Presentation on theme: "Data issues and outreach BIODIVERITY Clearing house meeting INSPIRE thematic group on protected sites CDDA- nationally designated areas Article 17-Reporting."— Presentation transcript:
Data issues and outreach BIODIVERITY Clearing house meeting INSPIRE thematic group on protected sites CDDA- nationally designated areas Article 17-Reporting conservation status Sheila Cryan and Rania Spyropoulou EEA
The Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanisms in Europe: Challenges for the next 3 years, September chm.eea.europa.eu/About/chm- meeting-biodiversity-clearing- house/meeting-agendahttp://biodiversity- chm.eea.europa.eu/About/chm- meeting-biodiversity-clearing- house/meeting-agenda
Challenges for the next 3 years Session I : Introduction and Framing Session II : The forum of national CHM managers Session III: Development of strategy and action plan for a European CHM Session IV : The forum of EC CHM users Session V: Joint session with GBIF European nodes on sharing biodiversity data and information
Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism: SEIS- Next developments Enable multilingual search on terms related to the Convention of Biological Diversity and European headline indicators in the CHM network GLOSSARY Promote syndication as the assessment of headline indicators for the 2010 target, to be harvested at the European and national CHMs --Really Simple Syndication Harvesting quality controlled information among CHM portals and other national portals for 2010!---PORTAL COLLABORATION Enable database management from the CHM portal thus linking to biodiversity reporting and databases such as GIBF--CAMPAINGS
BRING THE MESSAGE HOME! Harvesting quality controlled information among CHM portals and other national portals for 2010!---PORTAL COLLABORATION Making things work
INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES- Thematic Working group on protected sites The Thematic Working Group Thematic experts: Rania Spyropoulou and Franz Daffner (EEA), Dirk Hinterlang (Germany), Keith Porter and Andrew Newman (England) Contact person of EC: JRC, Vanda de Lima Editor: Kristin Stock Facilitator: Markus Seifert
Definition of Protected Sites In the INSPIRE Annex I context a protected site is: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. Under the INSPIRE directive protected sites are spatial objects, that need to have distinct boundaries of their own, rather than being a mere specific category of some other spatial object type (e.g. cadastral parcels).
Project schedule Kick-off meeting: , Ispra, Italy TWG Meetings:23./ , Munich, Germany , Maribor, Slovenia 18./ , Nottingham, England Deadline for submitting the Data Prodict Specification (DPS): Telconferences had been held biweekly.
The INSPIRE Protected Sites Data Product Specification. All INSPIRE-compliant data sets must use one of these profiles and must specify which is used The profiles are as follows: Simple (Core): The simple profile contains a very limited set of fundamental attributes, including geometry, identifier, name, designation type, legal foundation date and document reference. Only current Protected Areas are included. The Simple Profile is a subset of the Full Profile. Full: The full model including all attributes and historical as well as current Protected Areas, but with most attributes being optional, so values be omitted. Natura2000: The full model with all attributes and historical as well as current Protected Areas, and with mandatory attributes required for updating and maintaining of Natura2000 site data by Member States. Member States may use this profile to provide Natura2000 site data. The Natura2000 Profile is the same as the Full Profile but applies additional constraints.
Next steps: Internal consultation on the first draft of DPS: Second draft of DPS: SDIC/LMO Review: Final specification During the review phase there will be an implementation test by SDICs and LMOs.
:10 years of work on Nationally designated areas The 2007 Expert review of the ECDDA national data flow was taken up and the users as well as the data managers have given their assessments Aiming at Improving its usability Improving its cost effectiveness
:10 years of work on Nationally designated areas EEA Quality control is automated since 2007 for all countries Attribute Size provided for 98% of sites (2007, EEA countries) Attribute Boundaries provided for 92% of sites (2007, EEA countries) Attribute IUCN category provided for 84% of sites (2007, EEA countries)
A synchronised full update of our protected areas products on Data Service. These products together comprise a first package of the European Common Database on Designated areas (national and Eu designations). List of products and links to Eea Data Service : - an updated nationally designated areas (CDDA) dataset for EEA member coutries - tabular data and site boundary data plus the overall quality control report and the countries reports the updated CDDA site distribution map for EEA member countries 685http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id= the updated CDDA site boundary map for EEA member countries 686http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id= the updated Natura 2000 sites map ( version July 2008) 689&EditForm=nohttp://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=3 689&EditForm=no
:10 years of work on Nationally designated areas Can we calculate total area of sites? Can wecalculate overlaps with Natura 2000 sites? Can we distinguish and show correctly marine sites? Have we good quality coverage of neighbouring areas (e.g. ECCA countries) New! Only size (area) and boundaries have been used so far in assessments. There are some problems to solve!
Version 7.5 of CDDA is out and ready A few countries were invited to resubmit Most of them met the deadline Barcelona- World Conservation Congress : an EEA side event on 7th October featuring the EIONET and CDDA- will send information
The next reporting round-CDDA national Letter to be send out by November Deadline March 2009 Input to SOER PLEASE LOOK AT YOUR COUNTRYs FEEDBACK REPORT- some countries have issues to ressolve
Parameters used in the assessment of the conservation status of a species or habitat type in Article 17 reporting