D10.3 Inventory of EU coastal operational systems

D10.3 Inventory of EU coastal operational systems WP10: Dissemination, communication, and uptake 30.06.2025/v1.0 About this document Title D10.3, Inventory of EU coastal operational systems Work Package WP10, Communication, Dissemination, Exploitation planning; co-design and stakeholder engagement Lead Partner EuroGOOS Lead Author (Org) Arthur Capet (RBINS) Contributing Author(s) Corinne Derval (MOI), Olivia Fauny (MOI), Angélique Melet (MOI), Inga Lips, Deniz Karaca (EuroGOOS), Angeliki Karampourouni (SSBE), Lorinc Meszaros (DELTARES), Joanna Staneva (HEREON) Reviewers Kelli Johnson (HEREON), Joanna Staneva (HEREON) Due Date 30.06.2025, M18 Submission Date 29.06.2025 Version 1.0 Dissemination Level X PU: Public PP: Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission) RE: Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission) CO: Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission) FOCCUS: Forecasting and observing the open-to-coastal ocean for Copernicus users is a Research and Innovation action (RIA) funded by the Horizon Europe Work programme topics addressed: HORIZON-CL4-2023-SPACE-01: Strategic autonomy in developing, deploying and using global space based infrastructures, services, applications and data 2023. Start date: 01 January 2024. End date: 31 December 2026. Funded by the European Union (Grant Agreement No. 101133911). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them. FOCCUS | D10.3 2 Glossary and Abbreviations +ATLANTIC +ATLANTIC CoLAB ADRIFS Adriatic Forecasting System BGC Biogeochemistry (used as a category of Copernicus Marine Service product only) CMCC Euro-Mediterranean Center of Climate Change CMEMS Copernicus Marine Service CWG Coastal Working Group DCSM-FM Delft3D Coastal Systems Model - Flexible Mesh DELTARES Stichting Deltares DMI Danish Meteorological Institute HEREON Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon ICE Sea Ice (used as a category of Copernicus Marine Service product only) LFCS Lazio Coast Forecasting System MET.NO Norwegian Meteorological Institute ML Machine Learning MOi Mercator Ocean International MS Member States OBS Observations OOFS Operational Ocean Forecasting System OP-DCC OceanPrediction Decade Collaborative Centre PHY Physics (used as a category of Copernicus Marine Service product only) RBINS Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences SHOM Service Hydrographique et Océanographique de la Marine SOCIB Balearic Islands Coastal Observing and Forecasting System SPM Suspended Particulate Matter TAC Thematic Assembly Centre WAV Waves (used as a category of Copernicus Marine Service product only) WMOP Western Mediterranean Operational Model WP Work Package FOCCUS | D10.3 3 Table of Contents Glossary and Abbreviations 3 Table of Contents 4 1. Executive Summary 5 2. Introduction and objectives 7 3. Previous and ongoing inventory efforts 7 3.1. The EuroGOOS Coastal Working Group inventory 7 3.2. FOCCUS coastal systems 8 3.3. Copernicus Marine Service Member State Forum 14 3.4. OceanPrediction Decade Collaborative Center - Atlas 15 4. The FOCCUS survey 18 4.1. Integration and extension of past inventories 19 4.2. Survey design and dissemination 20 5. Results 20 5.1 Corpus 21 5.2 Usage of Copernicus Marine Service products and recommendations 22 6. Conclusions 29 8. Annexes 32 Annex A : The FOCCUS Survey on Copernicus Marine Service dependencies, as published through Typeforms and distributed on 1st Jan 2025 32 Annex B: Referenced Items 44 6. References 46 FOCCUS | D10.3 4 1. Executive Summary FOCCUS Task 10.2.1 aims to inventory existing operational ocean forecasting systems (OOFS) managed by EU Member States, focusing on their maturity, application scope, and reliance on external data. The task also identifies specific needs and expectations these systems have from Copernicus Marine Service regional products. The results will support Mercator Ocean International in developing a strategy to enhance the interface between regional and coastal systems. We started by reviewing past inventory initiatives considered to be relevant to the present exercise, detailing their context and summarising the information they bring with respect to the specific objectives outlined above. This includes: ● The EuroGOOS Coastal Working Group inventory, ● The Copernicus Marine Service Member State Forum, ● The OceanPrediction Decade Collaborative Centre (OP-DCC) Atlas, ● Census achieved in the frame of FOCCUS WP6. From this basis, it appeared necessary to narrow the description of the composition and activity of the European OOFS community, to detail current practices in terms of Copernicus Marine Service products usage, and to establish a link between recommendations and thematic sector of activity (hydrodynamics, waves, biogeochemistry and sea ice). Originally planned to be completed at the end of 2024, this deliverable was granted a six month extension in order to better exploit the synergy between networking and conference events which occurred in the end of 2024 and beginning of 2025, and to lower the burden on contributors and enhance our chances of collecting contributions by enlarging the timeframe over which the survey was open to contribution. The survey was designed and distributed through the FOCCUS, EuroGOOS, OceanPrediction and Member State Forum channels, collecting contributions from January to May 2025. Analysis of the collected answers (from 34 European OOFS) reveals a strong and growing usage of Copernicus Marine Service products, with high user willingness to further engage. Among those currently using non-Copernicus Marine Service products, approximately 70% are open to transitioning to Copernicus Marine Service products within the next three years, 20% cite product quality limitations and 10% find technical challenges too demanding. These figures reflect both a high level of trust in Copernicus Marine Service and a clear expectation for continued product development. The survey confirms previous inventories in highlighting a notable disparity in the operational status of OOFS across different thematics. Biogeochemical systems are underrepresented, comprising only 6–18% depending on the source. It seems that many biogeochemical models exist for specific applications but lack full operational deployment. Barriers include data availability, technical processing burdens, and institutional constraints. Targeted actions—such as easing data workflows or supporting operationalization efforts—could help unlock these systems. The OP-DCC Atlas could play a strategic role in unlocking the operationalization of these systems, potentially linking support services FOCCUS | D10.3 5 tailored to specific user categories. To support broader uptake, its scope should be extended to include quasi-operational systems, sorted by readiness levels. The FOCCUS and OceanPrediction Atlas survey results underscore the interconnected nature of the OOFS landscape: 66% of systems both receive and provide boundary conditions from other OOFS, and many span multiple thematics. Strengthening Europe’s OOFS capacity, thus, requires an interoperable data exchange framework across all systems, not just from centralized Copernicus Marine Service components to locally operated systems. Improvements can trigger cascading benefits along spatial and thematic chains. Adopting external forcings and implementing boundary conditions remain technical challenges. While some preprocessing steps (e.g., bias correction, downscaling) are common, many users report unique protocols, reflecting diverse modeling tools and concepts. Therefore, Copernicus Marine Service should aim not to provide one-size-fits-all products, but comprehensive datasets adaptable to varied needs—particularly in complex domains like sea ice and biogeochemistry. These products should be complemented by support tools, standards, and training. Though suggestions for centralized resources (e.g., workshops, GitHub repositories) received mixed feedback, some users support this idea. Recommendations by thematic: ● Physics: Request for re-forecast models, long-term 3D hourly fields, and ensemble products. Observational needs include better quality control (possibly ML-based), faster near-real-time data delivery, and improved coastal/transitional coverage—particularly for tide gauges, buoys, and HF radar. ● Waves: Strong demand for a delivery of spectral information in both models and observations. Quality control and technical documentation (e.g., wave buoy specs) need enhancement. ● Biogeochemistry: Product’s usability should reflect the thematic complexity (e.g., interpreting chlorophyll appropriately). Observational needs include better coastal coverage and expanded Bio-Argo float deployment. Interoperability between model, in-situ, and satellite data remains a challenge. ● Sea-ice: There is a clear recommendation to provide ice thickness in terms of classes, both for model and observation products. Attention should be given to the difference in class definitions between Ice TAC and regional models. Sea ice observation products near the coast are also missing. FOCCUS | D10.3 6 2. Introduction and objectives FOCCUS task 10.2.1 has for its lead objective to dress an inventory of existing, operational, coastal modelling systems operated by MS, in order to document their level of maturity, scope of applications and dependencies w.r.t external data (observations and forcings), and more specifically, to document their specific requirements and expectation from the regional products provided by the Copernicus Marine Service. This documentation effort should be tailored to support Mercator Ocean International (MOi), entrusted entity by the European Commission for the implementation of Copernicus Marine, in establishing a strategy towards improving the interface between regional systems, operated by Copernicus Marine Service forecasting centres and the coastal systems, operated by MS. Before FOCCUS, this interface was mostly conceived to provide one-way downstream information and data flow, from regional to coastal systems, but relevant specifications of upstream communication will be considered when available. 3. Previous and ongoing inventory efforts 3.1. The EuroGOOS Coastal Working Group inventory 3.1.1. Context The Coastal Working Group is an organ of EuroGOOS, among other working groups, dedicated to promote the development of operational oceanography in coastal areas. Following its foundation in 2018, an overview analysis of the European capacity in terms of operational modeling of marine and coastal systems has been compiled and presented (Capet et al., 2020). This overview has been compiled from a survey conducted in 2018–2019 among members of EuroGOOS and its related network of Regional Operational Oceanographic Systems, addressing the purposes, context and technical specificities of operational modeling systems. Contributions to the survey were received from 49 organizations around Europe, which represent 104 operational model systems simulating mostly hydrodynamics, biogeochemistry and sea waves. The subsequent analyses highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of the coastal modelling capacity from an operational point of view, and led to the formulation of recommendations toward the improvement of marine operational modeling services in Europe. 3.1.2. Main conclusions The study highlighted the heterogeneity of the European operational modeling capacity in terms of atmospheric and land boundary conditions, its limited deployment for biogeochemical phenomena, and a restricted use of data assimilation methods. In order to improve the accuracy of their simulations, model operators called for a further refinement of spatial resolution, and identified the quality and accessibility of forcing data and the suitability of observations for data assimilation as restricting factors. The described issues call for institutional integration efforts and promotion of good practices to homogenize operational marine model implementations, and to ensure that external forcing datasets, observation networks and process formulations and parameterizations are adequately FOCCUS | D10.3 7 developed to enable the deployment of high-level operational marine and coastal modeling services across Europe. 3.2. FOCCUS coastal systems 3.2.1. Context In the context of project FOCCUS WP6 (Implementation of new interfaces and methodologies in coastal systems), roadmaps towards enhanced interfacing with Copernicus Marine Service were sketched by the different local models operated by members of the FOCCUS consortium as part of milestone MS6.1 (see Annex B). While addressing a restricted corpus (i.e., FOCCUS members only), these roadmaps target very specifically the issue of Copernicus Marine Service interfacing. Considered OOFS having fulfilled the roadmap are listed in Table 1. Table 1: FOCCUS member’s OOFS considered in FOCCUS WP6. Partner Area of Interest Member States Name of Member State Coastal System1 Interfaced with Copernicus Marine Service MET.NO Mainland Norway Norway Norkyst ARC, BAL HEREON German Coastal Waters Germany GCoast-GB NWS HEREON Western Black Sea Germany, Romania GCoast-BS BS DMI Inner Danish Waters / Wadden Sea Denmark, Germany DKSS NWS, BAL Deltares North Sea / Dutch Continental Shelf Netherlands DCSM-FM GLOBAL SHOM Northwest France & Bay of Biscay France Tolosa GLOBAL, IBI SHOM Northwest France & Bay of Biscay France CROCO GLORYS12V1 IBI (in the future?) CMCC Adriatic Sea (Mediterranean) Italy AdriFS MED CMCC Tyrrhenian Sea (Mediterranean) Italy LCFS MED SOCIB Western Mediterranean - Balearic Sea Spain WMOP MED +ATLANTIC Lisbon Metropolitan Area (Tagus / Sado estuaries) Portugal MOHID-LisOcean GLOBAL 1 cf. Table 1.2b in project description, see Annex B FOCCUS | D10.3 8 3.2.2. Content Each contributing OOFS was asked first to describe specific methodological items of their interfacing workflow with Copernicus Marine Service regional products, in order to help to identify common procedures. In a second step, contributing OOFS were asked to identify bottlenecks and main requirements. Finally, this effort led to the establishment of strategic roadmaps, as part of WP6 achievements. The answers are given below per OOFS, and then compiled and summarized at the end of the section. Applied methodology The information below originates from Roadmaps gathered in the context of FOCCUS milestone MS6.1 “Interface Roadmaps for Improved Interfacing with Copernicus Marine Service”, as described in D6.1 (see Annex B)2. WMOP ● Chapman and Flather conditions are used for sea level and barotropic velocities. ● Mixed active-passive conditions are used for temperature and salinity fields. ● A particular treatment including the alignment of model bathymetries and a correction of interpolated velocities is applied at the Strait of Gibraltar to ensure that the boundary forcing field properly represents the original inflow and outflow transports of the large-scale Copernicus Marine model. LCFS & AdriFS ● The modelling approach is based on the downscaling of Copernicus Marine Service Marine products released at the regional scale of the Mediterranean Sea. The circulation core is three-dimensionally downscaled from Copernicus Marine Service-MED_PHY both in terms of initialization and open boundaries. ● Clamped type open boundary conditions were employed at the boundary for sea level and inflow active tracers. ● Daily mean total velocities were nudged at the open boundaries. ● Zero gradient boundary conditions were used for outflow active tracers. ● The sea level at the boundary is imposed by Copernicus Marine Service-MED_PHY which includes the tidal signal. ● The wave core is downscaled from Copernicus Marine Service-MED_WAV in terms of the open boundary. The parent model provides the child model with scalar wave fields, which are used to generate the spectral wave action based on the Yamaguchi 1984 approach. Croco-MANGA ● Eddy-resolving (1/12) global reanalysis (GLORYS12) is used to construct initial and open boundary conditions. The open boundary conditions are prescribed thanks to a characteristic based on Rieman invariant method for the barotropic mode (ssh and barotropic velocity components) 2 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zdGhKniramRE9e4QHXpH9V6ZHZBxvU5ooTTaeyF 974o/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.a0gy6070qgqi FOCCUS | D10.3 9 https://www.unoceanprediction.org/en/atlas/people/) where the global forecasting community members, organisations, forecasting systems and services can be reported and queried. This atlas constitutes a major achievement towards the constitution of a global marine forecasting community, and by collecting technical information about OOFS’s production and dissemination procedures, paves the way towards a global digital twin of the ocean. 3.4.2. Content The DCC atlas censuses 209 OOFS worldwide, 127 of which deliver products around European Seas. Reported European OOFS are maintained by a total of 42 institutions, which can now be reached through the Atlas’s database. Figure 1 : (Left) Overview of forecasting systems reported in the global OP-DCC Atlas. (Right) Distribution per region. While an in-depth analysis of the Atlas’s informational content is yet to be achieved, under the coordination of the OP-DCC steering group, a preliminary overview has been provided for the last EuroGOOS General Assembly (May ‘25). Besides the general corpus characteristics given above, some key features of the actual European OOFS community emerge: ● There is a striking inhomogeneity in the representation of OOFS dedicated to the different thematics. For instance, only a tiny fraction of reported systems are dedicated to biogeochemical or sea ice products (Fig. 2). The point was raised and discussed at EuroGOOS general assembly, and the consensus was this is not due to lack of interest for related operational products, but rather related to the complexity of the establishing such operational systems. Noteworthy, the relative representation of biogeochemistry OOFS in the DCC Atlas is actually less than it was in the EuroGOOS CWG survey (Sect. 3.1). We attribute this to the fact that the DCC Atlas census was more stringent on the technical readiness levels of modelling systems to include them as “operational systems”. This observation highlights that biogeochemical systems are ready and used for specific or research purposes, but that technical burden restrains their upgrading towards producing and disseminating OOFS. FOCCUS | D10.3 16 Figure 2: Thematic distribution of European OOFS reported in the OP-DCC Atlas. ● It is a misconceived perception to see coastal OOFS as individually positioned between centralized regional OOFS (e.g. Copernicus Marine Service production centers) and local product and service delivery. It appears instead that the OOFS community is a tightly interlinked network, as most OOFS (56%) are both receivers and providers of open boundary conditions. Adhering to this perception leads to the conclusion that the establishment of a strong marine forecasting capacity around Europe does not only rely on enhancing regional products and supporting their uptake by local systems, but rather on promoting standards and practices to be adopted by both regional and local systems. ● OOFS data-dependency extends beyond ocean open boundary conditions. Atmospheric, land and tidal forcings are equally crucial in their production chain. This calls for coordinated efforts with e.g. other Copernicus services. A key element of information contained in the OP-DCC Atlas database is the detailed listings of upstream data providers, such as national meteorological or hydrological institutes (not listed here). FOCCUS | D10.3 17 Figure 3: Upstream data dependency of European OOFS reported in the OP-DCC Atlas. ● In terms of downstream applications, a wide majority of the 127 European OOFS registered in the DCC-OP Atlas consider “Coastal Hazards” as a primary use of their systems (Fig. 4). Interestingly, “Research” comes next, and thus precedes any other operational applications. The most common operational applications are then “Search and rescue”, “Oil spill” and “Navigation support”, while the least represented applications include “Plastic Drift”, ”Defense”, “Coupled weather forecasting” and “Iceberg drift”. Note that the information on “application” has here been collected by asking “Select the primary uses of the system (one or several)“, and does not proceed from a formal inspection of registered users or established downstream data flow. Figure 4: Downstream applications of European OOFS reported in the OP-DCC Atlas. 4. The FOCCUS survey FOCCUS | D10.3 18 4.1. Integration and extension of past inventories The previous inventory and documentation exercises span a wide range of approaches and specificities (Sect. 3), each with assets and drawbacks as concerns the objectives of the present deliverable. The CWG EuroGOOS inventory reached a substantial corpus, through an extended data collection period and by remaining open to “quasi-operational” forecasting systems. Conclusions drawn might be slightly outdated (7 years), and do not target Copernicus Marine Service products explicitly. The FOCCUS WP6 inventory is strongly detailed from a technical point of view, but is limited to a corpus of 6 OOFS, all members of the FOCCUS consortium. The Member State Marine Forum is the richest in terms of enlightening institutional engagements, for instance w.r.t to European directives, and proceeds from an nominated representative board. However, the “channeling” of contributions through national representatives restricts the granularity of subsequent analysis (i.e. contributions and recommendations are not collected in a system-specific way). Finally, the OP-DCC Atlas is certainly the most constitutive contribution, being subscribed in the wider, long-term scope. The data collected consists more in detailed description of the forecasting systems and dependencies than in the collection of requirements of user needs. Also, and importantly, the OP-DCC Atlas analysis has only become available after the launch of the FOCCUS survey, hence preventing its consideration in the design of this new survey. A number of converging conclusions emerge from these previous exercises, as well zones of shadow deserving attention in the new FOCCUS survey. ● First of all, there is wide disparity in the technical readiness level of OOFS operating in the different thematics covered by Copernicus Marine Service regional products: Hydrodynamics (PHY), Waves (WAV), biogeochemistry (BGC) and sea ice (ICE). Therefore, each of these thematics has its own bottlenecks, and strategic roadmaps should be drawn accordingly. Surveys with corpus restrained to strictly operational systems inevitably overlook the contributions from systems that are technically restrained in achieving an operational TRL status. ● Institutional integration, common practices, standards and protocols, adopted not only for Copernicus Marine Service production, but also promoted for downstream intermediate OOFS is strongly required to establish a dense inter-operable OOFS network. In this regard, OP-DCC clearly plays a leading role with the establishment of a systematic analysis of the architecture of the OOFS network and specific technical readiness milestones (Alvarez Fanjul et al., 2024). ● Handling data dependencies from a wide variety of sources remains a significant struggle for OOFS operators. Observation delivery time and technical alignment of model products constitutes important bottlenecks. Yet, the technical requirements are complex to apprehend, thematic-specific, and likely also system-specific as, in any given thematic, there is an important diversity of conceptual paradigms behind the modeling tools. The burden of specific pre-processing procedures therefore seems unavoidable. This means that Copernicus Marine Service products should not be thought of as final products perfectly fit for each system, but rather be proposed as comprehensive enough to be fine-tuned for specific needs, and come together with user support and centralized capacity building. FOCCUS | D10.3 19 ● There is an undeniably strong usage of Copernicus Marine Service products, and willingness to engage into strengthening this usage. Obviously, this means there are strong expectations in terms of product development. 4.2. Survey design and dissemination Target information Based on the above observations, a survey was designed targeting in particular to document the usage of Copernicus Marine Service model and observations products by local OOFS, and to identify user requirements for their improvement. The survey should allow declining the answer per thematic, and be contributed to by specific OOFS operators rather than overarching representatives. Aiming for an ideal balance between the time requested to contributors and the comprehensiveness of collected data, we limited contextual questions (e.g, administrative nature of the providing institutions, downstream services provided, etc …) and leveraged synergy with the OP-DCC Atlas initiative by encouraging contributors to report their system in the Atlas, and refer to it in our survey. Finally, in order to personalize contributions to the survey, and make individual contributions as light as possible, a conditional design was adopted in which questions asked depend on previous answers. An extensive printout of the complete survey is provided as Annex to this deliverable (Sect. 8a). Target audience and dissemination The survey was designed in collaboration between RBINS, EuroGOOS, and MOI. This includes both the writing of questions, organisation of the conditional steps in the survey, and its implementation using the Typeform survey tools. Dissemination To ensure wide and relevant participation, the survey was disseminated through targeted outreach to known coastal and regional ocean observing and forecasting system (OOFS) operators via the EuroGOOS community network, as well as via direct contact lists curated by the FOCCUS partners. Communication was tailored to highlight the relevance of the survey to operators’ day-to-day activities and planning, and to clarify how their inputs will directly contribute to improving the integration of Copernicus Marine data. The survey was also promoted via newsletter, multiple social media posts, email campaigns to partners and other relevant stakeholders (e.g. reference contacts listed in the DCC Atlas) and during relevant workshops and meetings, including those organised under FOCCUS and partner initiatives. This multi-channel approach aimed to maximise engagement while ensuring the quality and specificity of the responses. GDPR Ethics and GDPR are covered by the FOCCUS milestone MS1.1: GDPR-compliant project management portal created, including risk register. Part of this milestone included establishing an ethics statement with the EU Project Officer before the start of the project, and receiving agreement from the Consortium. See details of this milestone in Annex B. 5. Results FOCCUS | D10.3 20 5.1 Corpus Figure 5 : Map and product categories of the OOFs reported both in the FOCCUS survey and in the OP-DCC Atlas. A total of 27 institutions contributed to the survey, reporting 34 European OOFS actively used to deliver hydrodynamics, wave, biogeochemistry and sea ice products. Among those, 20 systems were registered in the DCC Atlas (or have been registered for the purpose of the survey), which provides access to the extension of the corresponding domains. Together, these 20 domains cover a good part of the European coastline (Fig. 5), and range from city to regional spatial scale. FOCCUS | D10.3 21 Figure 6 : (Left) Number of OOFS per product category. (Right) Intersection counts among these categories. Appartenance to a category is defined by the delivery of related products. Most OOFs deliver products pertaining to more than one theme. For instance, 16 of the 19 OOFS delivering wave products also deliver hydrodynamic products, and 4 of those further extend to biogeochemical products (Fig 6). In terms of downstream application, the OOFS sampled in the FOCCUS survey (Fig. 7) reflects the tendency described for the larger corpus of the DCC-OP Atlas (Fig. 4), with “Coastal hazards” and “Research” as two main items, and “Defense” and “Plastic drift” in the least provided for thematics. Figure 7 : Downstream applications of European OOFS reported in the FOCCUS survey. 5.2 Usage of Copernicus Marine Service products and recommendations Physics - Model products The hydrodynamic model products provided by Copernicus Marine Service are used as boundary or initial conditions in about 80% of the reported OOFs (Fig. 8). However, their usage requires some level of pre-processing for most OOFS (80%). Spatial downscaling is the most common procedure, while systematic bias correction is only considered in a few occasions for dynamical variables (current and elevation). Besides, other pre-processing procedures that were not among the survey propositions are often reported (~ 40%). FOCCUS | D10.3 22 Figure 8: (Left) Usage of Copernicus Marine Service PHY products per different categories of OOFS. (Right) Pre-processing procedures. Non-Copernicus Marine Service products are used for various variables, such as river flows, wave boundary conditions, but also for Copernicus Marine Service-distributed variables such as sea surface height and velocity (from remote sensing products), temperature and salinity. Scattered answers were given regarding the origin of alternative data sets, referring to large scale climatologies (e.g. World Ocean Atlas), or in-house large scale modelling system. When asked if switching towards Copernicus Marine Service products within three years was an option, users of non-Copernicus Marine Service products responded as : ● “Yes, we’re working on it” (7) ● “No, because of current technical limitations with those products” (3) ● “No, it will take more than 3 years” (2) Reasons for not using Copernicus Marine Service products in this case were only provided in two cases : ● “I do not know the river models in Copernicus database” ● “Internal rules” Finally, when asked about clear improvement requests, the following answer were received : ● “Provide an re-forecast product before releasing forecasting product updates” ● “3D hourly fields available for the last 5 years” ● “More spatial distribution” ● “Improved spatial resolution” ● “[Date and time]: should be provided in current date / time” ● “The system includes the main river discharges of the study area.” ● “Copernicus Marine Service could integrate ML-based regression to fill gaps in HF radar and satellite-derived velocity or temperature data. Copernicus Marine Service also provides ensemble-based products. Additionally, vertical velocities should be included in numerical models.” The survey then aimed at assessing the level of efforts required to use such products as boundary forcing conditions, and in particular whether there were some common FOCCUS | D10.3 23 approaches that would justify preparing support material for their implementation. Only 10% of respondents find it relevant for Copernicus Marine Service to provide guidelines or support for the implementation of such methods. Figure 9: Numerical scheme deployed to integrate Copernicus Marine Service products as boundary conditions. Physics - Observations products 31 of the 34 reported OOFS make an active usage of Copernicus Marine Service PHY observation products, for validation or assimilation purposes. The most widely used observation platforms are fixed observatories, such as moorings and tide gauges, which are considered for all variables (temperature, salinity, currents and surface elevation), for validation as well as assimilation purposes. Remote sensing is more largely for temperature and sea surface height, which is logical given the maturity of those products, but cases are also reported that uses remote sensing salinity and surface currents products. Argo are popular for temperature and salinity. Finally, cruise and ship-cast datasets are the less commonly used data origins. Only two systems assimilate current velocity data, whereas about 8 systems report using temperature data for assimilation purposes. FOCCUS | D10.3 24 Figure 10 : Reported use of Copernicus Marine Service PHY observation products for OOFS validation or assimilation purposes, classified per platform type and variable exploited. Recommendations for improvements were collected in specific relation to validation or assimilation purposes. For validation purposes, the main claims were for : ● Increase data availability in the coastal / transitional areas (6), in particular users report tidal gauges, oceanographic buoys, and HF radar missing in the Copernicus Marine Service products. ● Improved quality flagging (3), in particular for NRT data, and making use of ML-based automation. ● Improved delivery delays (2). ● Wider spatial coverage. ● Increased spatial resolution. ● Dataset homogenization with standard NetCDF and spatial/temporal scales. ● Gap-filling in observational datasets using ML-based field reconstruction. ● Strengthened user support, via a GitHub repository, Jupyter Notebooks, and training workshops. For assimilation purposes, the main claims were for : ● Increasing the availability of products in transitional areas (2) ● Enhance quality control (2) ● Faster data delivery in near-real time (2) ● More spatial and temporal distribution Waves - Model products 11 of the 19 Waves OOFS rely, at least partly (7 only, 4 not only), on Copernicus Marine Service WAV model products for initial or boundary conditions . Widely used variables are the significant wave height, mean period and sea surface wave from direction. On the other hand, sea surface wind or swell wave characteristics, and Stokes drift velocities are less exploited. There is an equal proportion between usage “As Is”, after retrieval of spectral properties, or with another type of pre-processing. FOCCUS | D10.3 25 8. Annexes Annex A : The FOCCUS Survey on Copernicus Marine Service dependencies, as published through Typeforms and distributed on 1st Jan 2025 DISCLAIMER : This is an exhaustive transcript of the questions asked in the survey. However, the survey is interactive and responsive, in the sense that the questions asked and the order in which they are asked is dependent on the answer given to previous questions. The survey experienced by contributors should therefore be shorter than the exhaustive transcript reproduced hereunder. https://marinecopernicus.typeform.com/to/Bew6WtKe FOCCUS Survey Copernicus products in coastal forecasting centers The Horizon Europe FOCCUS project aims for a coastal extension of the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service. This survey aims to document the current use of Copernicus products by coastal forecasting centers, and is thus addressed to the developers and maintainers of such forecasting systems. Thanks to your contributions, we aim to guide the roadmap towards a future enhanced integration of the open ocean and coastal operational oceanography systems. For efficiency, we will complement your contribution by collecting information on your forecasting system from the Ocean Decade OceanPrediction Atlas. Although not mandatory, please consider registering to this Atlas before addressing the present survey. This survey addresses different topics : physical oceanography, biogeochemistry, waves and sea ice. Feel free to send this survey to anyone in your organisation who may be able to answer one or more parts of it. For any inquiries, please contact [email protected]. Q1a : Is your OOFS* reported in the OceanPrediction DCC Atlas? (*Ocean Operational forecasting System) ● Yes ● No Q1b[if Q1a==Yes] : Please indicate the corresponding reference: Please copy the exact name used for your system in the DCC Atlas entry Q2a[if Q1a==No] : Registering your OOFS in the DCC Atlas enables us to directly utilize the information stored there to better contextualize your responses to this survey. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to register. If you are not yet registered, we will require some additional information from you. FOCCUS | D10.3 32 Q2b[if Q1a==No] : What is the name of your organization/institution ? Q2c[if Q1a==No] : Where are you based? [-> list of European countries ] Q2d[if Q1a==No] : What is (are) your regional basin(s) of interest ?[-> list of European marine basins ?] Q2e[if Q1a==No] : At what scale do you work ? [-> List of spatial scales] Q3a : Do your OOFS produces/provides products related to physical oceanography (excluding waves)? ● Yes ● No [-> skips all the following Q3 questions.] Q3b [only if Q3a==YES] :Do your OOFS* relies on operational Copernicus Marine Service physical oceanography model data products for initial and/or open boundary conditions? ● Yes, we only use Copernicus Marine Service products. ● Yes, but not only. ● No. Q3c [only if Q3b==Yes (only or not only)] : What specific variable(s) from model data do you use, and do you need to apply any specific processing to those products before their consideration in your operational pipeline? [-> Matrix of checkboxes] Q3d: Can you identify potential improvements of physical oceanography products that would enhance the interface between the Copernicus Marine Service system and your FOCCUS | D10.3 33 OOFS? If relevant, please start by indicating the related variable, eg. "[Temperature] : should be provided in Fahrenheit" Q3e [only if Q3b==Not only] : For what variable(s) are you relying on another data provider for initial and open boundary conditions? Q3f [only if Q3b==No] Which data provider are you relying on for initial and open boundary conditions? ● World Ocean Atlas or other climatology products. ● Large-scale ocean models maintained in our own institution ● Large scale ocean models provided by external institutions other than Copernicus Marine Service (-> this opens a free text option: What other institution?) ● We don’t need such inputs. ● Other Q3g [only if Q3b==No, or not only] : Would using Copernicus Marine Service products be an option within the next 3 years? ● Yes, we’re working on it. ● No, it would require more than 3 years to be implemented. ● No, because of current technical limitations with those products (-> this opens a free text option: What limitation?) ● No because of other reasons (-> this opens a free text option: What reasons?). Q3h [only if Q3g==No because of “other reasons” or “technical limitations”.] : For what reasons or limitations ? Q3i : What type of scheme/methods are you using for boundary conditions? [Multiple selections allowed] ● Radiation/Orlanski or similar conditions to allow outgoing wave propagation and avoid artificial reflection of outgoing waves into the domain. ● Flather or similar conditions to ensure a belance between sea level and current interactions, and enhance dynamic consistency. ● Flow Relaxation or similar scheme to reduce discontinuity and ensure smooth transitions at boundaries. ● None of the above. ● Other (-> this opens a free text option) Q3j [only if Q3i != “None of the above”] : Would you consider it relevant/helpful if common guidelines for the application of such methods would be provided/supported in the frame of Copernicus Marine Services. Q3k : Do your OOFS rely on Copernicus Marine Service observation products for validation? ● Yes ● No FOCCUS | D10.3 34 Q3l: [only if Q3k==Yes] From which platform? Q3m : Can you identify an improvement in the observation product that would help improve its usage in the validation procedure? Q3n : Do your OOFS rely on Copernicus Marine Service observation products for assimilation? ● Yes ● No Q3o [only if Q3n==Yes] : From which platform? FOCCUS | D10.3 35 Q3p: Can you identify an improvement in the observation product that would help improve its usage in the assimilation procedure? Q4a. Do your OOFS produces/provides products related to biogeochemical oceanography? ● Yes ● No [-> Skips all following Q4 questions] Q4b [only if Q4a==YES] Do your OOFS relies on operational Copernicus Marine Service biogeochemical oceanography model data products for initial and/or open boundary conditions? ● Yes, we only use Copernicus Marine Service products. ● Yes, but not only. ● No. Q4c [only if Q4b==YES (only or not only)] What specific product(s)? FOCCUS | D10.3 36 Q4d Can you identify potential improvements of biogeochemical oceanography products that would enhance the interface between the Copernicus Marine Service system and your OOFS? Q4e [only if Q4b==Not only] : For what variable(s) are you relying on another data provider for initial and open boundary conditions? Q4f [only if Q4b==No, or not only] Which data provider are you relying on for initial and open boundary conditions? ● World Ocean Atlas or other climatology products. ● Large-scale BGC models maintained in our own institution ● Large scale BGC models provided by external institutions other than Copernicus Marine Service. ● We don’t need such inputs. Q4g [only if Q4b==No, or not only] Would using Copernicus Marine Service products be an option within the next 3 years? ● Yes, we’re working on it. ● No, it would require more than 3 years to be implemented. ● No, because of current technical limitations with those products. ● No, because of other reasons. Q4h [only if Q4g==No because of “other reasons” or “technical limitations”.] : For what reasons or limitations ? Q4i For validation of your biogeochemical products, do your OOFS rely on Copernicus Marine Service observation products ? ● Yes ● No Q4j [only if Q4i==Yes] From which platform? FOCCUS | D10.3 37 Q4i Can you identify an improvement in the observation product that would help improve its usage in the validation procedure? Q4j For assimilation of your biogeochemical products, do your OOFS rely on Copernicus Marine Service observation products ? ● Yes ● No Q4h [only if Q4j==Yes] From which platform? FOCCUS | D10.3 38 Q4i Can you identify an improvement in the observation product that would help improve its usage in the assimilation procedure? Q5a. Do your OOFS produces/provides products related to waves? ● Yes ● No [-> Skips all following Q5 questions] Q5b Do your OOFS relies on operational Copernicus Marine Service wave model data products for initial and/or open boundary conditions? ● Yes, we only use Copernicus Marine Service products. ● Yes, but not only. ● No. Q5c [only if Q3.1==YES (only or not only)] What specific product(s)? FOCCUS | D10.3 39 Q5d Can you identify potential improvements of wave products that would enhance the interface between the Copernicus Marine Service system and your OOFS? Q5e [only if Q5b==Not only] : For what variable(s) are you relying on another data provider for initial and open boundary conditions? Q5f [only if Q5b==No, or not only] Which data provider are you relying on for initial and open boundary conditions? FOCCUS | D10.3 40 ● World Ocean Atlas or other climatology products. ● Large-scale wave models maintained in our own institution ● Large scale wave models provided by external institutions other than Copernicus Marine Service. ● We don’t need such inputs. Q5g [only if Q5b==No, or not only] Would using Copernicus Marine Service products be an option within the next 3 years? ● Yes, we’re working on it. ● No, it would require more than 3 years to be implemented. ● No, because of current technical limitations with those products ● No because of other reasons Q5h [only if Q5g==No because of “other reasons” or “technical limitations”.] : For what reasons or limitations ? Q5i For validation of your wave products, do your OOFS rely on Copernicus Marine Service observation products ? ● Yes ● No Q5j Can you identify an improvement in the observation product that would help improve its usage in the validation procedure? Q5k For assimilation of your wave products, do your OOFS rely on Copernicus Marine Service observation products ? ● Yes ● No Q5i Can you identify an improvement in the observation product that would help improve its usage in the assimilation procedure? Q6a. Do your OOFS produces/provides products related to sea-ice? ● Yes ● No [-> Skips all following Q6 questions] Q6b Do your OOFS relies on operational Copernicus Marine Service sea ic model data products for initial and/or open boundary conditions? ● Yes, we only use Copernicus Marine Service products. ● Yes, but not only. ● No. FOCCUS | D10.3 41