Presentation on theme: "European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity ECDDA National for EEA countries Lauri Klein and Tiina Dislis"— Presentation transcript:
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity ECDDA National for EEA countries Lauri Klein and Tiina Dislis EIONET NRC Nature and Biodiversity Seminar October 2007
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity For EEA countries (and collaborative countries) update of the ECDDA national is part of the EIONET Biodiversity priority dataflow
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Data reported by countries is: Tabular data on MSAccess format about all nationally designated sites, their designation types and habitat structure, including three main tables: designations (20 columns (fields), 14 of them only possible to fill at national level; key field: DESIG_ABBR). sites (20 fields, 13 of them only possible to fill at national level; key fields: SITE_CODE and DESIG_ABBR). sitehabitats (3 fields, using CLC and GIS fillable centrally, if more precise data needed, only at national level; key field: SITE_CODE) Digital boundary data, including obligatory key-field: SITE_CODE
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity As a result so far, for EEA countries: Site records in ECDDA Designation types in ECDDA sites with digital boundaries ( records) from 28 countries (plus 3 West-Balkan countries that have Emerald pilot phase data available and permitted for use in ECDDA) = 31 countries of Size: empty for 1905 sites, 0 for 4635 sites and probably too big value for some sites (checking still under way), but field is 98% filled!!! - IUCN categories: empty for sites, N/A for sites and incorrect entry for 317 sites, field is 84% filled, but less than 68% is usable for analysis. - Year (of establishment): empty for 5668 sites, field is 93% filled!!! - Habitats data delivered by 10 countries for 3357 sites (4% of total).
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Example of uses of the ECDDA national Initially foreseen indicators for the Belgrade report North-West Europe ranking first as compared to USA, a progress since Kiev 2003 ? No! A mistake in the ECDDA data collection procedure: overlapping is NOT possible to eliminate in tabular data ! Solution - GIS Another question: How to distinguish marine PA from non Marine PA in the calculation? Solution - GIS
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Example of uses of the ECDDA national Initially foreseen indicators for the Belgrade report NWE shows a +16.8% increase in total surface area protected between 2000 and 2006 !! Comparing ECDDA 2000 with ECDDA 2006 just shows a huge progress in reporting by countries!
European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity As dataflow has been operational already more than 10 years now and it starts to be close to complete (although we have some countries with low input activity), we want to reach a routine update to be able to concentrate on the USE of data. THEREFORE WE NEED URGENTLY ECDDA TECHNICAL MEETING VERY EARLY NEXT YEAR TO DISCUSS AND MAKE DECISION ON FOLLOWING MATTERS: - Technical validation and reporting should only be done automatically now !!! We do not want to foresee any manual validation, all sites that do not pass automated validation will be refused from updated European dataset and therefore also NOT used in international statistics as well as in assessments. - Procedures for validation and responsibilities for every step in dataflow should be clear for all of us both for tabular and digital boundary data. - Database structure should be target oriented, so that we collect really only data needed for users. - We should agree upon limitations of use of data: restricted use, copyrights, licences. - All points above will be matter of external review of ECDDA that EEA is drafting currently and where You all are welcome to give input.