Reporting of chemical monitoring data to ICES Overview and way forward Jørgen Nørrevang Jensen ICES Emphasize that this is a personal view not necessarily corresponding to the official ICES view!

What is ICES doing: Promoting and coordinating marine science in the Northeast Atlantic (20 member countries, more than 100 working groups, and a network of around 1600 scientist) Producing advice for client commissions (DG Fish, DG Env, OSPAR, HELCOM etc.) Serves as a data centre for marine data

Types of data in the ICES Data Centre Fish catch statistics data Fish survey data Oceanographic data Data on contaminants in biota, sediment and seawater Fish disease data Data on biological effects of contaminants Biological community data (phytoplankton, zooplankton, phytobenthos, and zoobenthos)

ICES serves as a data centre for: HELCOM OSPAR AMAP ETC water

The ideal situation Well structured data in one defined format with a high level of QA at all levels All the commission (HELCOM, OSPAR, AMAP, and EEA) data submitted in time Not achievable with the present resources for data handling and the legal status of data submissions

The present procedure for submissions of contaminant data Data are submitted in a defined format either in a fixed format (2.2) or in a CSV format (3.2) Data are screened prior to the entry of data into the database Data stored as flat ASCII files that are handled by SAS-software

The future procedure for submissions of contaminant data Data are submitted in a defined format (3.2) (or in a free format ?) Data are screened prior to the entry of data into the database Data stored in a relational database (DOME)

Lack of submissions in space and time Problems identified Lack of submissions in space and time

Fake data and data-files Problems identified Fake data and data-files 01050001278 0508250509541606073020EJ99 37F75NBFDBLIMA LIM015 IJ TS F0RBOT N KO 13 cruise : 13 station : 04050001I01 001 00217 001040 F 05 O 13 probe: I01 07050001I01 LI000285 10050001I01 LICB101A 71 E-09L 01 01 10050001I01 LICB105A 22 E-09L 01 01 10050001I01 LICB118A 10 E-08L 01 01 -------------- 2104CB10101 17zL48 E-09 2104CB10501 17zL46 E-09 2104CB11801 17zL57 E-09 01040001267 0409160509541606073020EJ99 37F75NBFDBLIMA LIM015 IJ TS F0RBOT N KO 04040001I01 001 00217 001040 F 05 O 07040001I01 LI000285 10040001I01 LICB101A 71 E-09L 01 01 10040001I01 LICB105A 22 E-09L 01 01 10040001I01 LICB118A 10 E-08L 01 01

Errors/incomplete data: Problems identified Errors/incomplete data: Errors in the national/regional database Missing information in the data submitted (e.g. basis of determination: dry weight or wet weight) Errors created in the transfer from national/regional databases to the ICES reporting format

A very detailed and cumbersome reporting format Problems identified A very detailed and cumbersome reporting format The process of “learning” the ICES format takes quite an effort If you are reporting only one data type a large amount of the fields are redundant Errors are introduced in the process of transforming data from national databases to the ICES format

A very detailed and cumbersome reporting format RECID 38 BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITY ABUNDANCE/BIOMASS RECORD Problems identified A very detailed and cumbersome reporting format

Problems identified Some errors are only discovered when looking at the data – making assessments/data products param=HCHG tissu=MU country=Sweden area=Kattegat N MEDC 3.00E-09 4.00E-09 5.00E-09 6.00E-09 7.00E-09 8.00E-09 9.00E-09 1.00E-08 1.10E-08 1.20E-08 1.30E-08 1.40E-08 1.50E-08 1.60E-08 1.70E-08 1.80E-08 1.90E-08 2.00E-08 2.10E-08 2.20E-08 2.30E-08 2.40E-08 2.50E-08 2.60E-08 2.70E-08 2.80E-08 2.90E-08 3.00E-08 3.10E-08 3.20E-08 3.30E-08 year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Problems identified The QA data from e.g. QUASIMEME is not easy accessible for the assessments The ideal solution having one file from QASIMEME with all the results (with anonymous lab codes) is not acceptable for QASIMEME QA data received in a large number of files that can have been changed The solution of letting submitters put in the QA results in the data submissions is not optimal because fake data can and have been entered

General considerations/assumptions: The further away from the primary data sources you get the more difficult/costly it gets to correct errors in the data The amount of resources allocated for data handling is very limited in comparison to the resource used for collecting the samples and making the chemical analyses The people dealing with the reporting of data are not the same as those making the assessment

Improvements – the way forward Introduction of a free format The primary QA should be the responsibility of the submitting institute The data checks in the ICES Data Centre should be focussed on structural things and data checks that are related to having the “whole” set of data Eliminates the errors created by transforming national data to the ICES format Eliminates the excuses for not submitting data

Improvements – the way forward QA data should be directly available from e.g. QASIMEME When the Marine Strategy is implemented as a directive there will be an legal enforcement to get the data into the ICES Data Centre Extended use of the data will in the long run results in more and better data

In essence: The data should be used - a functional database rather than a data cemetery will encourage the submission of data and increase the quality of the data