.21 1.28 1.69
New Zealand 4 818 40 114 1.29 1.18 1.07 2.30
Fiji 155 846 0.96 1.24 1.59 5.62
Papua New Guinea 68 724 1.58 1.12 1.50 2.51
Solomon Islands 28 236 N/C N/C 0.92 7.57
Palau 26 130 N/C N/C 2.67 15.20
Vanuatu 24 162 N/C N/C 1.30 5.04
Cook Islands 20 147 N/C N/C 3.00 19.66
Fed. States of Micronesia 20 65 N/C N/C 3.00 9.01
Tonga 5 68 N/C N/C 1.50 4.51
Marshall Islands 5 35 N/C N/C N/C 6.76
Tuvalu 4 7 N/C N/C N/C 17.30
Kiribati 4 9 N/C N/C N/C 7.87
Samoa 3 4 N/C N/C N/C 6.49
Niue 2 6 N/C N/C N/C 14.42
Nauru 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 7.21

ANNEX F
Table Annex F.1. Continued
North America 116 708 925 691 1.22 1.17 1.13 1.06
USA 96 088 801 788 1.27 1.20 1.12 1.01
Canada 21 073 175 076 1.27 1.19 1.13 1.35
Mexico 5 278 21 445 0.73 0.82 1.29 1.78
Cuba 345 1 607 0.62 0.79 0.90 1.62
Panama 341 2 938 1.28 1.11 1.22 4.21
Costa Rica 304 1 675 0.93 0.94 1.16 2.72
Trinidad and Tobago 138 661 0.64 0.96 1.06 2.89
Jamaica 81 471 0.86 0.99 1.31 1.70
Bahamas 67 420 1.04 1.08 1.48 11.32
Barbados 54 348 N/C 1.02 1.93 3.07
Grenada 45 178 N/C 1.07 1.31 1.56

F
Belize 27 220 N/C N/C 1.86 6.95
Guatemala 27 188 N/C N/C 1.00 0.91
Dominican Republic 21 51 N/C N/C 7.00 1.54
Honduras 20 112 N/C N/C 1.17 1.63
Saint Kitts and Nevis 18 51 N/C N/C 11.00 4.10
Haiti 17 110 N/C N/C 1.17 1.40
Dominica 9 134 N/C N/C 0.33 2.67
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 5 21 N/C N/C 0.67 7.72
Antigua and Barbuda 3 19 N/C N/C 2.00 4.33
Europe 149 642 1 033 199 1.14 1.09 1.19 1.06
UK 29 472 271 018 1.45 1.27 1.19 1.13
Germany 24 227 218 285 1.39 1.22 1.26 0.94
France 22 078 196 093 1.36 1.22 1.17 1.23
Spain 17 826 134 189 1.22 1.14 1.21 1.31
Italy 15 083 106 016 1.18 1.09 1.26 0.98
Norway 9 888 75 613 1.32 1.16 1.20 3.45
Russian Federation 8 816 31 458 0.58 0.58 1.16 1.18
Netherlands 8 780 82 639 1.54 1.28 1.24 0.99
Portugal 6 606 43 963 1.18 1.07 1.34 2.00
Sweden 6 377 59 111 1.39 1.25 1.25 1.10
Denmark 5 794 55 114 1.56 1.25 1.32 1.59
Switzerland 5 299 62 385 1.71 1.34 1.34 0.81

ANNEX F
Poland 5 041 21 650 0.79 0.76 1.35 0.84
Belgium 5 011 42 834 1.33 1.19 1.19 1.00
Greece 3 531 22 121 1.09 0.99 1.19 1.23
Finland 3 114 26 942 1.39 1.19 1.32 1.06
Austria 2 779 26 564 1.52 1.16 1.29 0.80
Czechia 2 720 17 410 1.07 0.95 1.26 0.81
Ireland 2 272 18 243 1.31 1.22 1.23 1.18
Croatia 1 654 6 626 0.67 0.79 1.00 1.73
Romania 1 652 5 191 0.66 0.67 1.08 0.61
Hungary 1 045 6 007 1.01 0.95 1.34 0.65
Estonia 904 5 771 1.07 0.93 1.31 2.04
Slovenia 858 5 235 1.09 0.97 1.24 0.89
Iceland 788 6 444 1.43 1.17 1.26 3.44
Ukraine 715 2 939 0.95 0.67 1.34 0.55
Serbia 686 2 608 0.71 0.79 1.62 0.55
Bulgaria 677 2 586 0.63 0.67 0.97 1.08
Slovakia 595 2 832 0.91 0.84 1.36 0.58
Lithuania 551 2 077 0.78 0.82 1.36 0.86
Latvia 211 555 0.76 0.94 1.66 0.77
Luxembourg 205 1 375 1.06 1.06 2.00 0.95
Monaco 193 2 192 1.65 1.30 0.87 10.16
Malta 130 684 1.08 0.99 1.26 2.36
Montenegro 130 636 1.88 0.60 1.50 2.72
Albania 109 272 0.43 0.46 0.73 2.55
Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia 85 265 0.57 0.80 1.40 0.86
Belarus 83 246 0.54 0.59 1.13 0.30
Bosnia and Herzegovina 61 200 0.60 0.72 0.88 0.50
Rep. of Moldova 23 62 N/C N/C 1.14 0.34
Liechtenstein 7 19 N/C N/C 1.50 0.44
Andorra 5 43 N/C N/C 1.50 3.18
San Marino 2 3 N/C N/C N/C 1.08
Asia 123 769 597 174 0.85 0.87 1.38 0.88
China 57 848 283 431 0.90 0.85 1.54 0.85
Japan 20 516 117 333 0.86 0.99 1.11 0.98
India 12 631 54 753 0.75 0.80 1.36 0.92

ANNEX F
Rep. of Korea 10 688 53 480 0.88 0.90 1.46 0.86
Turkey 6 153 24 358 0.71 0.75 0.97 0.96
Iran 4 437 16 148 0.72 0.75 1.39 0.73
Malaysia 3 315 13 640 0.82 0.83 1.84 1.09
Israel 2 397 17 881 1.09 1.22 1.16 0.74
Thailand 2 323 11 904 0.85 0.89 1.06 1.32
Singapore 2 307 16 935 1.35 1.14 1.44 0.80
Saudi Arabia 1 831 11 084 1.08 0.93 2.25 0.96
Indonesia 1 116 5 725 1.02 0.99 1.96 2.27
Pakistan 1 113 3 956 0.62 0.63 1.39 0.72
Viet Nam 946 3 715 0.74 0.95 1.55 1.93
Philippines 730 4 240 0.99 0.99 1.25 2.79

F
Bangladesh 632 2 749 0.85 0.87 1.43 1.65
United Arab Emirates 453 2 499 0.93 1.05 1.36 1.15
Oman 323 1 648 0.91 0.92 1.15 2.39
Sri Lanka 276 1 685 1.06 0.85 1.04 1.88
Cyprus 243 2 079 1.36 0.98 1.30 0.90
Kuwait 227 733 0.45 0.75 0.81 1.33
Jordan 221 821 0.71 0.86 1.76 0.72
Iraq 199 642 0.59 0.70 2.53 1.29
Lebanon 164 837 0.86 0.96 2.24 0.64
Qatar 163 726 0.97 0.99 3.06 0.80
Nepal 106 871 1.55 1.05 2.03 1.00
Azerbaijan 86 213 0.45 0.56 1.16 0.70
Georgia 86 296 0.51 0.77 0.89 0.63
Mongolia 81 548 1.13 1.12 1.82 1.73
Yemen 79 508 1.29 0.96 1.50 1.88
Syria 78 361 0.82 0.84 0.94 1.02
Lao People’s Dem. Rep. 73 285 0.69 1.04 1.45 2.28
Kazakhstan 72 252 N/C 0.77 2.25 0.50
Armenia 70 305 0.52 0.78 0.93 0.38
Brunei Darussalam 66 365 0.98 0.96 1.32 3.02
Uzbekistan 60 248 0.76 1.04 0.89 0.72
Cambodia 59 348 N/C 1.03 1.67 1.34
Bahrain 43 207 N/C 0.71 0.83 1.01

ANNEX F
Myanmar 31 142 N/C 0.99 0.92 2.00
Maldives 27 139 N/C N/C 3.20 12.98
Kyrgyzstan 26 210 N/C N/C 1.33 1.31
Tajikistan 18 39 N/C N/C 1.50 1.19
Turkmenistan 7 30 N/C N/C 1.50 1.66
Dem. People’s Rep. of Korea 7 49 N/C N/C 0.67 1.05
Afghanistan 5 22 N/C N/C 4.00 0.45
Bhutan 4 34 N/C N/C 1.00 0.50
Africa 11 472 60 648 0.92 0.92 1.32 1.35
South Africa 3 979 26 526 1.17 1.00 1.34 1.56
Egypt 2 063 8 234 0.73 0.81 1.56 1.11
Tunisia 1 355 6 207 0.73 0.84 1.19 1.62
Nigeria 604 1 670 0.42 0.62 0.86 1.07
Morocco 545 3 151 1.05 1.00 1.25 1.29
Kenya 542 3 920 1.16 1.12 1.29 1.66
Algeria 493 1 775 0.67 0.78 1.53 0.81
United Rep. of Tanzania 300 1 878 1.07 1.02 1.24 1.76
Ghana 218 1 031 0.75 0.89 0.89 1.49
Ethiopia 203 1 199 1.03 1.20 1.32 1.08
Senegal 185 1 129 0.98 0.99 0.94 2.13
Cameroon 167 723 0.74 1.01 1.29 1.06
Uganda 154 915 1.05 1.00 1.43 0.82
Madagascar 138 1 044 1.12 1.05 1.44 2.91
Mauritius 100 655 1.03 0.96 1.73 3.58
Zimbabwe 94 388 0.49 0.73 1.68 1.31
Seychelles 88 609 1.26 1.10 1.88 11.75
Benin 87 265 0.64 N/C 2.65 1.47
Côte d’Ivoire 86 270 0.60 0.77 1.24 1.60
Mozambique 82 751 1.42 0.98 1.03 2.20
Libya 82 303 0.61 0.77 1.58 1.63
Namibia 80 590 1.06 1.09 1.96 2.74
Botswana 61 174 N/C 0.78 2.27 1.14
Sudan 53 274 N/C 0.97 1.00 0.66
Malawi 51 220 0.61 0.91 0.74 0.65
Zambia 51 272 N/C 1.07 1.11 0.88
Burkina Faso 50 328 N/C 0.93 1.85 0.74

ANNEX F
Cabo Verde 41 386 N/C 1.16 2.36 10.56
Gabon 37 292 N/C 1.03 1.38 1.36
Angola 33 133 N/C 0.95 1.14 3.50
Congo 32 210 N/C 1.03 1.70 1.32
Mauritania 31 177 N/C 1.14 2.11 5.54
Niger 30 240 N/C N/C 1.10 1.33
Dem. Rep. of the Congo 29 260 N/C N/C 1.25 0.97
Mali 27 273 N/C N/C 0.55 0.74
Guinea 19 163 N/C N/C 1.00 2.28
Burundi 17 35 N/C N/C 1.00 3.20
Eritrea 16 161 N/C N/C 1.29 4.49
Rwanda 16 67 N/C N/C 0.50 0.55

F
Togo 15 48 N/C N/C 1.00 1.04
Swaziland 13 79 N/C N/C 0.25 1.26
Sierra Leone 10 95 N/C N/C 2.00 1.20
Chad 9 49 N/C N/C 1.33 2.19
Comoros 9 56 N/C N/C 0.20 12.98
Gambia 7 72 N/C N/C 2.00 0.28
Guinea-Bissau 7 49 N/C N/C 3.00 0.99
Central African Republic 5 31 N/C N/C N/C 0.76
Djibouti 4 45 N/C N/C 1.00 1.97
Liberia 3 8 N/C N/C N/C 0.93
Lesotho 3 13 N/C N/C 1.00 0.50
São Tomé-et-Príncipe 1 6 N/C N/C N/C 1.97

Note: ARC and ARIF are not computed (N/C) for countries with fewer than 30 relative citation scores or 30 relative impact factors (see methods tab). The same applies for HCP 1% and
HCP 10% (these need at least 30 relative impact factors). A growth rate (GR) is not computed when one of the periods (2010–2011 or 2013–2014) contains 0 articles. Colour coding indicates

ANNEX F
Table Annex F.2. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Marine Ecosystems Functions and Processes category (2010–2014)
World 60 625 423 145 1,00 1,00 1,21 1,00
South America 4 715 22 376 0,77 0,82 1,30 2,05
Brazil 2 478 10 246 0,76 0,78 1,41 1,61
Argentina 927 4 920 0,81 0,89 1,19 2,80
Chile 913 5 297 0,82 0,90 1,27 3,64
Colombia 203 1 327 0,73 0,71 1,01 1,46
Uruguay 126 1 074 1,00 0,90 0,96 4,01
Venezuela 124 803 0,49 0,68 0,87 2,82
Peru 119 1 110 2,13 0,98 1,45 3,78
Ecuador 80 697 0,78 1,19 1,68 4,76
Bolivia 24 253 N/C N/C 1,86 2,94
Nicaragua 12 64 N/C N/C 0,50 4,36
Guyana 4 8 N/C N/C N/C 4,40
Suriname 4 11 N/C N/C N/C 7,39
El Salvador 2 17 N/C N/C N/C 1,16
Paraguay 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 0,36
Oceania 5 901 56 258 1,31 1,14 1,27 2,55
Australia 4 920 48 504 1,37 1,16 1,31 2,44
New Zealand 1 191 10 988 1,30 1,08 1,14 3,49
Fiji 33 201 N/C 0,95 1,42 7,35
Papua New Guinea 16 222 N/C N/C 1,33 3,64
Palau 13 60 N/C N/C 3,00 46,74
Solomon Islands 8 60 N/C N/C 0,50 13,30
Fed. States of Micronesia 6 15 N/C N/C 3,00 16,63
Vanuatu 5 32 N/C N/C 4,00 6,46
Cook Islands 4 5 N/C N/C N/C 24,19
Tuvalu 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 26,61
Marshall Islands 1 6 N/C N/C N/C 8,31
Samoa 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 13,30
North America 22 948 202 160 1,20 1,12 1,21 1,28
United States 18 613 172 432 1,26 1,16 1,21 1,20
Canada 4 738 46 575 1,31 1,14 1,17 1,87
Mexico 1 161 6 116 0,82 0,73 1,31 2,41
Panama 117 1 181 1,35 1,07 1,41 8,89

ANNEX F
Costa Rica 97 581 0,84 0,79 1,29 5,34
Cuba 71 383 0,60 0,66 1,30 2,05
Trinidad and Tobago 33 222 N/C 0,94 1,64 4,25
Bahamas 29 186 N/C N/C 1,75 30,14
Barbados 11 41 N/C N/C 1,67 3,85
Belize 8 89 N/C N/C 1,50 12,67
Jamaica 7 109 N/C N/C 1,50 0,90
Guatemala 4 87 N/C N/C N/C 0,83
Grenada 4 18 N/C N/C N/C 0,85
Dominican Republic 3 8 N/C N/C N/C 1,35
Honduras 2 12 N/C N/C N/C 1,00
Haiti 2 45 N/C N/C N/C 1,02

F
Dominica 2 2 N/C N/C N/C 3,64
Europe 26 496 215 345 1,15 1,07 1,21 1,15
United Kingdom 5 562 60 695 1,45 1,23 1,24 1,31
Germany 4 680 48 116 1,42 1,18 1,30 1,12
France 4 633 46 509 1,35 1,16 1,24 1,58
Spain 3 646 31 285 1,26 1,10 1,31 1,65
Italy 2 432 19 939 1,24 1,03 1,28 0,97
Norway 1 837 17 898 1,42 1,15 1,21 3,94
Netherlands 1 745 18 675 1,45 1,24 1,10 1,20
Portugal 1 425 10 929 1,13 1,03 1,24 2,66
Sweden 1 375 14 961 1,39 1,20 1,19 1,45
Denmark 1 295 14 522 1,60 1,21 1,24 2,18
Russian Federation 1 145 5 256 0,79 0,62 1,25 0,94
Belgium 1 005 10 063 1,45 1,12 1,19 1,23
Switzerland 919 10 965 1,60 1,29 1,65 0,87
Poland 902 4 960 0,98 0,78 1,25 0,93
Finland 653 5 710 1,38 1,08 1,24 1,37
Greece 573 5 008 1,25 0,95 1,03 1,22
Austria 509 5 345 1,52 1,14 1,16 0,90
Ireland 456 4 500 1,35 1,15 1,19 1,45
Czech Republic 438 3 460 1,06 0,94 1,29 0,80
Croatia 285 1 229 0,60 0,77 0,83 1,84
Estonia 202 1 484 1,04 N/C 1,63 2,81

ANNEX F
Iceland 169 1 959 2,30 1,15 1,46 4,54
Romania 168 842 0,64 0,70 1,09 0,38
Hungary 153 1 155 1,70 0,92 1,20 0,58
Slovenia 131 937 1,10 0,95 1,49 0,84
Ukraine 104 805 2,17 0,67 1,33 0,49
Lithuania 87 449 0,99 0,82 1,27 0,84
Bulgaria 83 388 0,63 0,67 1,03 0,81
Slovakia 78 464 0,93 0,83 1,27 0,46
Monaco 60 778 1,62 1,15 1,50 19,42
Serbia 56 339 N/C 0,72 2,19 0,27
Latvia 38 233 N/C 0,87 1,58 0,85
Malta 33 239 N/C 1,01 0,86 3,69
Montenegro 27 345 N/C N/C 1,63 3,47
Albania 21 38 N/C N/C 0,12 3,02
Luxembourg 18 95 N/C N/C 2,00 0,51
Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia 14 34 N/C N/C 1,00 0,87
Belarus 12 40 N/C N/C 1,00 0,27
Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 0 N/C N/C 2,00 0,15
Rep. of Moldova 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 0,09
Liechtenstein 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 0,39
Asia 13 558 75 470 0,81 0,86 1,36 0,60
China 5 474 32 191 0,92 0,86 1,60 0,50
Japan 2 988 18 764 0,80 0,98 1,03 0,88
India 1 633 7 000 0,64 0,71 1,41 0,74
Rep. of Korea 991 5 804 0,86 0,88 1,56 0,49
Turkey 599 2 810 0,69 0,67 0,90 0,57
Israel 432 4 175 1,12 1,18 1,42 0,82
Iran 396 1 555 0,62 0,63 1,20 0,40
Malaysia 355 1 695 0,69 0,79 1,37 0,72
Saudi Arabia 245 1 512 0,82 0,89 2,59 0,79
Thailand 239 1 068 0,68 0,82 1,06 0,84
Singapore 220 1 503 1,00 1,05 2,22 0,47
Indonesia 167 1 398 1,14 1,10 2,10 2,09
Philippines 154 1 390 0,98 0,91 1,52 3,62
Viet Nam 144 692 0,71 0,93 1,46 1,81

ANNEX F
Pakistan 113 287 0,41 0,49 1,12 0,45
Bangladesh 82 395 0,84 0,72 1,79 1,32
United Arab Emirates 56 585 1,06 1,00 0,92 0,87
Oman 54 349 0,88 0,85 0,86 2,45
Sri Lanka 46 426 N/C N/C 0,64 1,93
Cyprus 29 132 N/C N/C 2,43 0,66
Kuwait 28 152 N/C N/C 0,71 1,01
Jordan 27 204 N/C N/C 1,33 0,54
Syria 19 151 N/C N/C 0,44 1,53
Qatar 18 171 N/C N/C 2,75 0,54
Lebanon 16 138 N/C N/C N/C 0,39
Lao People’s Dem. Rep. 15 46 N/C N/C 1,17 2,88

F
Brunei Darussalam 14 69 N/C N/C 1,00 3,95
Cambodia 14 106 N/C N/C 1,00 1,95
Uzbekistan 12 37 N/C N/C 1,75 0,89
Mongolia 11 72 N/C N/C 1,50 1,44
Azerbaijan 11 6 N/C N/C 3,50 0,55
Georgia 11 57 N/C N/C 1,67 0,50
Kazakhstan 10 25 N/C N/C 1,67 0,43
Yemen 9 40 N/C N/C 1,33 1,31
Nepal 9 65 N/C N/C 1,33 0,52
Iraq 8 21 N/C N/C 1,00 0,32
Bahrain 6 97 N/C N/C 1,00 0,86
Myanmar 5 15 N/C N/C 1,50 1,98
Armenia 3 87 N/C N/C 2,00 0,10
Maldives 3 5 N/C N/C N/C 8,87
Kyrgyzstan 2 1 N/C N/C 1,00 0,62
Tajikistan 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 0,41
Africa 2 274 14 577 0,95 0,90 1,28 1,65
South Africa 1 065 8 114 1,14 0,97 1,27 2,57
Tunisia 263 1 352 0,62 0,69 1,43 1,93
Egypt 202 1 014 0,79 0,73 1,26 0,67
Kenya 124 768 0,81 1,01 1,18 2,33
Morocco 105 709 N/C 1,01 1,78 1,52
Algeria 81 356 0,71 0,62 0,74 0,81

ANNEX F
United Rep. of Tanzania 69 401 1,02 1,01 1,04 2,50
Nigeria 65 117 0,20 0,56 1,00 0,71
Senegal 39 196 N/C 0,96 1,46 2,76
Namibia 33 422 N/C 1,25 1,50 6,95
Ethiopia 32 184 N/C 0,99 2,00 1,05
Madagascar 30 243 N/C N/C 1,88 3,90
Seychelles 28 299 N/C N/C 2,67 22,99
Uganda 28 177 N/C N/C 0,79 0,92
Benin 25 66 N/C N/C 2,83 2,59
Ghana 25 135 N/C N/C 1,11 1,05
Côte d’Ivoire 22 57 N/C N/C 1,11 2,51
Zimbabwe 22 141 N/C N/C 3,25 1,88
Mauritius 22 197 N/C N/C 0,55 4,85
Cameroon 22 129 N/C N/C 2,00 0,86
Mozambique 18 295 N/C N/C 0,70 2,97
Mauritania 14 26 N/C N/C 11,00 15,39
Burkina Faso 12 97 N/C N/C 0,75 1,10
Libya 12 61 N/C N/C 1,75 1,47
Angola 11 39 N/C N/C 1,75 7,17
Botswana 11 56 N/C N/C 0,75 1,27
Zambia 10 95 N/C N/C 1,00 1,06
Cabo Verde 10 140 N/C N/C 1,50 15,84
Congo 9 116 N/C N/C 0,60 2,28
Sudan 8 51 N/C N/C 3,00 0,61
Gabon 7 54 N/C N/C 2,50 1,58
Malawi 7 22 N/C N/C N/C 0,55
Dem. Rep. of the Congo 6 26 N/C N/C 1,00 1,24
Burundi 6 19 N/C N/C 0,25 6,94
Eritrea 4 15 N/C N/C 3,00 6,91
Guinea-Bissau 3 41 N/C N/C 1,00 2,61
Mali 2 39 N/C N/C N/C 0,34
Sierra Leone 2 6 N/C N/C N/C 1,47
Djibouti 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 3,02
Rwanda 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 0,21
Liberia 1 2 N/C N/C N/C 1,90

ANNEX F
Swaziland 1 2 N/C N/C N/C 0,59
Niger 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 0,27
Togo 1 5 N/C N/C N/C 0,43
Guinea 1 8 N/C N/C N/C 0,74
Central African Republic 1 7 N/C N/C N/C 0,94

Note: ARC and ARIF are not computed (N/C) for countries with less than 30 relative citation scores or 30 relative impact factors (see methods tab). The same applies for HCP 1 % and HCP
10 % (these need at least 30 relative impact factors). A growth rate (GR) is not computed when one of the periods (2010–2011 or 2013–2014) contains 0 articles. Colour coding indicates

ANNEX F
Table Annex F.3. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Ocean and Climate category (2010–2014)
World 45 311 370 321 1,00 1,00 1,32 1,00
South America 1 543 9 807 0,85 0,95 1,53 0,90
Brazil 769 3 450 0,64 0,83 1,64 0,67
Argentina 316 2 077 0,96 1,00 1,55 1,28
Chile 308 3 318 1,26 1,16 1,33 1,64
Colombia 85 585 0,67 1,03 1,30 0,82
Peru 73 653 1,07 1,14 1,82 3,10
Venezuela 37 417 N/C 1,13 0,88 1,13
Uruguay 35 195 N/C 1,02 1,55 1,49
Ecuador 23 198 N/C N/C 2,14 1,83
Bolivia 16 122 N/C N/C 2,25 2,62
Paraguay 5 8 N/C N/C 3,00 2,42
Nicaragua 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 0,49
Oceania 3 569 38 062 1,30 1,19 1,54 2,06
Australia 3 090 33 220 1,33 1,19 1,63 2,05
New Zealand 588 6 592 1,20 1,21 1,20 2,31
Fiji 17 108 N/C N/C 2,50 5,07
Papua New Guinea 5 22 N/C N/C N/C 1,52
Palau 5 28 N/C N/C N/C 24,05
Vanuatu 5 30 N/C N/C 1,50 8,64
Fed. States of Micronesia 4 16 N/C N/C N/C 14,83
Tonga 2 6 N/C N/C N/C 14,83
Niue 2 6 N/C N/C N/C 118,66
Kiribati 2 6 N/C N/C N/C 32,36
Nauru 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 59,33

ANNEX F
North America 19 070 201 996 1,20 1,11 1,31 1,42
United States 16 831 186 469 1,25 1,12 1,30 1,46
Canada 2 899 31 315 1,17 1,10 1,28 1,53
Mexico 359 2 032 0,76 0,89 1,61 1,00
Costa Rica 23 128 N/C N/C 1,83 1,69
Trinidad and Tobago 20 122 N/C N/C 2,60 3,45
Cuba 18 126 N/C N/C 1,33 0,70
Panama 18 189 N/C N/C 2,67 1,83
Barbados 14 165 N/C N/C 2,67 6,56
Jamaica 12 46 N/C N/C 5,00 2,07
Honduras 4 9 N/C N/C 2,00 2,68
Bahamas 4 18 N/C N/C N/C 5,56

F
Grenada 3 8 N/C N/C 0,50 0,85
Dominica 2 83 N/C N/C 1,00 4,88
Belize 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 2,12
Antigua and Barbuda 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 11,87
Saint Kitts and Nevis 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 1,87
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 12,71
Europe 19 969 190 159 1,15 1,09 1,28 1,16
United Kingdom 5 376 69 381 1,46 1,26 1,37 1,69
Germany 4 556 52 530 1,35 1,17 1,36 1,46
France 3 783 43 937 1,33 1,17 1,26 1,73
Spain 1 989 19 161 1,22 1,16 1,44 1,21
Italy 1 931 20 182 1,29 1,05 1,26 1,03
Netherlands 1 557 21 458 1,64 1,28 1,37 1,44
Norway 1 349 16 334 1,38 1,17 1,48 3,87
Switzerland 1 061 15 810 1,67 1,29 1,35 1,34
Sweden 1 059 13 283 1,42 1,15 1,47 1,50
Denmark 840 10 732 1,54 1,20 1,39 1,89

ANNEX F
Belgium 667 8 269 1,34 1,19 1,38 1,09
Finland 556 7 213 1,43 1,07 1,41 1,56
Portugal 544 6 089 1,51 1,00 1,34 1,36
Greece 481 3 960 1,01 0,89 1,19 1,37
Austria 321 5 073 1,96 1,23 1,80 0,76
Poland 317 2 086 0,83 0,86 1,01 0,44
Ireland 269 2 871 1,27 1,05 1,14 1,15
Estonia 152 1 062 0,79 0,79 1,25 2,83
Czech Republic 148 1 001 0,82 0,93 1,33 0,36
Croatia 141 811 0,59 0,84 0,81 1,22
Romania 135 735 0,69 0,80 1,33 0,41
Iceland 102 1 007 1,20 1,19 1,52 3,66
Ukraine 95 456 0,56 0,44 1,12 0,60
Hungary 93 763 1,09 0,84 1,06 0,48
Lithuania 73 335 0,74 0,75 1,90 0,94
Bulgaria 60 294 0,54 0,76 1,35 0,79
Slovenia 47 374 0,93 1,01 0,85 0,40
Serbia 47 424 N/C 0,99 1,18 0,31
Monaco 40 721 N/C 0,93 1,29 17,32
Slovakia 35 169 N/C 0,79 1,80 0,28
Latvia 19 92 N/C N/C 2,00 0,57
Malta 13 120 N/C N/C 0,83 1,94
Albania 10 32 N/C N/C 0,13 1,92
Belarus 10 76 N/C N/C 1,00 0,30
Andorra 4 43 N/C N/C 1,00 20,94
Asia 13 254 80 258 0,77 0,87 1,52 0,78
China 6 400 38 956 0,78 0,84 1,65 0,78
Japan 2 728 20 984 0,87 0,99 1,22 1,07
India 1 578 8 268 0,64 0,84 1,51 0,95
Rep. of Korea 1 245 6 839 0,66 0,89 1,62 0,82

ANNEX F
Turkey 333 1 618 0,69 0,84 1,71 0,43
Israel 324 3 021 1,03 1,17 1,06 0,83
Iran 242 860 0,65 0,78 2,41 0,33
Malaysia 208 1 081 0,80 0,76 2,35 0,56
Saudi Arabia 178 1 178 1,10 0,89 4,96 0,77
Singapore 152 1 137 0,83 1,05 1,88 0,43
Indonesia 129 862 0,86 0,96 1,89 2,16
Thailand 123 843 0,89 0,88 1,10 0,58
Viet Nam 95 617 1,04 1,02 1,66 1,60
Pakistan 79 338 0,58 0,76 2,25 0,42
Bangladesh 78 348 0,78 0,85 1,91 1,67

F
Philippines 60 413 0,97 1,02 1,23 1,89
Cyprus 49 599 N/C 0,78 1,10 1,49
Oman 33 188 N/C 0,80 0,87 2,01
Jordan 31 127 N/C 0,81 3,00 0,84
Sri Lanka 29 215 N/C N/C 1,00 1,63
Nepal 19 237 N/C N/C 2,60 1,48
Kuwait 16 86 N/C N/C 1,20 0,77
Lebanon 16 117 N/C N/C 1,60 0,52
Iraq 11 19 N/C N/C 9,00 0,59
Syria 10 17 N/C N/C 0,80 1,08
Mongolia 10 78 N/C N/C 2,00 1,75
Yemen 10 89 N/C N/C 1,00 1,95
Qatar 10 81 N/C N/C 2,50 0,40
Georgia 10 9 N/C N/C 0,67 0,60
Cambodia 8 63 N/C N/C 1,50 1,49
Maldives 6 58 N/C N/C 1,50 23,73
Bahrain 5 18 N/C N/C 1,50 0,96
Armenia 5 49 N/C N/C 1,00 0,22

ANNEX F
Lao People’s Dem. Rep. 4 47 N/C N/C N/C 1,03
Tajikistan 4 31 N/C N/C 0,50 2,18
Turkmenistan 3 13 N/C N/C 2,00 5,87
Myanmar 2 29 N/C N/C N/C 1,06
Bhutan 1 7 N/C N/C N/C 1,02
Africa 1 127 8 204 0,94 0,93 1,64 1,09
South Africa 442 4 597 1,15 0,99 1,62 1,43
Egypt 148 715 0,82 0,79 1,76 0,65
Tunisia 85 367 0,56 0,85 2,50 0,83
Morocco 78 478 N/C 0,99 2,83 1,51
Kenya 61 381 N/C 1,04 2,64 1,54
Nigeria 57 159 N/C 0,76 1,89 0,83
Algeria 41 220 N/C 0,63 1,91 0,55
United Rep. of Tanzania 37 227 N/C 1,06 1,90 1,79
Ethiopia 33 231 N/C 1,09 0,92 1,45
Senegal 27 264 N/C N/C 0,77 2,56
Cameroon 26 102 N/C N/C 1,86 1,36
Ghana 21 71 N/C N/C 0,80 1,18
Zimbabwe 18 78 N/C N/C 1,17 2,06
Uganda 18 134 N/C N/C 1,33 0,79
Benin 18 86 N/C N/C 2,00 2,50
Namibia 14 138 N/C N/C 2,50 3,94
Cabo Verde 12 137 N/C N/C 1,50 25,43
Sudan 11 112 N/C N/C 0,80 1,13
Mauritius 10 87 N/C N/C 0,80 2,95
Niger 10 149 N/C N/C 1,00 3,64
Malawi 8 30 N/C N/C 0,75 0,84
Botswana 6 18 N/C N/C 0,67 0,93
Angola 5 40 N/C N/C 3,00 4,36

ANNEX F
Congo 5 26 N/C N/C 3,00 1,70
Libya 4 20 N/C N/C 1,00 0,66
Mauritania 4 21 N/C N/C N/C 5,88
Seychelles 4 36 N/C N/C 0,50 4,39
Togo 3 31 N/C N/C N/C 1,71
Mali 3 48 N/C N/C 1,00 0,68
Zambia 3 13 N/C N/C 2,00 0,43
Dem. Rep. of the Congo 2 30 N/C N/C N/C 0,55
Gabon 2 14 N/C N/C 1,00 0,61
Eritrea 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 2,31

F
Comoros 1 27 N/C N/C N/C 11,87
Chad 1 5 N/C N/C N/C 2,00
Gambia 1 13 N/C N/C N/C 0,33
Lesotho 1 7 N/C N/C N/C 1,36


ANNEX F
Table Annex F.4. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Ocean Health category (2010–2014)
World 79 973 549 353 1,00 1,00 1,24 1,00
South America 5 013 25 519 0,77 0,88 1,34 1,65
Brazil 3 192 15 024 0,74 0,85 1,36 1,57
Argentina 770 4 398 0,92 1,00 1,53 1,77
Chile 671 4 138 0,82 0,96 1,26 2,03
Colombia 210 1 202 0,66 0,73 1,18 1,15
Venezuela 123 662 0,36 0,61 0,87 2,12
Uruguay 108 1 274 1,37 1,05 1,77 2,61
Ecuador 79 647 1,10 1,16 1,68 3,57
Peru 78 668 0,98 1,11 1,06 1,88
Bolivia 30 288 N/C N/C 1,20 2,78
Nicaragua 13 149 N/C N/C 0,40 3,58
El Salvador 4 36 N/C N/C 1,00 1,75
Oceania 5 566 50 805 1,36 1,22 1,29 1,82
Australia 4 616 42 608 1,39 1,24 1,35 1,73
New Zealand 1 079 9 635 1,24 1,17 1,07 2,40
Fiji 44 305 N/C 1,16 1,77 7,43
Palau 10 49 N/C N/C 3,50 27,26
Vanuatu 9 34 N/C N/C 1,67 8,81
North America 24 798 219 823 1,20 1,16 1,19 1,05
United States 19 781 185 027 1,25 1,18 1,20 0,97
Canada 5 189 49 403 1,28 1,20 1,16 1,55
Mexico 1 245 6 401 0,73 0,81 1,29 1,96
Cuba 86 466 0,65 0,77 0,86 1,89

ANNEX F
Costa Rica 69 455 0,92 0,96 1,42 2,88
Panama 66 628 1,27 1,28 1,17 3,80
Jamaica 23 201 N/C N/C 2,60 2,25
Bahamas 16 89 N/C N/C 2,50 12,61
Barbados 14 32 N/C N/C 2,67 3,72
Guatemala 12 128 N/C N/C 0,67 1,89
Belize 12 120 N/C N/C 3,00 14,41

F
Europe 31 353 247 846 1,12 1,08 1,21 1,04
United Kingdom 5 530 59 517 1,45 1,26 1,29 0,99
Spain 4 537 39 920 1,21 1,16 1,20 1,56
France 4 350 40 271 1,27 1,18 1,27 1,13
Germany 4 077 41 867 1,38 1,20 1,27 0,74
Italy 3 550 29 686 1,20 1,06 1,27 1,07
Portugal 1 933 15 807 1,21 1,08 1,39 2,73
Netherlands 1 733 18 215 1,47 1,26 1,37 0,91
Norway 1 678 16 291 1,32 1,19 1,18 2,73
Sweden 1 485 17 031 1,46 1,23 1,21 1,19
Poland 1 312 6 058 0,71 0,73 1,38 1,02
Belgium 1 160 10 935 1,29 1,16 1,31 1,08
Denmark 1 149 12 253 1,55 1,24 1,30 1,47
Switzerland 1 123 15 379 1,67 1,33 1,43 0,80
Greece 1 026 8 384 1,19 0,95 1,27 1,66
Finland 733 6 529 1,15 1,13 1,27 1,17
Czech Republic 664 4 861 1,04 0,95 1,27 0,92
Ireland 584 5 290 1,33 1,15 1,30 1,41
Romania 520 1 871 0,60 0,52 1,13 0,90
Austria 480 5 521 1,47 1,21 1,33 0,64
Croatia 450 2 246 0,70 0,84 1,02 2,20

ANNEX F
Slovenia 269 2 202 1,17 0,99 1,36 1,30
Hungary 237 1 437 0,89 0,92 1,44 0,69
Serbia 215 957 0,70 0,74 2,09 0,80
Estonia 204 1 911 1,21 0,98 1,44 2,15
Lithuania 199 1 207 1,04 0,92 1,35 1,46
Bulgaria 186 748 0,64 0,66 1,23 1,38
Slovakia 176 1 003 0,97 0,80 1,13 0,79
Ukraine 157 918 0,99 0,71 1,18 0,56
Iceland 121 1 027 1,34 1,31 1,55 2,46
Monaco 74 676 1,00 1,16 0,64 18,16
Latvia 56 267 N/C N/C 1,88 0,95
Luxembourg 56 323 N/C 1,11 2,00 1,21
Albania 51 110 N/C 0,33 0,56 5,55
Malta 40 411 N/C 1,00 0,82 3,39
Montenegro 34 137 N/C 0,54 1,70 3,31
Belarus 19 71 N/C N/C 0,50 0,32
Rep. of Moldova 8 24 N/C N/C 3,00 0,54
Liechtenstein 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 0,29
Asia 25 361 145 282 0,86 0,86 1,43 0,85
China 12 152 73 260 0,95 0,89 1,57 0,83
India 3 070 16 059 0,75 0,78 1,36 1,05
Japan 2 745 18 015 0,87 0,98 1,19 0,61
Rep. of Korea 1 904 12 139 0,94 0,95 1,48 0,71
Turkey 1 595 7 655 0,71 0,71 0,92 1,16
Iran 1 049 4 805 0,72 0,70 1,48 0,81
Malaysia 939 5 014 0,85 N/C 1,78 1,44
Saudi Arabia 492 3 377 1,08 0,91 2,11 1,20
Israel 416 3 487 1,07 1,18 1,15 0,60
Thailand 415 1 737 0,66 0,84 1,32 1,10
Pakistan 385 1 684 0,68 0,59 1,35 1,17
Singapore 381 4 246 1,56 1,18 1,61 0,61
Indonesia 238 1 507 1,00 0,95 2,16 2,26
Philippines 217 1 889 1,05 1,02 1,36 3,87

ANNEX F
Viet Nam 203 933 0,66 0,88 1,55 1,93
Bangladesh 186 1 166 0,92 0,81 1,07 2,26
Cyprus 97 1 270 1,70 0,98 1,24 1,68
Kuwait 86 320 0,50 0,73 0,97 2,34
Oman 73 296 0,71 0,76 1,38 2,51
Sri Lanka 68 509 0,93 0,74 0,96 2,16
Jordan 66 195 0,50 0,77 1,83 1,01
Lebanon 57 389 N/C 0,92 3,50 1,04
Iraq 45 245 N/C 0,67 2,15 1,36
Qatar 37 329 N/C 0,91 3,67 0,85
Syria 25 161 N/C N/C 1,22 1,53

F
Nepal 24 224 N/C N/C 0,67 1,06
Georgia 22 35 N/C N/C 0,54 0,75
Bahrain 22 139 N/C N/C 0,80 2,40
Cambodia 16 76 N/C N/C 0,88 1,69
Armenia 14 96 N/C N/C 0,50 0,35
Mongolia 11 37 N/C N/C 2,50 1,09
Yemen 11 25 N/C N/C 2,33 1,22
Maldives 7 34 N/C N/C 2,00 15,69
Dem. People’s Rep. of Korea 4 19 N/C N/C 2,00 2,80
Myanmar 3 7 N/C N/C 1,00 0,90
Africa 3 329 18 602 0,80 0,86 1,28 1,83
South Africa 1 031 7 152 0,89 0,94 1,30 1,89
Egypt 558 2 513 0,73 0,76 1,47 1,40
Tunisia 469 2 717 0,77 0,85 1,25 2,61
Nigeria 268 712 0,31 0,56 0,89 2,22

ANNEX F
Kenya 166 1 208 1,07 1,04 1,08 2,37
Algeria 159 695 0,82 0,73 1,25 1,21
Morocco 148 1 104 1,10 0,93 1,16 1,63
Ghana 89 366 0,58 0,81 0,74 2,84
Uganda 50 432 N/C 1,12 1,35 1,25
Senegal 44 187 N/C 0,89 1,40 2,36
Ethiopia 44 211 N/C 1,05 1,53 1,10
Cameroon 43 152 N/C 0,83 1,47 1,27
Madagascar 36 429 N/C 1,04 1,27 3,55
Zimbabwe 36 204 N/C 0,67 2,09 2,33
Seychelles 35 352 N/C 1,18 2,22 21,79
Mauritius 35 362 N/C 0,99 0,59 5,84
Benin 25 69 N/C N/C 9,00 1,97
Botswana 17 62 N/C N/C 1,50 1,49
Namibia 17 192 N/C N/C 1,00 2,71
Zambia 17 68 N/C N/C 2,00 1,37
Libya 15 56 N/C N/C 1,60 1,39
Malawi 15 42 N/C N/C 0,86 0,89
Cabo Verde 12 141 N/C N/C 2,67 14,41
Congo 11 93 N/C N/C 1,00 2,11
Gabon 10 75 N/C N/C 2,50 1,72
Sudan 9 27 N/C N/C 0,75 0,52
Togo 8 33 N/C N/C 0,60 2,58
Mali 7 56 N/C N/C 1,00 0,90
Angola 7 22 N/C N/C 0,75 3,46
Burundi 7 12 N/C N/C 2,50 6,14
Mauritania 7 10 N/C N/C 6,00 5,83
Rwanda 7 37 N/C N/C 0,33 1,12
Swaziland 5 14 N/C N/C 0,33 2,25
Sierra Leone 5 55 N/C N/C 4,00 2,79

ANNEX F
Niger 4 11 N/C N/C 3,00 0,82
Guinea 4 26 N/C N/C 2,00 2,24
Eritrea 2 7 N/C N/C 1,00 2,62


F

ANNEX F
Table Annex F.5. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Human Health and Wellbeing category (2010–2014)
World 22 259 154 236 1,00 1,00 1,28 1,00
South America 1 288 6 767 0,78 0,87 1,47 1,53
Brazil 759 3 223 0,64 0,80 1,51 1,34
Chile 224 1 526 1,03 0,99 1,31 2,43
Argentina 164 1 007 1,18 1,02 1,88 1,35
Colombia 72 376 0,75 0,83 1,44 1,41
Venezuela 39 222 N/C 0,54 0,88 2,42
Peru 38 318 N/C 0,99 1,07 3,29
Ecuador 35 293 N/C 1,15 2,50 5,68
Uruguay 22 558 N/C N/C 1,86 1,91
Bolivia 8 31 N/C N/C 1,50 2,67
Nicaragua 7 99 N/C N/C 0,67 6,93
Oceania 1 649 15 622 1,34 1,21 1,25 1,94
Australia 1 364 13 267 1,39 1,23 1,28 1,84
New Zealand 323 2 660 1,11 1,08 1,08 2,58
Fiji 19 104 N/C N/C 1,50 11,53
Vanuatu 2 32 N/C N/C N/C 7,04
Tonga 1 11 N/C N/C N/C 15,10
North America 7 110 64 222 1,22 1,19 1,24 1,08
United States 5 877 55 840 1,26 1,21 1,25 1,03
Canada 1 259 12 724 1,34 1,27 1,15 1,35
Mexico 338 2 126 0,84 0,87 1,45 1,91
Costa Rica 25 63 N/C N/C 1,25 3,75
Cuba 20 151 N/C N/C 0,89 1,58
Panama 16 137 N/C N/C 11,00 3,31

ANNEX F
Barbados 7 14 N/C N/C 5,00 6,67
Jamaica 7 27 N/C N/C 2,50 2,46
Grenada 6 19 N/C N/C 1,50 3,48
Belize 4 32 N/C N/C 0,50 17,25
Haiti 3 5 N/C N/C 2,00 4,15
Guatemala 3 16 N/C N/C 1,00 1,70
Europe 8 536 70 483 1,17 1,08 1,25 1,01
United Kingdom 1 822 19 552 1,47 1,27 1,32 1,17

F
Spain 1 223 10 587 1,21 1,11 1,25 1,51
France 1 190 11 294 1,28 1,16 1,33 1,11
Germany 1 077 10 737 1,34 1,14 1,28 0,70
Italy 943 8 194 1,27 1,07 1,39 1,03
Netherlands 611 6 863 1,46 1,23 1,43 1,15
Norway 541 5 810 1,49 1,19 1,20 3,16
Portugal 452 5 071 1,62 1,08 1,41 2,30
Sweden 431 5 466 1,44 1,22 1,24 1,24
Denmark 349 3 930 1,51 1,18 1,18 1,60
Switzerland 292 4 329 1,55 1,29 1,31 0,75
Belgium 288 2 228 1,17 1,18 1,83 0,96
Poland 270 1 546 0,82 0,72 1,71 0,76
Greece 249 1 973 1,12 0,93 1,09 1,45
Ireland 218 2 261 1,44 1,31 0,91 1,89
Finland 183 2 114 1,27 1,20 1,33 1,05
Russian Federation 139 992 0,98 0,70 1,11 0,31
Austria 123 1 554 1,51 1,23 1,36 0,59
Czech Republic 108 1 217 1,46 1,04 1,60 0,54
Croatia 105 528 0,71 0,80 0,93 1,84
Romania 93 219 N/C 0,45 1,16 0,58
Slovenia 64 650 1,40 0,99 1,32 1,12
Serbia 49 154 N/C 0,69 2,55 0,65

ANNEX F
Iceland 47 188 N/C 1,08 2,67 3,44
Hungary 43 189 N/C 1,16 3,83 0,45
Bulgaria 38 127 N/C 0,84 2,09 1,02
Estonia 37 260 N/C 0,88 1,14 1,40
Lithuania 31 404 N/C N/C 1,09 0,81
Ukraine 24 59 N/C N/C 1,11 0,31
Slovakia 22 99 N/C N/C 0,67 0,36
Latvia 14 145 N/C N/C 0,63 0,86
Monaco 14 138 N/C N/C 2,00 12,34
Malta 12 187 N/C N/C 1,25 3,65
Albania 6 12 N/C N/C N/C 2,35
Belarus 2 45 N/C N/C N/C 0,12
Asia 7 229 39 758 0,83 0,85 1,42 0,87
China 3 039 16 855 0,88 0,88 1,62 0,75
Japan 934 5 561 0,77 0,95 1,21 0,75
India 764 3 709 0,73 0,74 1,29 0,94
Rep. of Korea 711 4 249 0,88 0,85 1,38 0,96
Turkey 361 1 594 0,59 0,62 0,79 0,94
Malaysia 294 2 047 1,16 0,92 1,80 1,61
Iran 275 1 206 0,67 0,66 1,25 0,76
Thailand 214 1 245 0,89 0,88 1,29 2,04
Israel 159 1 295 0,99 0,99 1,44 0,83
Saudi Arabia 157 920 0,97 0,78 2,71 1,38
Singapore 134 1 371 1,26 1,18 1,55 0,78
Viet Nam 109 516 0,73 0,99 1,93 3,73
Philippines 92 595 0,87 1,10 1,14 5,90
Bangladesh 87 568 0,88 0,93 1,30 3,80
Indonesia 76 762 1,51 0,97 1,86 2,59
Pakistan 71 272 0,68 0,62 1,95 0,77

ANNEX F
United Arab Emirates 46 236 N/C 0,86 2,55 1,95
Sri Lanka 36 382 N/C 1,04 0,79 4,12
Kuwait 33 85 N/C 0,60 0,64 3,23
Oman 29 126 N/C N/C 1,00 3,59
Cyprus 24 111 N/C N/C 1,00 1,49
Jordan 23 54 N/C N/C 2,83 1,26
Qatar 21 117 N/C N/C 7,00 1,73
Lebanon 17 49 N/C N/C 10,00 1,12
Cambodia 16 144 N/C N/C 2,25 6,08
Nepal 13 76 N/C N/C 1,50 2,06
Georgia 12 20 N/C N/C 9,00 1,47

F
Iraq 10 58 N/C N/C 2,00 1,09
Yemen 8 77 N/C N/C 0,25 3,18
Bahrain 8 26 N/C N/C 2,50 3,13
Syria 6 114 N/C N/C 0,25 1,32
Afghanistan 3 16 N/C N/C N/C 4,51
Armenia 3 1 N/C N/C 1,00 0,27
Mongolia 2 4 N/C N/C N/C 0,71
Maldives 2 2 N/C N/C 1,00 16,10
Kazakhstan 1 2 N/C N/C N/C 0,12
Africa 1 250 8 207 0,92 0,95 1,58 2,46
South Africa 322 3 448 1,33 1,08 1,58 2,12
Egypt 196 813 0,70 0,75 1,79 1,76
Kenya 141 1 415 1,52 1,28 1,59 7,23
Tunisia 136 480 0,46 0,78 1,83 2,72
Nigeria 63 179 0,29 0,65 0,66 1,87
Algeria 55 224 N/C 0,53 1,82 1,51

ANNEX F
Ghana 42 277 N/C 0,96 0,72 4,81
Ethiopia 35 121 N/C 0,95 1,46 3,13
Morocco 32 138 N/C N/C 1,80 1,26
Uganda 31 151 N/C 0,98 1,50 2,78
Cameroon 30 153 N/C N/C 2,29 3,19
Senegal 25 102 N/C N/C 1,71 4,82
Benin 14 80 N/C N/C 5,00 3,96
Zambia 11 70 N/C N/C 1,25 3,19
Malawi 11 30 N/C N/C 1,25 2,35
Mauritius 10 59 N/C N/C 3,00 6,00
Mali 8 60 N/C N/C 2,00 3,70
Zimbabwe 7 32 N/C N/C 0,40 1,63
Libya 7 15 N/C N/C 1,33 2,34
Namibia 6 5 N/C N/C 1,50 3,44
Gabon 5 77 N/C N/C 0,33 3,08
Togo 4 27 N/C N/C 0,33 4,63
Gambia 4 24 N/C N/C 1,00 2,71
Botswana 3 15 N/C N/C 2,00 0,94
Sudan 3 5 N/C N/C 2,00 0,63
Congo 3 12 N/C N/C N/C 2,07
Rwanda 3 14 N/C N/C 1,00 1,73
Angola 2 10 N/C N/C 1,00 3,55
Burundi 2 1 N/C N/C N/C 6,30
Guinea-Bissau 2 3 N/C N/C N/C 4,74

ANNEX F
Eritrea 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 4,71


ANNEX F
Table Annex F.6. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Blue Growth category (2010–2014)
World 79 256 457 338 1,00 1,00 1,31 1,00
South America 4 980 21 961 0,80 0,88 1,34 1,66
Brazil 3 010 11 061 0,70 0,83 1,43 1,49
Chile 912 5 139 1,02 0,96 1,21 2,78
Argentina 615 3 565 0,94 1,02 1,23 1,42
Colombia 245 1 102 0,81 0,81 1,60 1,35
Peru 122 943 1,07 1,07 1,17 2,97
Venezuela 108 590 N/C 0,65 0,80 1,88
Uruguay 91 1 030 1,44 1,04 1,73 2,22
Ecuador 76 645 1,04 1,23 1,50 3,46
Bolivia 25 199 N/C N/C 1,50 2,34
Nicaragua 14 64 N/C N/C 0,33 3,89
Paraguay 3 4 N/C N/C 2,00 0,83
Oceania 5 916 48 835 1,33 1,20 1,30 1,96
Australia 4 979 40 828 1,35 1,22 1,35 1,89
New Zealand 1 040 9 612 1,31 1,17 1,06 2,33
Fiji 94 540 0,91 1,26 1,74 16,02
Palau 11 44 N/C N/C 9,00 30,25
Vanuatu 8 30 N/C N/C 2,50 7,90

ANNEX F
North America 23 369 175 476 1,20 1,15 1,20 1,00
United States 18 655 146 975 1,24 1,17 1,21 0,92
Canada 4 566 37 923 1,32 1,23 1,18 1,38
Mexico 1 359 6 102 0,73 0,84 1,22 2,16
Costa Rica 87 528 0,94 1,04 1,03 3,66
Cuba 86 561 0,78 0,84 0,70 1,90
Panama 60 476 1,19 1,25 1,81 3,49
Jamaica 25 216 N/C N/C 3,75 2,47
Bahamas 24 150 N/C N/C 2,00 19,08
Barbados 22 77 N/C N/C 2,40 5,89
Belize 19 162 N/C N/C 1,60 23,02

F
Grenada 17 69 N/C N/C 1,00 2,77
Guatemala 13 141 N/C N/C 1,20 2,07
Dominican Republic 8 22 N/C N/C 4,00 2,76
Honduras 7 10 N/C N/C 4,00 2,68
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 2 14 N/C N/C 1,00 14,54
Europe 30 912 210 441 1,18 1,10 1,31 1,03
United Kingdom 6 458 57 524 1,44 1,24 1,28 1,16
Spain 4 496 35 149 1,28 1,15 1,30 1,56
Germany 3 782 33 131 1,39 1,18 1,38 0,69
France 3 733 32 901 1,39 1,19 1,38 0,98
Norway 3 112 21 826 1,33 1,13 1,30 5,11
Italy 3 085 22 054 1,18 1,08 1,45 0,94
Netherlands 1 799 15 848 1,51 1,25 1,43 0,95
Portugal 1 689 12 587 1,32 1,11 1,53 2,41
Denmark 1 445 12 403 1,55 1,19 1,52 1,86
Sweden 1 281 11 494 1,41 1,29 1,40 1,04

ANNEX F
Greece 1 059 7 297 1,16 0,98 1,29 1,73
Belgium 944 6 525 1,11 1,18 1,36 0,88
Russian Federation 833 3 989 0,76 0,72 1,30 0,53
Ireland 748 5 849 1,39 1,22 1,27 1,82
Switzerland 737 10 094 1,86 1,37 1,52 0,53
Poland 717 3 981 1,08 0,87 1,63 0,56
Finland 619 4 821 1,25 1,23 1,34 0,99
Romania 412 1 067 0,44 0,53 0,98 0,72
Austria 398 3 284 1,27 1,16 1,33 0,54
Croatia 396 1 524 0,66 0,80 1,01 1,95
Czech Republic 380 3 218 1,25 1,05 1,06 0,53
Iceland 240 1 484 0,99 1,18 1,17 4,93
Hungary 182 919 0,93 1,00 1,82 0,53
Slovenia 163 1 282 1,29 1,04 1,54 0,80
Serbia 146 535 0,58 0,91 1,83 0,55
Bulgaria 137 473 0,54 0,69 0,93 1,03
Estonia 132 928 1,03 1,06 1,97 1,40
Lithuania 131 804 1,17 1,00 1,79 0,97
Ukraine 93 325 0,74 0,74 1,29 0,34
Latvia 68 284 N/C 0,96 1,29 1,17
Slovakia 59 276 N/C 0,83 1,25 0,27
Malta 46 328 N/C 1,02 1,47 3,93
Luxembourg 45 321 N/C 1,24 2,08 0,98
Albania 24 49 N/C N/C 0,67 2,64
Monaco 24 175 N/C N/C 1,22 5,94
Belarus 8 40 N/C N/C 1,50 0,14
Rep. of Moldova 6 12 N/C N/C 1,50 0,41
Liechtenstein 4 7 N/C N/C 1,00 1,18
Andorra 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 2,99

ANNEX F
Asia 26 051 125 347 0,85 0,86 1,48 0,88
China 10 952 53 194 0,88 0,86 1,66 0,76
Japan 3 477 17 080 0,77 0,94 1,16 0,78
India 3 261 14 876 0,79 0,74 1,42 1,12
Rep. of Korea 2 310 12 094 0,91 0,91 1,75 0,87
Turkey 1 300 5 867 0,77 0,78 0,97 0,95
Iran 1 089 3 413 0,57 0,66 1,45 0,84
Malaysia 1 051 5 293 0,97 0,95 1,92 1,62
Thailand 616 2 895 0,82 0,90 1,09 1,65
Saudi Arabia 483 3 675 1,35 1,04 2,67 1,19
Singapore 483 4 599 1,73 1,24 1,58 0,79
Israel 452 3 822 1,17 1,10 1,20 0,66

F
Viet Nam 362 1 468 0,73 0,98 1,53 3,48
Indonesia 324 1 875 1,03 1,07 2,38 3,11
Philippines 298 1 962 0,93 1,05 1,10 5,36
Pakistan 271 1 008 0,66 0,67 1,48 0,83
Bangladesh 251 964 0,82 0,88 1,59 3,08
Oman 117 634 0,95 0,93 1,11 4,06
Sri Lanka 92 858 1,71 0,91 1,24 2,95
Cyprus 77 604 1,50 1,00 1,44 1,34
Kuwait 70 203 0,50 0,59 0,63 1,93
Qatar 66 339 N/C 0,97 3,00 1,52
Jordan 57 217 N/C 0,85 1,76 0,88
Lebanon 50 343 N/C 1,03 1,73 0,92
Iraq 46 172 N/C 0,76 2,45 1,41
Cambodia 27 150 N/C N/C 1,56 2,88
Nepal 25 106 N/C N/C 1,44 1,11
Yemen 22 137 N/C N/C 1,43 2,46
Georgia 21 41 N/C N/C 7,00 0,72

ANNEX F
Bahrain 18 131 N/C N/C 1,17 1,98
Syria 17 159 N/C N/C 0,86 1,05
Mongolia 14 55 N/C N/C 10,00 1,40
Maldives 9 27 N/C N/C 3,00 20,35
Armenia 8 99 N/C N/C 1,33 0,20
Africa 3 091 16 516 0,89 0,93 1,41 1,71
South Africa 965 6 618 1,10 1,02 1,45 1,78
Egypt 577 2 455 0,70 0,86 1,52 1,46
Tunisia 331 1 577 0,66 0,82 1,40 1,86
Kenya 194 1 210 1,05 1,14 1,32 2,79
Nigeria 173 455 0,47 0,64 0,80 1,45
Algeria 130 530 0,85 0,78 1,86 1,00
Morocco 115 803 1,13 0,92 1,17 1,28
Uganda 68 356 1,10 0,95 2,11 1,71
Ghana 67 159 0,39 0,87 1,50 2,16
Ethiopia 57 206 0,64 N/C 1,05 1,43
Senegal 56 308 1,15 0,99 1,25 3,03
Seychelles 43 306 N/C 1,24 2,78 27,01
Mauritius 40 338 N/C 0,96 1,62 6,74
Cameroon 40 140 N/C 0,96 0,64 1,20
Mozambique 38 364 N/C 1,07 1,00 4,80
Madagascar 38 311 N/C 1,01 2,00 3,78
Benin 31 29 N/C N/C 3,50 2,46

ANNEX F
Libya 26 119 N/C N/C 1,22 2,44
Malawi 24 87 N/C N/C 1,25 1,44
Namibia 24 207 N/C N/C 1,83 3,86
Zimbabwe 16 142 N/C N/C 1,14 1,05
Mauritania 15 123 N/C N/C 2,00 12,61
Angola 14 43 N/C N/C 1,33 6,98
Zambia 14 106 N/C N/C 3,50 1,14
Botswana 14 33 N/C N/C 0,33 1,24
Congo 12 46 N/C N/C 1,50 2,33
Gabon 11 78 N/C N/C 2,33 1,90
Sudan 9 31 N/C N/C 1,00 0,53

F
Cabo Verde 9 189 N/C N/C 0,80 10,90
Guinea 8 127 N/C N/C 0,20 4,52
Burundi 8 8 N/C N/C 1,67 7,08
Mali 6 37 N/C N/C 1,00 0,78
Rwanda 5 13 N/C N/C 1,00 0,81
Niger 5 3 N/C N/C 3,00 1,04
Eritrea 3 14 N/C N/C 0,50 3,96
Sierra Leone 3 51 N/C N/C 2,00 1,69
Swaziland 3 33 N/C N/C 0,50 1,36
Togo 2 2 N/C N/C N/C 0,65


ANNEX F
Table Annex F.7. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Ocean Crust and Marine Geohazards category (2010–2014)
World 54 493 348 599 1,00 1,00 1,23 1,00
South America 2 492 12 166 0,82 0,92 1,34 1,21
Brazil 1 236 5 312 0,76 0,87 1,40 0,89
Argentina 530 2 662 0,84 0,91 1,31 1,78
Chile 507 3 098 0,95 1,03 1,24 2,25
Colombia 134 751 0,92 0,85 1,26 1,07
Venezuela 66 207 0,43 0,97 1,13 1,67
Peru 63 457 1,06 1,20 1,45 2,23
Uruguay 58 294 0,82 1,05 1,29 2,06
Ecuador 43 213 N/C 1,25 2,17 2,85
Bolivia 18 155 N/C N/C 1,00 2,45
Paraguay 3 12 N/C N/C 1,00 1,21
Oceania 4 455 39 681 1,34 1,19 1,16 2,14
Australia 3 593 33 323 1,40 1,20 1,22 1,98
New Zealand 1 039 7 952 1,12 1,18 0,97 3,39
Fiji 19 73 N/C N/C 1,11 4,71
Vanuatu 11 80 N/C N/C 1,20 15,81
Cook Islands 4 65 N/C N/C 2,00 26,91
Palau 4 11 N/C N/C N/C 16,00
Tonga 2 52 N/C N/C 1,00 12,33
Niue 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 49,33
Nauru 1 4 N/C N/C N/C 49,33
North America 17 694 150 830 1,23 1,19 1,17 1,10
United States 14 929 135 142 1,30 1,23 1,17 1,07
Canada 2 956 23 532 1,13 1,16 1,19 1,30

ANNEX F
Mexico 754 3 375 0,69 0,81 1,34 1,74
Panama 55 574 1,54 1,18 1,11 4,65
Costa Rica 45 318 N/C 1,14 1,47 2,75
Cuba 42 119 N/C 0,75 1,06 1,35
Jamaica 22 124 N/C N/C 2,50 3,16
Barbados 14 135 N/C N/C 1,60 5,45
Haiti 8 91 N/C N/C 0,75 4,52
Grenada 6 16 N/C N/C 0,20 1,42
Bahamas 5 14 N/C N/C 2,00 5,78
Belize 3 28 N/C N/C N/C 5,29
Honduras 3 9 N/C N/C 0,50 1,67

F
Antigua and Barbuda 1 3 N/C N/C N/C 9,87
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1 3 N/C N/C N/C 10,57
Europe 24 523 176 615 1,10 1,08 1,17 1,19
United Kingdom 5 659 53 270 1,39 1,27 1,20 1,48
Germany 4 754 42 309 1,30 1,22 1,23 1,27
France 4 477 39 410 1,30 1,21 1,16 1,70
Italy 2 968 21 703 1,12 1,08 1,16 1,32
Spain 2 457 17 079 1,12 1,13 1,32 1,24
Norway 1 585 12 494 1,19 1,14 1,09 3,79
Netherlands 1 541 14 954 1,49 1,27 1,15 1,18
Switzerland 1 070 11 998 1,72 1,37 1,39 1,12
Portugal 960 6 334 1,07 1,02 1,22 1,99
Denmark 845 7 525 1,29 1,25 1,16 1,58
Sweden 761 6 111 1,27 1,19 1,45 0,90
Poland 699 3 311 0,81 0,74 1,38 0,80
Belgium 653 5 507 1,20 1,10 0,97 0,89
Greece 615 3 471 0,97 0,92 1,33 1,46
Austria 448 4 054 1,39 1,11 1,46 0,88
Ireland 312 2 403 1,10 1,14 0,97 1,11

ANNEX F
Czech Republic 252 1 385 0,82 0,91 1,34 0,51
Romania 239 1 115 0,87 0,90 1,28 0,60
Finland 223 1 885 1,49 1,13 1,29 0,52
Croatia 174 719 0,64 0,77 1,09 1,25
Estonia 134 937 0,89 0,73 1,34 2,07
Iceland 121 1 163 1,50 1,29 1,21 3,61
Hungary 121 710 0,81 1,04 1,17 0,51
Bulgaria 115 570 0,72 0,77 0,93 1,26
Slovakia 89 358 0,70 0,78 1,39 0,59
Ukraine 79 414 0,95 0,62 1,25 0,41
Slovenia 76 327 0,85 0,92 1,38 0,54
Serbia 64 417 1,00 N/C 1,47 0,35
Lithuania 59 128 N/C 0,70 1,32 0,63
Malta 27 107 N/C N/C 2,00 3,36
Monaco 20 242 N/C N/C 0,67 7,20
Latvia 19 15 N/C N/C 2,75 0,47
Albania 19 72 N/C N/C 0,67 3,04
Montenegro 7 2 N/C N/C N/C 1,00
Belarus 4 5 N/C N/C 1,00 0,10
Bosnia and Herzegovina 3 4 N/C N/C N/C 0,17
San Marino 2 3 N/C N/C N/C 7,40
Andorra 2 35 N/C N/C 1,00 8,71
Asia 19 050 106 260 0,92 0,87 1,47 0,93
China 8 884 56 334 1,06 0,84 1,55 0,90
Japan 3 827 25 770 1,04 1,04 1,41 1,25
India 2 596 10 923 0,62 0,79 1,37 1,30
Rep. of Korea 1 134 5 185 0,76 0,90 1,56 0,62
Turkey 825 4 267 0,85 0,85 1,20 0,88
Iran 537 2 284 0,73 0,78 1,45 0,60
Malaysia 375 1 145 0,67 0,76 2,38 0,84
Israel 349 2 165 0,95 1,20 1,18 0,74

ANNEX F
Indonesia 271 1 396 0,86 0,97 1,39 3,78
Singapore 256 1 376 1,20 1,02 1,83 0,61
Saudi Arabia 237 1 194 0,95 0,88 2,94 0,85
Thailand 205 1 104 0,82 0,98 1,00 0,80
Viet Nam 154 652 0,79 0,98 1,98 2,15
Pakistan 106 469 0,70 0,80 1,31 0,47
Philippines 100 451 0,79 1,06 1,24 2,62
Bangladesh 94 379 0,79 0,90 2,26 1,68
Oman 69 484 1,01 0,98 0,97 3,49
Sri Lanka 65 230 0,56 0,80 1,00 3,04
Jordan 57 270 N/C 0,80 1,65 1,28

F
Iraq 48 146 N/C 0,73 2,07 2,13
Yemen 41 331 N/C 0,88 1,67 6,66
Mongolia 36 347 N/C 1,14 2,11 5,25
Cyprus 36 319 N/C 0,77 2,56 0,91
Kuwait 24 159 N/C N/C 0,60 0,96
Qatar 21 178 N/C N/C 1,25 0,70
Armenia 20 105 N/C N/C 1,29 0,74
Syria 19 139 N/C N/C 0,63 1,70
Lebanon 17 54 N/C N/C 1,33 0,46
Georgia 16 71 N/C N/C 0,44 0,80
Bahrain 14 131 N/C N/C 0,60 2,24
Nepal 13 216 N/C N/C 2,67 0,84
Myanmar 11 61 N/C N/C 1,33 4,85
Cambodia 5 17 N/C N/C 3,00 0,78
Tajikistan 5 16 N/C N/C 1,00 2,27
Maldives 5 33 N/C N/C 0,33 16,44

ANNEX F
Bhutan 2 32 N/C N/C 1,00 1,70
Dem. People’s Rep. of Korea 1 2 N/C N/C N/C 1,03
Africa 1 756 10 005 0,93 0,95 1,42 1,41
South Africa 575 4 369 1,15 1,09 1,31 1,54
Egypt 399 1 332 0,64 0,76 1,74 1,47
Morocco 160 1 030 0,97 1,04 1,26 2,58
Tunisia 144 627 0,65 0,78 1,51 1,18
Nigeria 69 123 N/C 0,74 1,86 0,84
Algeria 63 268 N/C 0,95 1,52 0,70
Ethiopia 48 508 N/C 1,58 1,24 1,75
Kenya 45 291 N/C 1,14 1,17 0,94
Ghana 43 233 N/C 0,88 1,43 2,01
Cameroon 39 136 N/C 1,00 2,44 1,70
Senegal 30 274 N/C 1,04 0,69 2,36
United Rep. of Tanzania 29 263 N/C N/C 1,17 1,17
Libya 21 79 N/C N/C 2,40 2,86
Mauritius 21 180 N/C N/C 2,00 5,15
Botswana 17 43 N/C N/C 1,80 2,18
Namibia 14 68 N/C N/C 3,33 3,28
Uganda 13 101 N/C N/C 1,20 0,48
Benin 12 49 N/C N/C 2,33 1,39
Sudan 10 108 N/C N/C 0,67 0,85
Eritrea 10 141 N/C N/C 1,00 19,22
Niger 10 144 N/C N/C 0,75 3,03
Angola 9 52 N/C N/C 1,33 6,53
Gabon 6 33 N/C N/C 2,00 1,51
Cabo Verde 5 86 N/C N/C 1,50 8,81

ANNEX F
Zimbabwe 5 31 N/C N/C 0,33 0,48
Congo 4 12 N/C N/C 3,00 1,13
Mali 4 52 N/C N/C N/C 0,76
Togo 3 10 N/C N/C 0,50 1,42
Comoros 2 8 N/C N/C 1,00 19,73
Zambia 2 20 N/C N/C 1,00 0,24

F


ANNEX F
Table Annex F.8. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Ocean Technology and Engineering category (2010–2014)
World 36 091 145 924 1,00 1,00 1,37 1,00
South America 943 3 659 0,93 1,06 1,39 0,69
Brazil 621 1 900 0,75 1,02 1,47 0,68
Argentina 115 578 1,20 1,14 1,37 0,58
Chile 113 821 1,59 1,20 1,18 0,76
Colombia 74 272 1,06 0,93 1,42 0,90
Venezuela 14 40 N/C N/C 0,83 0,54
Uruguay 10 46 N/C N/C 2,00 0,53
Peru 10 50 N/C N/C 6,00 0,53
Ecuador 7 22 N/C N/C 1,33 0,70
El Salvador 2 8 N/C N/C N/C 1,94
Bolivia 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 0,21
Oceania 1 561 10 099 1,62 1,30 1,67 1,13
Australia 1 362 8 749 1,61 1,30 1,78 1,13
New Zealand 202 1 438 1,72 1,28 1,04 0,99
Fiji 24 94 N/C N/C 3,00 8,98
North America 9 331 54 107 1,30 1,21 1,16 0,88
United States 8 070 48 437 1,34 1,21 1,17 0,88
Canada 1 268 7 191 1,20 1,24 1,05 0,84
Mexico 237 564 0,59 1,03 1,75 0,83
Cuba 17 111 N/C N/C 2,00 0,83
Panama 6 69 N/C N/C 0,25 0,77
Barbados 3 2 N/C N/C N/C 1,76
Jamaica 2 0 N/C N/C N/C 0,43
Costa Rica 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 0,09

ANNEX F
Europe 12 610 63 267 1,22 1,12 1,35 0,92
United Kingdom 2 549 14 223 1,35 1,29 1,39 1,01
France 1 713 10 791 1,51 1,32 1,29 0,98
Germany 1 562 9 696 1,52 1,12 1,41 0,63
Italy 1 478 7 916 1,41 1,21 1,49 0,99
Spain 1 090 7 310 1,60 1,30 1,51 0,83
Norway 928 4 149 1,19 1,13 1,51 3,35
Netherlands 773 5 836 1,73 1,30 1,45 0,90
Portugal 500 3 625 1,78 1,25 1,57 1,57
Poland 489 796 0,45 0,55 1,20 0,84
Greece 418 2 024 1,19 1,08 1,23 1,50

F
Denmark 414 2 410 1,62 1,23 2,20 1,17
Sweden 334 1 463 0,98 1,22 1,44 0,59
Belgium 315 2 057 1,23 1,27 1,32 0,65
Switzerland 312 2 865 1,75 1,37 1,10 0,49
Romania 217 637 0,73 0,53 1,21 0,83
Croatia 190 417 0,55 0,71 1,01 2,06
Finland 190 1 268 1,62 1,29 1,43 0,67
Ireland 185 964 1,23 1,53 1,62 0,99
Austria 169 1 072 1,46 1,16 1,71 0,50
Czech Republic 78 470 1,56 1,01 1,44 0,24
Serbia 73 126 0,40 1,10 1,71 0,60
Estonia 57 258 N/C 0,93 1,42 1,33
Slovenia 55 135 N/C 0,94 2,00 0,59
Ukraine 51 106 N/C 0,80 1,22 0,40
Slovakia 43 258 N/C 0,96 1,57 0,43
Bulgaria 40 117 N/C 0,70 0,94 0,66
Hungary 38 153 N/C 1,06 1,23 0,24
Lithuania 32 46 N/C N/C 2,71 0,52
Iceland 18 170 N/C N/C 0,56 0,81
Latvia 14 18 N/C N/C 3,50 0,53

ANNEX F
Malta 10 15 N/C N/C 2,50 1,88
Belarus 7 9 N/C N/C 5,00 0,26
Montenegro 6 3 N/C N/C N/C 1,30
Monaco 3 16 N/C N/C 1,00 1,63
San Marino 2 3 N/C N/C N/C 11,17
Bosnia and Herzegovina 2 2 N/C N/C N/C 0,17
Albania 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 0,24
Andorra 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 6,57
Asia 16 410 49 133 0,78 0,87 1,57 1,21
China 9 519 23 299 0,69 0,75 1,72 1,45
Rep. of Korea 1 724 5 090 0,81 0,97 1,44 1,43
Japan 1 477 5 400 0,86 1,01 1,25 0,73
India 1 314 5 166 0,91 1,07 1,30 0,99
Iran 689 2 184 1,02 1,07 1,74 1,17
Turkey 534 2 498 1,11 1,18 1,23 0,86
Singapore 415 2 687 1,71 1,28 1,41 1,48
Malaysia 408 1 703 1,07 1,04 2,48 1,38
Israel 160 706 0,91 1,26 1,08 0,51
Saudi Arabia 160 997 1,24 1,33 2,29 0,87
Thailand 105 538 1,17 1,04 0,93 0,62
Indonesia 103 403 0,78 0,92 1,33 2,17
Pakistan 68 266 0,75 1,05 1,70 0,46
Viet Nam 67 149 0,62 1,04 2,75 1,41
Cyprus 45 117 N/C 0,78 1,79 1,72
Bangladesh 43 170 N/C 1,22 1,13 1,16
Kuwait 34 56 N/C 0,82 0,88 2,05
Qatar 29 65 N/C N/C 4,00 1,47
Oman 26 160 N/C N/C 0,54 1,98
Lebanon 22 101 N/C N/C 3,00 0,89
Philippines 18 65 N/C N/C 1,60 0,71
Sri Lanka 15 36 N/C N/C 1,00 1,06

ANNEX F
Jordan 15 65 N/C N/C 2,00 0,51
Iraq 11 31 N/C N/C 2,00 0,74
Lao People’s Dem. Rep. 9 18 N/C N/C N/C 2,90
Nepal 9 30 N/C N/C 3,50 0,88
Armenia 7 18 N/C N/C 1,00 0,39
Syria 6 7 N/C N/C N/C 0,81
Bahrain 6 21 N/C N/C 1,50 1,45
Yemen 5 48 N/C N/C 1,00 1,23

F
Uzbekistan 3 20 N/C N/C N/C 0,37
Cambodia 3 7 N/C N/C 1,00 0,70
Georgia 2 3 N/C N/C N/C 0,15
Kyrgyzstan 2 9 N/C N/C N/C 1,04
Mongolia 1 0 N/C N/C N/C 0,22
Africa 626 2 588 1,04 1,14 1,75 0,76
Egypt 172 607 0,90 1,16 1,74 0,95
South Africa 162 821 1,32 1,11 1,73 0,66
Tunisia 71 267 1,09 1,00 2,16 0,88
Algeria 63 202 N/C 1,00 2,40 1,06
Morocco 49 225 N/C 1,11 1,50 1,19
Nigeria 27 100 N/C N/C 1,30 0,50
Kenya 17 101 N/C N/C 1,80 0,54
Ethiopia 17 93 N/C N/C 1,60 0,94
Ghana 11 41 N/C N/C 0,43 0,78
United Rep. of Tanzania 8 40 N/C N/C N/C 0,49
Senegal 7 12 N/C N/C 4,00 0,83
Benin 5 2 N/C N/C N/C 0,87
Uganda 5 42 N/C N/C 0,33 0,28
Libya 5 5 N/C N/C 3,00 1,03
Namibia 4 1 N/C N/C 2,00 1,41

ANNEX F
Sudan 4 20 N/C N/C N/C 0,52
Burkina Faso 3 2 N/C N/C N/C 0,46
Mozambique 3 5 N/C N/C N/C 0,83
Mauritius 3 5 N/C N/C N/C 1,11
Botswana 2 7 N/C N/C 1,00 0,39
Côte d’Ivoire 2 7 N/C N/C N/C 0,38
Zambia 2 14 N/C N/C 1,00 0,36
Cameroon 2 2 N/C N/C N/C 0,13
Burundi 2 7 N/C N/C 1,00 3,89
Zimbabwe 1 10 N/C N/C N/C 0,14
Cabo Verde 1 3 N/C N/C N/C 2,66
Seychelles 1 2 N/C N/C N/C 1,38


ANNEX F
Table Annex F.9. Bibliometric indicators by country in the Ocean Observation and Marine Data category (2010–2014)
World 40 415 256 440 1,00 1,00 1,22 1,00
South America 1 906 9 481 0,81 0,90 1,25 1,24
Brazil 1 060 4 408 0,69 0,85 1,26 1,03
Argentina 334 1 821 0,93 1,03 1,48 1,52
Chile 308 2 006 1,08 0,94 1,08 1,84
Colombia 100 666 0,72 0,71 0,70 1,08
Venezuela 62 522 0,63 0,92 0,85 2,12
Peru 51 469 N/C 1,18 1,15 2,43
Uruguay 46 493 N/C 1,04 2,00 2,20
Ecuador 40 134 N/C 1,08 4,00 3,57
Bolivia
El Salvador
18
5
54
25
N/C
N/C
N/C
N/C
5,50
1,00
3,30
4,34
F
Oceania 2 884 26 142 1,37 1,18 1,28 1,87
Australia 2 457 22 601 1,41 1,20 1,35 1,82
New Zealand 500 5 135 1,22 1,13 1,02 2,20
Fiji 8 27 N/C N/C 3,00 2,67
Vanuatu 8 64 N/C N/C 1,00 15,50
Palau 7 40 N/C N/C 1,00 37,75
Cook Islands 6 89 N/C N/C 0,67 54,42
Solomon Islands 3 48 N/C N/C N/C 7,48
North America 15 585 131 771 1,21 1,12 1,17 1,31
United States 13 335 118 464 1,26 1,13 1,16 1,29
Canada 2 597 23 130 1,28 1,16 1,25 1,54
Mexico 493 2 565 0,70 0,84 1,28 1,54
Costa Rica 37 359 N/C 1,14 1,33 3,05
Cuba 33 238 N/C 0,85 1,00 1,43
Panama 28 244 N/C N/C 2,38 3,19

ANNEX F
Bahamas 17 160 N/C N/C 1,50 26,50
Jamaica 8 54 N/C N/C 1,50 1,55
Barbados 7 105 N/C N/C 4,00 3,68
Belize 4 51 N/C N/C 1,00 9,50
Honduras 4 67 N/C N/C 0,50 3,00
Europe 16 803 126 315 1,14 1,09 1,22 1,10
United Kingdom 3 801 41 692 1,54 1,25 1,28 1,34
France 3 126 31 593 1,43 1,20 1,25 1,60
Germany 2 740 27 080 1,33 1,18 1,32 0,98
Italy 2 093 16 144 1,18 1,05 1,26 1,25
Spain 1 912 15 970 1,17 1,11 1,20 1,30
Norway 1 188 11 046 1,31 1,17 1,33 3,83
Netherlands 1 069 11 871 1,58 1,22 1,24 1,11
Portugal 747 5 170 1,10 1,03 1,19 2,09
Denmark 722 7 939 1,71 1,20 1,34 1,82
Sweden 659 6 794 1,38 1,22 1,44 1,05
Belgium 554 5 699 1,36 1,22 1,13 1,02
Switzerland 544 7 762 1,75 1,26 1,36 0,77
Greece 506 3 441 1,07 0,94 1,21 1,62
Finland 367 3 427 1,32 1,18 1,54 1,15
Poland 345 1 846 0,94 0,84 1,75 0,53
Ireland 312 2 522 1,26 1,10 1,18 1,49
Austria 232 2 695 1,56 1,16 1,63 0,62
Czech Republic 190 1 014 0,94 0,98 1,20 0,52
Croatia 169 735 0,63 0,83 1,13 1,63
Romania 157 402 0,58 0,74 1,11 0,54
Estonia 150 815 0,83 0,93 1,69 3,13
Hungary 89 461 0,79 0,96 1,38 0,51
Iceland 86 764 1,31 1,10 1,67 3,46

ANNEX F
Bulgaria 83 330 0,56 0,71 1,11 1,22
Lithuania 74 360 1,02 0,99 1,80 1,07
Slovenia 69 434 1,15 1,02 1,21 0,66
Ukraine 68 243 0,68 0,68 1,48 0,48
Luxembourg 39 333 N/C 0,99 1,50 1,67
Slovakia 38 258 N/C 0,90 1,23 0,34
Serbia 36 157 N/C 0,82 1,58 0,26
Latvia 27 126 N/C N/C 3,40 0,91
Monaco 23 159 N/C N/C 1,63 11,17
Malta 22 112 N/C N/C 3,50 3,69
Albania 17 28 N/C N/C 0,44 3,66

F
Belarus 6 13 N/C N/C 1,00 0,20
Asia 11 357 53 332 0,76 0,84 1,40 0,75
China 5 247 24 608 0,78 0,82 1,48 0,71
Japan 2 101 13 020 0,90 1,00 1,18 0,93
India 1 315 5 325 0,61 0,75 1,55 0,89
Rep. of Korea 972 3 863 0,63 0,86 1,49 0,72
Turkey 519 2 319 0,71 N/C 0,99 0,74
Iran 300 1 139 0,66 0,77 1,49 0,46
Malaysia 300 1 047 0,64 0,73 2,16 0,91
Israel 207 1 408 0,90 1,16 1,12 0,59
Thailand 162 764 0,82 0,84 1,54 0,85
Singapore 158 1 089 1,07 1,05 1,53 0,50
Saudi Arabia 152 868 0,99 0,90 3,30 0,74
Indonesia 141 810 1,10 1,01 2,03 2,65
Viet Nam 98 417 0,81 0,94 1,93 1,84
Philippines 72 744 1,30 N/C 0,93 2,54
Pakistan 62 283 0,59 0,71 1,09 0,37
Bangladesh 54 277 N/C 0,88 1,35 1,30
United Arab Emirates 49 195 N/C 0,88 2,50 1,15
Cyprus 42 254 N/C 0,87 1,58 1,44
Oman 38 194 N/C 0,97 1,58 2,59
Sri Lanka 29 412 N/C N/C 1,50 1,83

ANNEX F
Kuwait 26 116 N/C N/C 1,25 1,40
Jordan 23 121 N/C N/C 0,91 0,70
Lebanon 15 44 N/C N/C 3,33 0,54
Qatar 14 82 N/C N/C 2,00 0,63
Syria 11 97 N/C N/C 0,33 1,33
Bahrain 9 24 N/C N/C 1,50 1,94
Nepal 8 69 N/C N/C 5,00 0,70
Armenia 8 15 N/C N/C N/C 0,40
Iraq 7 22 N/C N/C 0,75 0,42
Mongolia 6 43 N/C N/C 1,00 1,18
Georgia 6 11 N/C N/C 2,00 0,41
Cambodia 5 17 N/C N/C 2,00 1,05
Yemen 5 69 N/C N/C 1,50 1,10
Uzbekistan 3 1 N/C N/C N/C 0,33
Turkmenistan 1 2 N/C N/C N/C 2,19
Maldives 1 1 N/C N/C N/C 4,43
Africa 1 187 7 709 1,05 0,93 1,68 1,29
South Africa 458 4 141 1,40 1,01 1,85 1,66
Egypt 172 578 0,53 0,71 1,53 0,85
Tunisia 119 605 0,82 0,85 1,91 1,31
Kenya 70 638 1,42 1,17 1,55 1,98
Morocco 60 403 N/C 1,06 1,55 1,31
Nigeria 59 159 N/C 0,69 1,33 0,97
Algeria 38 197 N/C 0,93 1,75 0,57
Senegal 32 252 N/C 0,87 0,86 3,40
United Rep. of Tanzania 32 206 N/C 1,05 1,45 1,74
Ghana 26 165 N/C N/C 0,43 1,64
Ethiopia 25 216 N/C N/C 2,17 1,23

ANNEX F
Seychelles 24 235 N/C N/C 2,33 29,56
Cameroon 15 81 N/C N/C 2,33 0,88
Uganda 15 82 N/C N/C 1,80 0,74
Namibia 14 176 N/C N/C 2,67 4,42
Zimbabwe 12 59 N/C N/C 1,25 1,54
Benin 12 49 N/C N/C N/C 1,87
Gabon 9 124 N/C N/C 2,00 3,05
Cabo Verde 9 89 N/C N/C 7,00 21,38
Zambia 9 38 N/C N/C 1,33 1,44

F
Mauritius 8 37 N/C N/C 0,75 2,64
Congo 7 108 N/C N/C 2,00 2,66
Malawi 7 29 N/C N/C 0,33 0,82
Angola 7 14 N/C N/C 6,00 6,85
Libya 6 56 N/C N/C 0,20 1,10
Botswana 6 22 N/C N/C 1,00 1,04
Mali 6 96 N/C N/C 0,67 1,53
Sudan 5 55 N/C N/C 0,25 0,58
Eritrea 5 77 N/C N/C 1,50 12,96
Burundi 2 2 N/C N/C N/C 3,47
Togo 2 8 N/C N/C 1,00 1,28


Annex G
IODE
regional grouping
ANNEX G
IODE REGIONAL GROUPING
The regional groupings are based on geographic location. A country can be listed in only one regional group. The list only refers to
countries with National Oceanographic Data Centres or Associate Data Units, which are part of the analysis presented in chapter 6.
LATIN AMERICA AFRICA
Argentina Benin
Barbados Cameroon
Chile Comoros
Colombia Congo
Ecuador Côte d’Ivoire
Trinidad and Tobago Kenya
Venezuela Madagascar
Mauritania
EUROPE (INCL. RUSSIAN FEDERATION) Mozambique

Nigeria
Belgium
Senegal
Bulgaria
Seychelles
Croatia
Togo
Cyprus
Denmark
United Republic of Tanzania G
Estonia
Finland ASIA/PACIFIC
France Australia
Georgia China
Germany India
Greece (Islamic Republic of) Iran
Iceland Japan
Ireland Kazakhstan
Israel Malaysia
Italy New Zealand
Netherlands USAViet Nam
Spain
Sweden
Russian Federation
Ukraine
UK

Global Ocean
Science Report
The Current Status of Ocean
Science around the World
The Global Ocean Science Report (GOSR) assesses for the
first time the status and trends in ocean science capacity
around the world. The report offers a global record of
how, where, and by whom ocean science is conducted:
generating knowledge, helping to protect ocean health,
and empowering society to support sustainable ocean
management in the framework of the United Nations
2030 Agenda.
The GOSR identifies and quantifies the key elements of
ocean science at the national, regional and global scales,
including workforce, infrastructure and publications. It
is the first collective attempt to systematically highlight
opportunities as well as capacity gaps to advance
international collaboration in ocean science and
technology. This report is a resource for policy-makers,
academics and other stakeholders seeking to harness the
potential of ocean science to address global challenges.
A comprehensive view of ocean science capacities at the
national and global levels takes us closer to developing
the global ocean science knowledge needed to ensure a
healthy, sustainable ocean.
For more information:
https://en.unesco.org/gosr
One Planet,
One Ocean
ioc.unesco.org
UNESCO
Publishing
United Nations
Educational, Scientific and

Global Ocean Science Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Ocean Science Report PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Ocean Science Report PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global

Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO)

The present license applies exclusively to the textual content of

More Information on the Global Ocean Science Report at

The complete report should be cited as follows: IOC-UNESCO. 2017.

The designations employed and the presentation of material

Graphic Design: UNESCO

Cover design and typeset: Aurélia Mazoyer

Cover photo: © robert_s/Shutterstock.com

Printed in UNESCO printshop, Paris, France

CLD 679.17 Rev 2

around the World

Vladimir Ryabinin, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO

Luis Valdés, Instituto Español de Oceanografía, C.O. de Santander, Spain

Assistant Coordinating Editor

Kirsten Isensee, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO

Martha Crago, Dalhousie University, Canada

2 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

Allan Cembella, Alfred Wegner Institute, Germany

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO secretariat

Science-Metrix, Science and Technology Evaluation

John Field, Marine Research Institute, South Africa

Thorkild Aarup, Head Tsunami Unit, Technical Secretary of GLOSS, IOC-UNESCO

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 3

DEFINITIONS, DATA COLLECTION AND

4 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

Annex A • Contributors 190

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 5

List of figures Figure ES8. N

Figure ES10. The data and information products

6 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

Figure 3.2.  roportion (%) of age cohorts (< 30 years,

Figure 3.7.  ) The relative proportion (%) of ocean

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 7

Figure 5.3.  omparison of economic and scientific

8 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

Figure 6.3.  onnections of the co-authors’ country

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 9

Figure 7.5.  ) Number of international organizations

Table 4.2.  ercentage GERD of national GDP and

Box 1.1.  030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

Box 4.1. Investments in national research vessel

Table 5.2.  anking of the 40 most publishing

Table 6.1.  xamples of the many organizations,

Table 7.1.  reas of activity declared by the UN-

10 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 11

Peter Thomson Irina Bokova Peter M. Haugan

12 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 13

The Commission The Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) of UNESCO was

14 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 15

18 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

research on the relationship between humans and the ocean.

IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017 / 19

20 / IOC GLOBAL OCEAN SCIENCE REPORT 2017

5. Ocean science benefits from alternative funding. Private

6. Ocean science productivity is increasing. Ocean science

Annex A • Contributors 190

Figure ES10. The data and information products

Figure 3.2. roportion (%) of age cohorts (< 30 years,

Figure 3.7. ) The relative proportion (%) of ocean

Figure 5.3. omparison of economic and scientific

Figure 6.3. onnections of the co-authors’ country

Figure 7.5. ) Number of international organizations

Table 4.2. ercentage GERD of national GDP and

Box 1.1. 030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,

Box 4.1. Investments in national research vessel

Table 5.2. anking of the 40 most publishing

Table 6.1. xamples of the many organizations,

Table 7.1. reas of activity declared by the UN-