MERMAID, 6th meeting, September 17th-19th, Bologna, Italy
WP7/8 Plenary Session Presentation
WP7 Leader
Prof. Dr. Barbara Zanuttigh
University of Bologna
http://www.unibo.it/en
WP8 Leader
Prof. Dr. Phoebe Koundouri
Director of ReSEES, AUEB
http://www.aueb.gr/users/koundouri/resees
1
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Session Plan
1. WP7 progress in the last 6 months
1.1 WP7 objectives
1.2 WP7 &WP8 methodology history
1.3 Deliverable 7.2
1.4 Next steps
1.5 Deliverable 7.3
1.6 MUP assessment tool (clarifications)
2. WP8 progress in the last 6 months
2.1 Data Collection Activities
2.2 MERMAID Resources repository
2.3 Social Cost Benefits Analysis
2.4 Publications
MERMAID
2
1. WP7 PROGRESS IN THE
LAST 6 MONTHS
MERMAID
3
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
1.1 WP7 Objectives
• To develop CS-specific innovative MUP plans and designs.
• To integrate and tune the work within the other WPs through
direct application to real CS and problems.
• To develop an integrated multidisciplinary approach for the
selection of sustainable MUP plan and design.
This procedure should be generic so that it can be used by
stakeholders and end users for marine planning strategies
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
1.2 WP 7&8 Methodology – History
• D7.1 delivered as scheduled – July 2013
• WP7 & WP8 Iterative Process for design selection in CS:
- Presented in Delft, April 2013
- Presented with example application in Santander, Sept. 2013
- Extended, revised, preliminary implementation results, March 2014
- Revisit & Confirm preliminary results, Par. Sessions: WP7 & WP8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------• Implementation: Experts Groups and Stakeholders’ Focus Groups in
CS:
WP2-WP7-WP8
• Input on environmental conditions and technical specifications:
WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6
MERMAID
5
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
1.3 Deliverable 7.2 Site specific impact of policies: Report on
identification, impact and selection of planning and design options
in study sites with implication for policies and regulations
• OD7.2 delivered was re-scheduled – December 2014
• A first draft was produced and will be discussed during the parallel
sessions:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5r34tfbkg0gtx1n/OD%207.2%20.doc?dl=0
Goals and objectives of the deliverable
The main objective of this report is to assess site specific impacts of
policies, reporting on the identification, impact and selection of
planning and design options in study sites with implication for policies
and regulations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------MERMAID
6
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and scope of the deliverable
1.1 Goals and objectives of the deliverable
1.2 Definitions
1.3 Relationship to overall project objectives
1.4 Outline for the reader
Chapter 2: General Framework of Analysis
2.1 Short description of case studies areas.
2.2 Description of the MUOP selection tool
Chapter 3 MUOP Selection tool & EU legislation and policies on
wind farms and aquaculture on coastal & offshore areas
Chapter 4 Mediterranean Site
Chapter 5 Atlantic Site
Chapter 6 North Sea Site
Chapter 7 Baltic Sea Site
Chapter 8 Conclusions and recommendations
MERMAID
7
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
1.4 Needs: for each site we need to
know the following
• How was the MUOP selection tool used for the
selection of the final design (in case other nonstandardised procedure was followed we need to
include the details and justification for this in OD7.2).
• Details of the final design(s) for each site (recall that
in Athens it was agreed that a single use platform
(wind-farm) and a MUP would be available in each
site).
MERMAID
8
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
1.4 Next steps
• Remaining questions about the MUOP
assessment tool must be discussed and
completely clarified during the parallel
sessions in Bologna.
• The draft of OD7.2 will be circulated among
all the relevant site partners and input and
feedback is expected.
MERMAID
9
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
1.5 Deliverable 7.3 Site specific design conditions, month 48 DTU
Goals and objectives of the deliverable
The main objective of this report is to present the conceptual
design of the MUPs in the study sites, considering planning,
operation and maintenance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MERMAID
10
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Background
• Site Conditions – OD7.1, already available, we should not
repeat.
• Draft design concept – OD 7.1 and OD7.2, month 36
• Stakeholder views and their influence on the draft design – WP 2
• Policies – this is already addressed by OD7.2.
MERMAID
11
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and scope of the deliverable
1.1 Goals and objectives of the deliverable
1.2 Definitions
1.3 Relationship to overall project objectives
1.4 Overview of the sites
1.5 Relation with existing DLs/WPS 7, 2, 8
1.6 Outline for the reader
Chapter 2: Baltic Sea
Chapter 3: Atlantic Ocean
Chapter 4: North Sea and Wadden Sea
Chapter s: Mediterranean Sea
MERMAID
12
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Table of Contents
Section 2.1 - Single Use and Multiple uses
In this section based on the OD7.1 and 7.2, the site teams should
identify two key concepts, one single use and one multiple use to be
designed at the site. If for some reasons it is not possible to consider
a single use, clear motivations should be given (or maybe refer to a
WP 8 or WP 2 Deliverable?).
Section 2.2 - Platform Layout
Size, position and placement of the uses considering their synergy
and the optimisation of space (Marine Spatial Planning). A map of
the area interested by the design should be prepared higlighting the
combination of uses. Where possible, add details about the design
(such as cross sections, layouts of the farms including distances
among devices/cages and foundation types and footprints).
MERMAID
13
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Table of Contents
Section 2.3 - Production and energy transfer
Production from marine renewable, from acquaculture, etc. Use of
energy for the platform operation and local energy storage or
transfer to shore.
Section 2.4 - Operation and maintenance
Plan of the activities required to keep the platform operating and for
maintenance. Identification of transportation requirements and
related impacts (conflict of uses, existing maritime routes, specific
vessels, additional pollution).
Section 2. 5 - Technical Assessment and risks
Structural failure, Geotechnical failure, Moorings, Power failure,
Pollution.
MERMAID
14
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Table of Contents
Section 2.6 - Environmental Assessment and risks
The following issues should be taken into account: Use of marine
space; Foundation type; Materials; Impact on the coast; Inclusion of
exposed components/parts; Noise/Vibration during operation;
Aesthetic impact; Maintenance (Transportation, Fouling, Material
durability). EIA should also at least include reccomendations
regarding the different scales: local, regional and European.
Section 2.7 - Financial Assesment and risks
Identification of the missing (if any) requirements for a CBA; use of
a MCA instead where impossible to do a CBA?? An explanation of
the local, regional and national impact of the installation has to be
provided considering that costs and benefits have often ery different
scales.
MERMAID
15
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Table of Contents
Section 2.8 - Socio-economic Assesment and risks
Not sure what exactly is meant with “socio-economic”. Here I
would expect to mainly address a twofold aspect: social acceptance
and participation; societal impact. Therefore, based on the focus
groups with stakeholders (WP 2): expected barriers if any to be
overcome and related actions to minimise the problem. But also
societal impact in terms of competitiveness, concept marketability,
technological innovation.
Section 2.9 - Conclusions and reccomendations
Here some conclusion should be drawn on the final selected “best”
design, including the challenges, the impacts and the single versus
multiple use if applicable.
This layout is repeated for all the sites.
MERMAID
16
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
WP1: Project management
Sheltered deep water
WP6: Transport and optimization of
installation, operation, and decom.
Open deep water
WP5: Sinteraction of platform with
hydrodynamic conditions and seabed
Active Morphology
WP4: Systems for sustainable aquaculture and ecological based design
WP7: Innovative Platform
plan and design
Estuarine
WP3: Renewable energy conversion
from wind and waves
WP2: Assessment of policy management and planning strategies
WP8: Economical, technical and environmental feasibility of multi-use platforms
WP9: Project dissemination &MERMAID
outreach activities
17
MERMAID
18
1.5 THE MUP ASSESSMENT TOOL
MUP.AT
DEVELOPED BY WP7 AND WP8
IMPLEMENTED BY WP2
During meetings with experts
and stakeholders’ roundtables.
MERMAID
19
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Presentation Structure
1.
2.
3.
The MUP assessment tool (MUP.AT) for design selection.
Preliminary Results: Implementation of MUP.AT in 4 CS.
Integration of CS results in Socio-Economic Assessment Methodology.
Four offshore CS with different
characteristics wrt.
- MUP Technical Feasibility
- Institutional Feasibility
- Energy Production Potential
- Environmental Impact
- Financial Feasibility
- Economic Impact
- Social Impact
MERMAID
20
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Why do we need this preliminary MUP.AT?
• Select CS-specific MUP design
• Identify Cost /Benefits of MUP design
• Integrate Cost/Benefits in CBA
MERMAID
21
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Assessment Process and Criteria
A. Technical Feasibility Assessment (TFA)
B. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
C. Financial and Economic Assessment (FEA)
D. Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA)
MERMAID
22
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
A. Technical Feasibility Assessment (TFA)
QUESTIONS:
RISKS:
a. Is placement possible?
Legal Considerations
b. Is placement possible?
Technically Considerations
c. Approximations/estimations of financial
cost & revenues
d. Definition of project time horizon
e. Possibilities of combined use
f. Possibilities for technological upgrades
R.A.1 Technical Uncertainty
R.A.2 Financial Uncertainty
R.A.3 Impact diffusion
(correlated risks between
functions)
R.A.4 Political uncertainty
R.A.5 Unclear definition of
property rights
MERMAID
23
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
B. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
QUESTIONS:
RISKS:
a. Significant negative environmental
impact (local, regional, global).
b. Significant positive environmental
impact (local, regional, global).
c. EIA available for similar project(s)
in the region.
R.B.1 Uncertainty about Climate
Change and other environmental
parameters.
R.B.2 Non linear environmental
effects & threshold identification.
R.B.3 Irreversible environmental
effects.
MERMAID
24
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
C. Financial and Economic Assessment (FEA)
Financial Assessment
RISKS
QUESTIONS
a. Estimated financial costs: capital,
O&M, Administrative.
b. Estimated financial revenues.
c. Efficiency gains from combined
use
d. Regulatory/Institutional
Restrictions
e. Sustainable Business Plan
R.C.1 Sensitivity to changes of
output/input prices.
R.C.2 Difficulty in time horizon and
interest rate definition.
MERMAID
25
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
C. Financial and Economic Assessment (FEA)
Economic Assessment
RISKS:
QUESTIONS:
f. Calculation of efficiency prices
for the inputs and outputs of the
investment.
g. Determination of indirect and
induced effects (creation of jobs,
increased
economic
activity,
increased incomes, etc.)
h. Discount investment’s cash
flows
i. Economic efficiency indicators
R.C.1 Sensitivity to changes of
output/input prices.
R.C.2 Difficulty in time horizon and
interest rate definition.
MERMAID
26
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
D. Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA)
QUESTIONS:
RISKS:
a. Monetary valuation of
environmental externalities,
(Ecosystem Services approach).
b. Monetary evaluation of health and
other (e.g. educational) externalities
c. Monetary evaluation of local
accessibility effects
d. Perceived Stakeholders' Fairness
of Distribution of Costs and Benefits
(between income groups; spatial;
intergenerational)
R.D.1 Uncertainty and missing
information in estimation of
external effects.
R.D.2 Uncertainty and missing
information in perception
formation.
MERMAID
27
Bird’s Eye View of MUP.AT
http://www.madgik.di.uoa.gr/mermai
d/?q=datasets
MERMAID
28
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
MUP.AT IN THE FOUR STUDY SITES
TO BE REVISITED AND CONFIRMED
DURING WP7 AND WP8
PARALLEL SESSIONS
MERMAID
29
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Results
• The row results from the CS-specific
implementation of the assessment tools are
available at the MERMAID online data
repository:
• http://www.madgik.di.uoa.gr/mermaid/?q=data
sets
MERMAID
30
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Atlantic Sea
Wind
Wave
Aquaculture
Electricity connection
Fish transport
MERMAID
31
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Atlantic Sea
TFA
• Technically feasible
• Potential combined use
Risks
• Reliability of technique (WA, EC, AQ)
• Uncertainty about estimates of costs and
revenues (exc. FT)
• Impact diffusion (all)
• Political uncertainty (exc. EC & FT)
EIA
• EIA is available
Risks
• Uncertainty about climate
change and other Env.
Parameters (all)
• Non-linear env. effects (AQ
& FT)
• Irreversible env. effects (AQ
& FT)
FEA
• Some F&E Information
• Not enough information on
efficiency prices for inputs and
outputs of the investment
Risks
• Sensitivity to changes of
output/input prices
• Difficulty in time horizon and
interest rate definition
SCBA
• Not enough information
on SCBA
Risks
• Uncertainty and missing
information of external
effects and perception
formation
MERMAID
32
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Baltic Sea
Wind
Aquaculture
Wave
Electricity connection
Fish transport
Seaweed farming
MERMAID
33
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Baltic Sea
TFA
• Technically feasible
• Potential combined use
Risks
• New political skepticism on
the climate change and
benefits from using
renewable energies (all)
FEA
• Enough F&E Information
Risks
• Sensitivity to changes of
output/input prices
• Difficulty in time horizon
and interest rate definition
EIA
• EIA is available (single
use)
Risks
• No risks identified at this
stage
SCBA
• Some monetary
evaluation of externalities
(TEEB)
Risks
• Uncertainty and missing
information of external
effects and perception
formation
MERMAID
34
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Mediterranean Sea
Macro Wind
Micro Wind
Aquaculture
Fixed Wave
Floating Wave
MERMAID
35
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Mediterranean Sea
TFA (Engineers and
Economist)
• Technically feasible
• Potential combined use
(except floating wave)
Risks
• Uncertainty about estimates
of costs and revenues
• Some uncertainty about
reliability of technique
• Political uncertainty
FEA
• Not enough F&E information
at this stage
Risks
• No risks identified at this
stage
EIA (Ecologists)
• EIA is available for some impacts
• Possibility of significant
environmental impact
Risks
• Uncertainty about climate change
and other env. parameters
• Some non-linear env. effects
• Possible irreversible env. effects
SCBA
• Not enough information
on SCBA
Risks
• No risks identified at this
stage
MERMAID
36
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
North and Wadden Sea
Wind
Aquaculture (Mussels)
Wave
Electricity connection
Seaweed farming
Aquaculture transport
MERMAID
37
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
North and Wadden Sea
TFA
• Technically feasible
• Potential combined use
Risks
• Revenues are depended on
oil and energy prices
• Aquaculture needs market
development
FEA
• Not enough F&E information
at this stage
Risks
• Not risks identified at this
stage
EIA
• Not enough EIA
information at this stage
Risks
• No risks identified at this
stage
SCBA
• Not enough information
on SCBA
Risks
• Not risks identified at this
stage
MERMAID
38
Expectation for WP7 Parallel Sessions:
- Verify correct interpretation of MUP.AT from experts in WP7
and amend where necessary.
- Discuss the results obtained from the focus groups with
stakeholders in WP 2.
- Review the design options and select one MUP and one SUP
for each site;
these options have to be provided
to WP8 for the CBA.
MERMAID
39
2. WP8 PROGRESS IN THE
LAST 6 MONTHS
MERMAID
40
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
WP8 Objectives & Deliverables
Completed
In progress
MERMAID
41
2.1 DATA COLLECTION
ACTIVITIES
MERMAID
42
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Document about data requirements
for the assessment of MUP designs
• After the meeting in Athens a document was developed to start
the data collection for the assessment of MUP designs.
• The purpose of the document is to help systematizing the
search for documents and other resources that contain data,
which can be useful for the Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), the Financial and Economic Assessment (FEA) and the
Social Cost-Benefit Analysis (SCBA).
• All the three types of assessments are included in the tables
because EIA and FEA information is of importance for the
SCBA.
MERMAID
43
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
• For the sake of consistency with earlier MERMAID work, the
rows of the tables are related to those found in the MUP
assessment tool.
• Table 1 includes documents specifically about the four
MERMAID sites.
• Table 2 includes documents that are not specifically about
MERMAID sites but about other sites/areas/projects from
which data or results probably can be transferred to the four
MERMAID sites.
• Table 3 lists documents of even more general nature.
MERMAID
44
2.2 MERMAID
RESOURCES REPOSITORY
MERMAID
45
2.3 SOCIAL COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS (SEE SEPARATE
POWER POINT)
MERMAID
46
INTEGRATE THESE RESULTS
IN MERMAID
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY
THE MUP.AT INTEGRATES SCBA!
…BUT MOST RELEVANT INFORMATION IS MISSING
I.E. WP8 HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO!
MERMAID
47
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Why Social Cost Benefit Analysis?
• SCBA is decision support tool to compare in monetary
terms benefits and costs of a proposal (project, policy
or programme), including:
- financial and economic impacts
- impacts on environmental resources and services
that are not owned or traded in the markets.
The methodology applies the standard, best-practice methodology
of European Commission CBA:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/guides/c
ost/guide2008_en.pdf
MERMAID
48
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Determination of the project’s impact on the
national economy (for further information please see
separate presentation by Anastasios Xepapadeas)
A. Calculation of efficiency prices for the inputs and
outputs of the investment.
B. Economic assessment of externalities which are
created from the investment.
C. Determination of indirect and induced effects.
– Creation of new economic activity
– Output, Income and Employment Multipliers
D. Discount of the investment’s cash flows.
E. Calculation of economic efficiency indicators.
MERMAID
49
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Total Economic Value
Structure &
Processes
Anthropocentric
Values
Environmental
Functions
Human
Benefits
Use
Values
Non-Use
Values
Environment
Total Economic Value
Use Value
Actual use
Value
Direct Use
Value
Non-use Value
Option Value
Existence
Value
Indirect Use
Value
For Others
Bequest
Value
MERMAID
Altruistic
Value
50
An example on Marine Resources
MERMAID
51
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Risk Analysis, Uncertainty Analysis
Project-Specific Risks :
(i) financial and economic
(ii) natural – environmental
(iii) technological
Sensitivity Analysis: relates
proportional changes in the
critical variables to NPV/IRR
values.
Uncertainty Analysis:
Computational algorithm based
on random sampling and on
assigning specific subjective
probability distributions to
important cash flow variables.
The Figure provides a Monte Carlo histogram for
NPV, which was obtained after 1000 repetitions.
MERMAID
52
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
In the parallel sessions
• Discuss what is the status of the MUP design
• Provide an update of data collection for SCBA
• Discuss any foreseen problems related to the
SCBA
MERMAID
53
2.4 PUBLICATIONS
MERMAID
54
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Forthcoming Publications
• Special Issue in Journal of Sustainability
(http://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/sustainable_manag
ement_of_marine_resources)
• Guest Editor: Prof. Dr. Phoebe Koundouri
• Objective: Integrated framework of analysis of offshore activities under
uncertainty (socio-economic & environmental)
• Keywords:
 marine resources
 offshore activities
 integrated sustainable management
 Social Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework for Assessing
Environmental, Economic (including financial) & Social
Sustainability
 Environmental, Technological and Socio-Economic Uncertainty
 Ecosystem Services Based Valuation Methods
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Forthcoming Publications (cont’d)
• Publisher: Springer Academic Publishers:
http://www.springer.com/
• Title of Work: The Ocean of Tomorrow (Vol. I and II):
Socio-economic Methodology and Empirical Applications for
Multi-Use Offshore Platforms Investments
• Editor: Prof. Phoebe Koundouri
• Estimated number of: Words in manuscript: 400 pages
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
The Ocean of Tomorrow (Vol. I)
Table of Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Preface
Introduction.
A Methodology for Integrated Socio-Economic Assessment
Socio-economic Analysis on selected Estuarine Site (Baltic Sea).
Socio-economic Analysis on selected Active Morphology Site (North Sea
and Wadden Sea)
Socio-economic Analysis on selected Open Deep Water Site (Atlantic
Coast)
Socio-economic Analysis on selected Sheltered Deep Water site
(Mediterranean)
Risk Analysis on all 4 case studies
Conclusions and Policy recommendations
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
The Ocean of Tomorrow (Vol. II)
Integrating Socio-Economic Analysis:
MERMAID, H2OCEAN, TROPOS
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
Introduction
1. Socio-economic methodology (complementarities)
2. Framework for Socio-Economic Data collection
3. Data analysis methodology
4. Stakeholder Methodologies
5. Conclusions and Policy recommendations
References
Index
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Status of the chapters and articles
(Marian Stuiver)
2 chapters in book Springer:
1. Participatory design. As Masha has been replaced with
Christine Rockmann, this chapter is delayed. Furthermore we
need to do the third round table BEFORE we can produce this
chapter.
2. Marine Spatial Planning. Marian sent abstract and title. Bonne
van der Veen is lead author and working on this at the moment. I
expect to have a draft ready in Bologna
MERMAID
59
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
2 articles in Sustainability Journal
1. Article Feasability Seaweed
This article is difficult to fit in this journal as it only focuses on
seaweed and the MUPS perspective is gone. Instead it was
proposed to have an article of Sander van den Burg and Marian
Stuiver in it on policy analysis of MUPS. They are working on
that at the moment. There is a draft ready
2. Article on legislation
Abstract sent but not the division of tasks yet. So no draft ready
yet.
MERMAID
60
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
Chapter on data repositories
• An abstract and chapter proposal was drafted
by Evita Mailli and Osiel Dávila.
• Literature review is in process.
MERMAID
61
MERMAID, 5th meeting, March 19th-21st, Athens, Greece
In the parallel session
• Clearly identify lead authors and divide the
labour
• Discuss the progress in the chapters
• Clarify any questions and discuss next steps
MERMAID
62
Contact details:
Prof. Dr. Phoebe Koundouri
Director of ReSEES, AUEB-RC
ICRE8 Scientific Director
Email: pkoundouri@aueb.gr
ReSEES, AUEB-RC Webpage:
http://www.aueb.gr/users/koundouri/resees/
ICRE8 Webpage:
www.icre8.eu
MERMAID
63