1. Final Framework Committee Report Seven Seas, One Ocean: Final Report from the Census of Marine Life Framework Committee

2. Committee Charge Developing the reporting framework for the 2010 Census of Marine Life.

3. Committee Members Paul Snelgrove ( Canada ), Chair Darlene Trew Crist ( USA ), E & O, Project Rapporteur Boris Worm ( Canada ), FMAP Mark Costello ( New Zealand ), OBIS (ex officio) Michael Fedak ( Scotland ) Visualization/TOPP Patrick Halpin ( USA ), Visualization Patricia Miloslavich ( Venezuela ), Caribbean NRIC chair Mike Sinclair ( Canada ) SSC Meryl Williams ( Malaysia ) SSC

4. Committee’s Objectives To stimulate each CoML project to think about their “big messages” To identify the key outputs of the Census and how their project outputs might be integrated into the global Census. To learn what different stakeholder groups expected to learn from the First Census and how they would use this information.

5. Special Focus on Visualization Specific objective of ensuring that projects were aware of new visualization opportunities To determine what their visualization needs might be To think about how to bring the different projects together visually

6. Committee Process Met three times during 2006-2007 to develop and discuss 3 surveys that were circulated to Potential end-users of the Census - including industry, government, NGOs, educators, journalists and peer researchers. Census products for their needs CoML project leaders Big messages, uses, project products Prioritize end-user Census products

7. Project Responses Variable Some projects had clear ideas on what they wanted to achieve in a visionary sense. Others were more focused on very specific objectives such as individual manuscripts and meetings. All had clear plans on how to disseminate their findings to scientific peers. Many, but not all, had good ideas on how to reach a broader community.

8. Users of CoML Products Project level Peer/CoML level Policy/sectoral level Public/enabling environment level More partners, time, derived products

9. Final Report Contents We arranged projects into three groups: (1)Core service projects, or those that build cross-cutting tools for data gathering, sharing, assimilation, and presentation and related analytical tools. (2) Ocean realm projects that are focused on geographic regions or ecotypes. (3) Projects that focus globally on specific trophic levels.

10. Commonality of Message Many projects shared a common message… The ocean, its biodiversity and resources are under multiple threats from human activities and CoML can help to understand those threats.

11. Conclusions: Survey Usefulness Significant potential has not yet been realized in some projects because they are still in early stages of development. Initial responses to the Committee’s survey regarding usefulness of Census products in 2010 do not fully reflect their potential contributions to science and as decision making tools toward addressing economic and other societal impacts.

12. Recommendations: Survey Usefulness Many current applications focus on fisheries, and many projects may wish to also consider how to broaden their usage to address other major societal issues, especially ocean response to global warming and other industries.

14. Recommendations: Survey Usefulness The extent to which data applications can be attributed to CoML rather than to the ongoing work of the scientists’ host organizations needs clarification, with specific identification of how CoML catalyzed successful applications.

15. Second Survey: Assessing Demand A second survey asked stakeholder groups what they would like from the Census of Marine Life and how would they might want to learn from it or use its products.

16. Demand by User Group All groups want access to raw data, maps, and user-friendly, web-based reliable information. Scientists interested in obtaining good quality raw data through OBIS and papers published in scientific journals.

17. Demand by User Group Educators said that information for use in the classroom must be relevant for teachers and students. Oil industry want integrated data maps (in GIS platform) and lists and localities of most relevant species. Also want indicators of biodiversity quality and parameters that could be measured and monitored over time.

18. Demand by User Group Research managers want Census to provide the “big picture,”-- context and importance of the information presented. Government officials interested in local or regional information that they could use to help in the development of policy, including protocols and access to scientific experts in different disciplines.

19. Demand by User Group Non-Government Organizations want information to help them prioritize conservation or advocacy efforts, such as lists of affected species and key species within ecosystems and identification of pristine areas. Public wants brochures, field guides, TV programs, movies

20. Third Survey: Output Priorities A third survey asked project leaders to prioritize a list of potential Census output projects they thought would best meet their needs and serve the Census as a whole.

21. Output Priorities: Scientists Highest ranked priority was to develop a working group of project leaders to evaluate OBIS, alternative information system needs, and visualization tools to ensure that the data tools for the Census are as flexible and comprehensive as possible.

22. Output Priorities: Scientists Other priorities: Dedicated journal issues for methods or discoveries (e.g. Proc Roy Soc UK, MEPS) Detailed synthesis report (or scientific book) with chapters from each project Sessions at scientific conferences organized around Census projects (or clusters of projects).

23. Output Priorities: Government and NGOs The top-ranked output was the grand finale event in 2010, designed to attract media attention and present the Census findings/results. Other priorities: Policy briefings and presentations at meetings where press members were present.

24. Output Priorities: Public Popular magazines were seen as the best mechanism to reach the general public. Additional suggestions included CDs/DVDs and YouTube and Podcast videos.

25. ConclusionsConclusions All of the projects have considered their science outputs carefully, and many have made significant headway in achieving them. Some projects are more visionary than others, particularly with respect to audiences other than scientific peers.

26. ConclusionsConclusions All projects have well-articulated strategies for reaching peers within their disciplines through dedicated sessions at science meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals. The challenge for integration across themes is greater, particularly in reaching a non-specialist audience.

27. ConclusionsConclusions There are excellent ideas for how to achieve broader impact and synthesis, but effort is needed to ensure that these efforts are coordinated across projects. There is a strong need for a new committee to oversee synthetic products that will maximize the impact of the Census by 2010.

28. RecommendationsRecommendations Establish a working group of project leaders to evaluate OBIS and whether alternative information system and visualization tools are needed. Within this context, consider the desire for raw data and other types of information identified by different user groups

29. RecommendationsRecommendations Establish a “Synthesis” or “Implementation” Committee similar in size and diversity to the Framework Committee. Responsibility will be primarily for helping to coordinate and facilitate output products other than primary data papers.

30. RecommendationsRecommendations Committee could spearhead the creation of some synthetic products such as a summary book or report that represents more than chapter submissions from projects. Should be established as quickly as possible and every effort made to ensure that it is well-represented at the All Program Meeting in Auckland in November 2007.