Supporting actions | JPI OCEANS

Supporting actions

The single types of actions are backed up by some specific actions, usually with a short-term duration, which can be considered a sort of preliminary initiatives required for the support and the assessment of the joint actions and to orient the decision making process. In this context, in order to define and plan an action to be implemented, forward looking and ex-ante evaluation are necessary means required to assess the opportunity of an action, its added-value by JPI Oceans, its feasibility and its impact.

Feasibility Studies, Impact Assessment, Workshops

In the analysis and definition of the possible actions to be undertaken by the JPI Oceans, some preliminary actions like feasibility studies, impact assessment and workshops are intended to help evaluating and orienting the decisions.

The Voluntary Guidelines on Framework Conditions for Joint Programming in Research of the European Research Area Committee, Groupe de Programmation Conjointe (ERAC-GPC) consider the ex-ante impact assessment as part of the "Evaluation of Joint Programme". Dealing with the judgment of interventions according to the expected results, impacts and needs to be satisfied, the evaluation of a Programme is defined as a means for an effective evidence-based policymaking. The evaluation in general terms is usually one of the phases of the programming cycle, both in terms of ex-ante evaluation to define the vision and interventions, both in terms of final review at the end of the cycle to assess the results and plan future initiatives. Concerning the Joint Programming, the Framework Conditions distinguish among different levels of evaluation, relating to assessing the validity of the general policy concept; its implementation within single JPIs; the individual projects conducted within a JPI. The document points out some aspects of the evaluation process:

  • have a clear, logical and well-laid-out hierarchy of the objectives to be achieved, as well as a standardised approach to presenting the rationale and motivations for each of the foreseen interventions. In this case the ex-ante impact assessment will help to define the objectives chain and assess their effectiveness, as well as evaluate the relevance, efficiency and sustainability of an intervention;
  • identify meaningful parameters and outputs indicators to be monitored and evaluation methodologies, taking into account the level of risks and uncertainties intrinsic in research activities;
  • define the management of the programme and of the information flow;
  • define an ex-post evaluation based on criteria, key performance indicators and synergies between the different levels, to assess the results of individual research projects, the success of a specific Joint Programming Initiative in addressing its target challenge, the Joint Programming concept, as an effective way for cross-border collaboration.

The Voluntary Guidelines does not go further in analysing the ex-ante impact assessment.

The JPI to CO-WORK organised a specific workshop aimed at discussing JPIs current practices and options relating to the impact assessment and ex-ante evaluation. JPI to CO-WORK starts taking into consideration the definition of the terms "impact assessment" and "ex-ante evaluation" adopted by the Commission. Following the Commission practice, "impact assessment" is intended as a legal requirement for any new legislation or initiative proposed by the Commission itself, focusing on the goals and their likely economic, environmental and social impacts. The "ex-ante evaluation" is a requirement for new and renewed programmes and actions with budgetary implications. The Commission considers the impact assessment an instrument to support the political decision-making and to ensure that the initiatives are prepared on the basis of transparent, comprehensive and balanced evidence. It is based on the following principles: make the people responsible for policy development also responsible for assessing the impact of what they propose, in order to improve the quality of the proposals themselves; an integrated approach which analyses benefits and costs, and addresses possible economic, social and environmental impacts of the initiatives; coherence of initiatives across policy areas, guaranteed by the inclusion of relevant expertise within the Commission and inputs from the stakeholders; accountability and transparency of the system, including the active involvement of the stakeholders; explanation of the necessity to adopt or not adopt an action, and its appropriateness.

The Commission impact assessment procedure identifies a number of main questions, that can be transposed in different context:

  • "What is the nature and scale of the problem, how is it evolving and who is most affect ted by it?
  • What are the views of the stakeholders concerned?
  • Should the Union be involved?
  • If so, what objectives should it set to address the problem?
  • What are the main policy options for reaching these objectives?
  • What are likely economic, social and environmental impacts of those options?
  • How do the main options compare in items of effectiveness and coherence in solving the problems?
  • How could future monitoring and evaluation be organised?".

 

KEY ANALYSTICAL STEPS IMPACT ASSESSMENT

  1. Identifying the problem
    • Describe the nature and extent of the problem
    • Identify the key players/affected populations
    • Establish the drivers and underlying causes
    • Is the problem in the Union's remit to act? Does it pass the necessity and value added test?
    • Develop a clear baseline scenario, including, where necessary, sensitivity analysis and risk assessment
       
  2. Define the objectives
    • Set objectives that correspond to the problem and its root causes
    • Establish objectives at a number of levels, going from general to specific/operational
    • Ensure that the objectives are coherent with existing EU policies and strategies, such as the Lisbon and Sustainable Development Strategies, respect for Fundamental Rights as well as the Commission's main priorities and proposals
       
  3. Develop main policy options
    • Identify policy options, where appropriate distinguishing between options for content and options for delivery mechanisms (regulatory/non-regulatory approaches)
    • Check the proportionality principle
    • Begin to narrow the range through screening for technical and other constraints, and measuring against criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence
    • Draw-up a shortlist of potentially valid options for further analysis
       
  4. Analyse the impacts of the options
    • Identify (direct and indirect) economic, social and environmental impacts and how they occur (causality)
    • Identify who is affected (including those outside the EU) and in what way
    • Assess the impacts against the baseline in qualitative, quantitative and monetary terms. If quantification is not possible explain why
    • Identify and assess administrative burden/simplification benefits (or provide a justification if this is not done)
    • Consider the risks and uncertainties in the policy choices, including obstacles to transposition/compliance
       
  5. Compare the options
    • Weigh-up the positive and negative impacts for each option on the basis of criteria clearly linked to the objectives
    • Where feasible, display aggregated and disaggregated results
    • Present comparisons between options by categories of impacts or affected stakeholder
    • Identify, where possible and appropriate, a preferred option
       
  6. Outline policy monitoring and evaluation
    • Identify core progress indicators for the key objectives of the possible intervention
    • Provide a broad outline of possible monitoring and evaluation arrangements

The ex-ante evaluation is also a method for supporting the preparation of proposals for new actions. In the Commission perspective it is a process aimed at gathering information and carrying out analyses that allow to better define objectives and to ensure their feasibility, to use cost-effective instruments and reliable evaluation mechanisms. Following the Commission rules, the ex- ante evaluation is mandatory for new and renewed programmes or actions having resource implications, while in a wider approach is commonly used to address a project, a programme or a policy. In the new programme or actions programming, the ex-ante evaluation should in particular identify: the need to be met in the short or long term; the objectives to be realized; the expected results and the indicators needed to measure them; the added value of Community involvement; the risks linked with the proposals and the alternative options available; the lessons learned from similar experiences in the past; the volume of appropriations, human resources and other administrative expenditures to be allocated with regard to the cost-effectiveness principle; the monitoring system to be set up.

In details the key elements of an ex-ante evaluation are summarized as follows:

  1. Problem analysis and needs assessment
  • Explaining how the specific problems relate to the overall political goals or principles, and how problems and factors relate to each others;
  • Analysing the situation, motivations and interests of the key actors;
     
  1. Objective setting and related indicators
  • Translating the high-level policy goals into tangible, quantified and measurable objectives;
  • Defining the qualitative/quantitative indicators that help to monitor the progress and report on the objectives to be achieved;
     
  1. Alternative delivery mechanisms and risks assessment
  • Ensuring the appropriateness of the instruments chosen for the implementation of the intervention;
  • Analysing the possible risks and identifying the possible countermeasures;
     
  1. Added value of Community involvement
  • Assessing the rationale for taking action at EU level, and its complementarily to and coherence with other interventions;
  • Identifying synergies with other interventions;
     
  1. Lessons from the past
  • Critically analyzing past actions, experiences, reports (etc.);
  • Define how these can be useful in order to improve the current programming;
     
  1. Planning future monitoring and evaluation
  • Planning the necessary arrangements for collecting data and relevant factors for analyzing the achievements;
  • Analyzing the soundness and reliability of the proposed methods and instruments for collecting the data;
  • Ensuring the operability of the monitoring system.
     

Feasibility studies are specific instruments dedicated at analyzing in details and assessing the achievability of pre-defined goals, the feasibility of a specific intervention, from a technical point of view and cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, the organisation of periodic workshops can help monitor and support the implementation of the foreseen actions and eventually re-orient and adapt them.

The impact assessment, ex-ante evaluation and feasibility studies focus on identifying the problem addressed and assess the different options that could be implemented to solve the problem/need. They are often used to define similar practices and as synonyms, and sometimes they can overlap. The benefits deriving from the introduction of these supporting actions, even if considered in their strict sense or as a part of the same overall process, are manifest in terms of improvement of the quality, the relevance and comprehensiveness of the programming phase.

The JPI Oceans, in the process of defining the specific objectives to be reached, and in selecting among the several possible typologies of actions the most appropriate to reach the pre-defined goals, shall put into practice these supporting actions both in terms of ex-ante appraisal than ex-post evaluation.

The JPI to CO-WORK in its analysis on the JPIs experiences, underlines that each JPI would take advantage from the ex-ante impact assessment in terms of introducing a systematized and standardized procedure for national decision making processes, and as ex-post evaluation in terms of thinking through the rationales and the impacts of interventions. Furthermore the specific characteristics of the JPI, namely the bottom-up approach and the inclusion of the stakeholders in the definition and implementation of the JPI, are inherent in the JPI procedures.

The JPI to CO-WORK investigated the JPIs attempt to characterize the impact, in terms of outcomes of the JPIs and what they intend to achieve and in terms of impact they plan to have on the societal challenge that is being addressed. The JPI to CO-WORK identifies some major common issues emerged from the various JPI:

  1. Creating a critical mass of players/funders and countries;
  2. Developing a shared vision of the challenge and adopting a long-term planning;
  3. Developing a coordination platform;
  4. Prioritizing research topics and identifying the field to be developed and the possible gaps;
  5. Jointly funding the activities and implementing large scale projects;
  6. Implementing research, especially by opening up current research (including sharing data and results, allowing access to research databases, creating integrated data and information base, fostering quality research, etc.);
  7. Encourage external coordination with other initiatives, defining common collaboration strategies towards "third countries" and with the Commission;
  8. Involving industry stakeholders;
  9. Addressing societal challenges through interdisciplinarity;
  10. Addressing societal challenges through cooperation and coordination between researchers and policy makers;
  11. Networking.

In the characterization of the impact and in the definition of the indicators to measure it, each JPI should take into consideration all the abovementioned aspects and the broad range of activities. The JPI Neurodegenerative Diseases Research - JPND, developed a monitoring and evaluation framework, which identifies four types of indicators: input indicators, output indicators, outcome indicators and impact indicators. Input indicators are defined in relation to the resources used to implement the JPI, like for instance human resources and amount of funding, while output indicators relate to goods, services, technology and knowledge directly produced due to the JPI activities. These two indicators are considered the core indicators for monitoring the progress of the JPI, due to their short-term measurability compared to the outcome and impact indicators which are due to produce effect in a long-time perspective. Outcome indicators are defined as less tangible that the previous ones, indicating the initial results of the intervention and the reason for the programme. Finally impact indicators measure the long-term socio-economic changes caused by the intervention6.

Foresight

“Foresight” is a special case, where it is usually addressed as a "framework condition" in its broad sense, using the concept of Forward-looking activities aiming at "inspiring future oriented strategic decision-making, providing fresh insight into current trends and possible disruptive events, building shared visions of the future challenges". Indeed, in JPI Oceans, Foresight is not only a framework condition, but also one of the possible typologies of actions that can implemented to reach its goals.

Click here to expand or collapse this section

Foresight has been included in the Voluntary Guidelines on Framework Conditions for Joint Programming in Research of the European Research Area Committee, Groupe de Programmation Conjointe (ERAC-GPC). The Guidelines describes the Foresight in a broad sense, using the concept of Forward-looking activities aiming at "inspiring future oriented strategic decision-making, providing fresh insight into current trends and possible disruptive events, building shared visions of the future challenges".

The European Foresight Platform, network bringing together a number of different communities and professionals sharing their vision on foresight, identifies as components of Foresight process:

  • Action-oriented activities, analysis and activities allowing for shaping the future (and not purely analytical studies and analysis);
  • Openness to alternative futures, with identification of different alternatives among which select in order to shape the future;
  • Participatory process, actively involving a number of actors;
  • Multidisciplinary approach.

 

The European Foresight Platform also underlines the functions of the Foresight as follows:

  • Informing policy, delineating future challenges, possible options and providing input to policy conceptualization;
  • Improving transparency and legitimacy, by actively including different stakeholders in the process;
  • Supporting policy definition, by translating the inputs and ideas into specific options for policy definition and implementation;
  • Facilitating policy implementation, creating a supporting network of stakeholders with specific know how and competences in the filed;
  • Reconfiguring the policy system, in the perspective of addressing long-term challenges;
  • Symbolic function of the transparency of the process, to be disseminate to the public.

The double-role of Foresight as Framework Condition and as supporting action

In the JPI Oceans the Foresight is not just a framework condition, but also one of the possible typologies of actions that the JPI can implement to reach its goals. Foresight is in particular included in the "Supporting actions", intended as preliminary activity and aiming at facilitating the decisions to adopt the actions and/or their implementation. In this sense, the Foresight exercise is a necessary preliminary step to be undertaken, together with the ex-ante evaluation and impact assessment, in order to orient further decisions on a defined topic area. Due to the complexity of the JPI Oceans in terms of different themes and objectives, covering diverse sectors and topics like marine technologies, climate change impact on marine environment, marine ecosystems and infrastructures, the implementation of several foresight exercises become essential. The outcome of each exercise and the document delivered will make suggestion for further proceeding the development of a specific topic or action.

Once established and regularly implemented, the Foresight process as framework condition and the Foresight as supporting action will merge, turning into a continuous process.

In the matrix showing the Framework Conditions as proposed to support JPI Oceans in adopting and managing different typologies of actions (see Figure 2.2.2), the Foresight is considered both a framework condition and an action, generating effects and impact respectively in terms of process and product. In the framework of the dynamic planning cycle for joint programming, a programmatic foresight is part of the so-called "Motivation/drivers", the engine for stimulating the process, which in the JPI Oceans vision, is strictly connected to the objectives. The analysis of the current situation in the marine and maritime sector in Europe shows that forward-looking activities have been and are performed but non in an integrated, strategic and long term perspective with the involvement of research organisations, policy-making communities, industry and society. The main purpose for instigating a Foresight is based on the need to explore a specific area and outline key future needs and challenges. It can be used as an accompanying practice for a JPI Oceans action, or used to detect a new topic considered to be relevant.

Accordingly to what described in detail in D7.2, a Programmatic Foresight Process shall be demand-driven, have a strong product-orientation and generate process benefits. Concerning the first aspect, the JPI Oceans Foresight approach will be structured following a top-down process, more focused on the Management Board intent to further investigate a specific topic. The strong product-orientation moves form the idea that the main goal of the foresight should be a sort of roadmap for a defined area, but oriented not just on the normative-environmental vision of the future but also in the form of concrete recommendations for actions. This aspect gives the foresight the characteristic also of a "supporting action", which can imply spending funds. In terms of process benefits the programmatic foresight will at first contribute to mobilise the relevant stakeholders in advance of JPI activities by setting up a community of knowledgeable agents on a specific area. Secondly, foresight capabilities will be developed within the JPI Oceans as well as in the participants, providing them the ability to better respond to future challenges. Finally, the Foresight process can help the JPI Oceans to act in a coherent and integrated way and to become a driving actor in the political debate on marine and maritime issues in Europe by embedding any JPI action in a wider process.

A six phases approach is proposed to put into practice a Foresight process:

  1. Instigation by the Management Board of the process for a specific topic;
  2. Preparing Scoping & background material;
  3. Development of Ideas Meeting;
  4. Vision Paper synthesising the workshop results;
  5. Implementation meeting, to explore the modalities for implementing the vision;
  6. Outputs: Roadmap or "joint programme" including concrete recommendations for actions to be presented to the Management Board.

 

The first action is defined as a Management Board prerogative, requiring a sufficient interest and support of at least one other member country. To be launched the foresight exercise should be funded at first by the proposing country, or from other member countries. Member Countries can decide to take part in the Foresight exercise at different levels of engagement, from a minimum involvement requiring the appointment of one national contact point, to the possibility of creating national mirror groups conducing a parallel exercise at national level. In this phase the appointment, by the participating member countries, of a Steering Committee in charge of the management of the exercise is foreseen.

The Scoping phase entails two main actions: selecting, with the support of the national contact points, the single experts participating in the exercise; conducting an initial analysis of the topic and collecting preliminary information on the main future themes, trends and challenges connected to the abovementioned topic.

The meeting/workshop phase aims at developing normative visions of the future, involving the participants to think creatively about key future needs and challenges relating to the topic area and stimulating them to reflect upon the long-term objectives that the JPI Oceans shall purse. On the basis of these discussion and visions, a vision paper is delivered, representing a basis for the subsequent development of action proposals for the JPI Oceans. The implementation workshop intends to translate the visions emerged during the Ideas meeting into concrete action proposals. Since the workshop is "solution-oriented", it shall have a more technical nature, reflected also by the composition of participants stakeholders, in particular science, industry and public authorities.

As a final step of the Foresight process, a roadmap for the topic area, a sort of "joint programme" is finalised, incorporating the development visions and an implementation plan with concrete recommendations for JPI's actions. It is then up to the Management Board to decide to adopt and put into practice any of these recommendations.

A key element of any Foresight process is the involvement of the stakeholders and experts active in the field. At each key step the appointment and active involvement of external experts is foreseen, having the necessary skills, know-how and expertise in the specific topic area, and showing the ability to moderate the process. These experts include representatives from the scientific community, industry, civil society and public authorities. The participation of experts and stakeholder is also identified by the JPI to CO-WORK as one of the four key steps for setting up a foresight process, together with a preliminary feasibility assessment, the design/scope of the exercise and the definition of the methodological framework and of the methods.

Emergency issues

Europe is the world's largest market in crude oil imports, representing about one third of the world total. Ninety percent of oil and refined products are transported to and from Europe by sea. Inevitably, some of this makes its way into the sea. Whether by accident or normal ship operation, the marine environment is degraded. Large oil spills at sea constitute a threat to the environment, placing enormous demands on the national authorities responsible for response and clean-up operations. Rapid and radical degradation of the world' seas and oceans is triggering increasing calls for more effective approaches to protect, maintain and restore marine ecosystems. A broad spectrum of land and ocean based activities, coupled with continued growth of the human population and migration to coastal areas, is driving unanticipated, unprecedented and complex changes in the chemistry, physical structure, biology and ecological functioning of oceans worldwide. Symptoms of complex and fundamental alterations to marine ecosystems abound, including increases in: zones of hypoxic or anoxic water, abrupt changes in species composition, habitat degradation, invasive species, harmful algal blooms, marine epidemics, mass mortalities, fisheries collapses, etc. Fishing practices, coastal development, land based chemical and nutrient pollution, energy practices, aquaculture, land use and land transformation, water use and shipping practices combine to alter the structure and functioning of marine ecosystems globally and pose an insidious long term threat to the marine and coastal environment. Therefore, there is an urgent search for effective actions to prevent or reverse widespread declines and to protect, maintain, and restore ocean ecosystems and its resources.

These actions, though typically adopted at local or regional sea basin, need a global perspective and cross-border cooperation, as well as for exchange of best practices, frontier and basic research in order to capture the benefits from past experiences, emerging science and technology opportunities.

The role of JPI OCEANS for policy support to emergency issues

Some relevant emergency issues in the marine environment that require new and effective approaches for actions and solutions are listed in the following:

  • Impulsive discharge of contaminants from petrochemical plants, nuclear plants, etc., located on the coast;
  • Leakage of different contaminants (organics, inorganics, radionuclides, etc.) from shipwrecks at the sea bottom;
  • Leakage of different contaminants (organics, inorganics, radionuclides, etc.) from dumping areas at the sea bottom;
  • Earthquakes and associated tsunamis as triggers of accidents on coastal areas and deep sea;
  • Military activity;
  • Ballast water;
  • Tank washings;
  • Engine room effluent discharges;<
  • Ship traffic and accidents;
  • Trawling;
  • Landslides and Earthquakes with specific impact on coastal areas and deep sea;
  • Storms, extreme weather impacts;
  • Oil and more generally pollutants spilling.
     

JPI Oceans, with its role of coordination and the aim of developing joint research programs in European countries, represents the ideal integrated "environment" to implement a new, sound knowledge-based and successful system to create effective lines to assail a large number of emergency issues in the marine system. It could be a possible answer to the Community Mechanism established by the Council Decision of 23 October 2001 to respond to any major disaster inside and outside the EU by coordinating requests and offers for assistance between 30 participating states: the EU 27 and the three European Economic Area (EEA) countries - Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

The prevention and intervention for tackling emergency issues or emergencies/disasters has been largely developed in the Civil Protection systems in the world. The procedures for the involvement of the scientific consultancy to support the decisions mainly depends on the timescales required for the intervention.

These timescales depend on the emergency (from some hours/days for earthquakes and tsunamis to days/months for oil spills etc.) and the procedures to manage them are mainly responsibility of dedicated agencies, mainly at national or regional level.

Emergency issues are indeed often not properly defined or well-recognized and can require a more structured organization at global level for the exchange of practices and definition and selection of procedures for the intervention.

We propose some framework conditions which can facilitate the knowledge-based decisions for the Management Board (MB) in order to launch dedicated actions to tackle emergency issues. The aspects to be addressed are:

  • the selection of an emergency issue,
  • the selection and establishment of a panel of experts,
  • the consultancy on demand.
     

In practice, the MB will be supported by panels of experts which are prepared to give advice to specific requests. This procedure is similar to that adopted by some Civil Protection Departments which establish "Centers of Competence" which are ready to response quickly to provide data, analysis and advice for selecting and monitoring actions.

This procedure guarantee a fast response. The quality of the response is referred to the credibility and excellence of the experts since no peer review of the documents they prepare is adopted.
 

The establishment of international boards of experts to quickly support the management board for emergency issues

An emergency issue needs its definition and selection as follows:

Definition of an emergency issue
  • The emergency issue addresses cross-cutting issues in line with the goals and objectives of JPI Oceans, as expressed in the Vision document.
  • The emergency issue is already recognized at the public level (newspapers etc.) or by the scientific community.
  • The emergency issues has a European or global dimension, requiring the support for filling knowledge gaps or sharing good practices or defining procedures/actions of intervention.
selection and endorsement of an emergency issue
  • The emergency issue can be addressed to the Secretariat by any member of the MB, of the Strategic Advisory Board (StAB) or by the Secretariat through the analysis of stakeholders' consultation.
  • The secretariat will submit the proposal to the MB for discussion and selection.
  • MB will define the specificities of the emergency issue (general, thematic etc.), the number, the typologies of experts needed to be consulted, the procedure and timing for their selection (open call recruitment, hunting, nomination etc.) and the guidelines for the panel of experts to work and report. StAB can be asked to advice.
  • MB can address a specific budget or resources to allocate to support different panels.
  • MB mandates the Secretariat to manage the selection of the panel of experts and of the information flow between the panel and the MB.
establishment of boards of experts

Aim

Experts will constitute boards which will provide sound knowledge for timely and successful decision-making and risk management assessment for emergency issues at sea.

The boards should have a long term perspective, with the experts selected for their excellence but also for their experience in past emergencies. The boards should provide risk assessment thanks to the identification, analysis and evaluation of different issues and then suggest risk reduction and control with a complete risk management approach.

The boards should also coordinate interactions with national protection agencies and drive processes to stimulate specific actions for policy and environmental security.

The boards should provide sound scientific and technical support for appropriate and operative definition of emergency issues in the marine environment and freeze time and operative actions to cope them. Roles and interaction within and out of the boards will be defined to guarantee rapidness and efficiency to face the emergency event. The specific nature of the boards needs innovative protocols to timely and properly manage actions to face emergency issues at different temporal scale and an approach faunting-like.

Response to emergency issues could cover a wide spectrum of time, hours to weeks, and the boards should be able to provide successful plans to face the different aspects of the issues: analysis of problems, risk assessment for the ecosystem and human health, search for solution, etc.

In a long-term perspective, the experts will constitute a of competencies at European level.

Selection

Accordingly to the decision of the MB, the recruitment of the experts will be selected through an open call published on the JPI Oceans website, through a scouting procedure with the support of the MB and StAB, though the nomination by MB.

The names of the experts and their CV will be proposed to the MB for the final approval.

A letter of endorsement will be sent to the experts by the Secretariat, including the Terms of Reference for the organization of the panel and the information flow to be signed and returned by each expert.

Operation

Three main lines of operation are suggested:

  1. Continuous discussion and periodic meetings between the members of the board to analyse specific or general issues covering different aspects of problems in the marine environment and planning dedicated actions to handle them.
  2. rapid consultation to manage sudden and unforeseen issues at sea.

The meetings and the specific requests for consultation will be appointed by the Executive Committee and the Secretariat.

Click here to expand or collapse this section
  • Foresight Exercise Test Run, Experience from the field of Microplastics,
|

JPI Oceans   •   Rue du Trône 130, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel. +32 (0)2 626 16 60   •   Fax: +32 (0)2 626 16 61   •   jpioceans@rcn.no
Website developed and maintained by VLIZ