1. Shared Environmental Information System - SEIS - Towards a SEIS Implementation Plan SEIS IP (?)
Hugo DE GROOF
European Commission
Directorate-General Environment
Chief Scientist, Research and Innovation Unit

2. SEIS – IP ? What ? Why ? When ? Where are we ?
A systematic approach to upgrade the collection and sharing of the information required for environment policy.
Why ?
To have a coherent shared environmental information system, meeting the needs of our policies and of the public.
When ?
Announced in 2008 SEIS Communication
Council Resolution expected end 2010 = inviting EC to deliver SEIS – IP
Where are we ?
SEIS State-of-Play report: 06/2010 (draft) – 11/2010 (final)

3. About SEIS ….
Communication from European Commission to European Council and Parliament “Towards a Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS)” COM(2008) 46 final
Not a legal act
It presents “an approach”
To modernise and simplify the collection, exchange and use of the data and information required for the design and implementation of environmental policy,
To progressively replace the current, mostly centralised systems for reporting by systems based on access, sharing and interoperability.
The overall aim is to maintain and improve the quality and availability of information required for environmental policy, in line with better regulation, while keeping the associated administrative burdens to a minimum”

4. SEIS 2008 Communication SEIS Principles INSPIRE Principles
Information should be managed as close as possible to its source.
Data should be collected once and maintained at the level where this can be done most effectively.
Information should be collected once, and shared with others for many purposes.
It must be possible for spatial data collected at one level of government to be shared between all levels of government.
Information should be readily available to public authorities and enable them to easily fulfil their legal reporting obligations.
It must be possible to combine seamlessly spatial data from different sources across the EU and share it between many users and applications.
Information should be readily accessible to end-users, primarily public authorities at all levels from local to European, to enable them to assess in a timely fashion the state of the environment and the effectiveness of their policies, and to design new policy.
Spatial data needed for good governance should be available on conditions that are not restricting its extensive use.
Information should also be accessible to enable end-users, both public authorities and citizens, to make comparisons at the appropriate geographical scale (e.g. countries, cities, catchment areas) and to participate meaningfully in the development and implementation of environmental policy.
It should be easy to discover which spatial data is available, to evaluate its fitness for purpose and to know which conditions apply for its use.
Information should be fully available to the general public, after due consideration of the appropriate level of aggregation and subject to appropriate confidentiality constraints, and at national level in the relevant national language(s).
Information sharing and processing should be supported through common, free open-source software tools.

5. Background Lisbon Declaration 2000
to become by 2010 the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion
Lisbon Declaration 2000
th Environmental Action Programme
Environmental policy-making, given the complexities of the issues, needs to be based on best available scientific and economic assessment, and on knowledge of the state and trends of the environment.
Information to policy makers, stakeholders and the general public has to be relevant, transparent, up to date and easily understandable.
Provision for access to environmental information for public participation in policy-making will be important to the success of the Programme.

6. only 3% of the citizens can be considered 'green pragmatists'..
Status 2010 ?
Sources say…
EuroBarometer 2007
“the EU appears to be locked into a number of status-quo and downward trends, which are moving away from, rather than toward, sustainability”
42% of the citizens feel badly informed about environmental issues with the greatest lack of information related to the impacts of environmental change
63% of the citizens agree that policies aimed at protecting the environment are a motivation to innovate.
Transforming green attitudes to green behaviour is therefore highlighted as one of the main challenges revealed by the survey.
only 3% of the citizens can be considered 'green pragmatists'..

7. A preliminary flood risk assessment
Floods Directive
A preliminary flood risk assessment
Including art.4 a-f
(e) Likelihood of future floods and projected impact of climate change and land use trends
Prepare flood risk maps by 2013 – with 6 yearly updates
Flood risk management plans by 2015

8. Floods Early Warning – Forecast - Impact Assessment Data & Information Requirements
Hydrography
I- 2
Elevation
III – 7
Environmental Monitoring Facilities
III - 12
Natural Risk Zones
III – 14
Meteorological
geographical features
III – 13
Atmospheric conditions
III – 3
Soils
III – 4
Land-use
II – 2
Landcover
III – 18 Habitats and biotopes
III – 19 Species distribution
III-10 Population distribution — demography
III- 6 - Utility and governmental services
Etc.
Source: GMES BICEPS Report

9. Floods – FLAPP findings
FLAPP* 'Flood Awareness & Prevention Policy in border areas‘
OBSTACLES TO COOPERATION BETWEEN AUTHORITIES IN FLOOD MANAGEMENT
Different levels of experience and knowledge on both sides of the border may be an obstacle to successful cooperation.
Different levels of data availability between counterparts will also result in a lack of meteorological and hydrological data for the whole river system.
Another possible obstacle is the use of different, non-compatible models, monitoring techniques etc.
In many cases it is not clear for water managers where to get specific knowledge and information.
Valuable knowledge at private institutes may be (too) expensive for public water managers.
Together, these problems can lead to the use of data of different quality on both sides of the border.
* FLAPP: EU- co -funded network

10. Soils Thematic Strategy
Risk prevention, mitigation and restoration
Identify risk areas for soil degradation
Erosion
Organic matter decline
Compaction and decrease of porosity
Salinisation
Landslides
Soil contamination
Identify contaminated sites – posing a risk to human health or environment

11. Specific measures to protect the aquatic environment
Pesticides Directive
Specific measures to protect the aquatic environment
Buffer zones – defined as a function of the risk of pollution (soil, climate, etc.)
Measures to limit aerial drift (hedge rows etc.)
Reduction of pesticide use in sensitive areas
Identify and list sensitive areas
Non-agricultural areas with high run-off risk or leaching.
Reporting – info exchange
Through to be defined RISK INDICATORS

12. Soils Directive Data & Information Requirements
Source: GMES BICEPS Report

13. Marine Strategy Directive
How will the strategy be monitored and reviewed?
An assessment of the current status of the region and of the environmental impact of
human activities including would serve as the foundation for the development of
Marine Strategies.
On this basis Member States would be required to establish monitoring programmes
to review the status of marine ecosystems and the achievement of regional
environmental quality objectives selected through suitable indicators. The
programmes would:
– Be made operational at the latest four years after the date of entry into force of
the legal instrument supporting the marine strategy.
– Be aggregated on the basis of Marine Regions.
– Be subject, where appropriate, to common technical specifications and
standardised methods for monitoring at Community level to allow
comparability of information.
– Build upon complement relevant existing monitoring programmes developed at
EU and regional level to ensure consistency between these programmes and
avoid duplication of efforts. In particular, synergies would be developed with
monitoring efforts under the Common Fisheries Policy (e.g. Fisheries Data
Collection Regulation).
– Make reporting obligations deriving from these monitoring programmes fully
compatible with the Commission’s proposal for a Directive establishing an
infrastructure for spatial information in the Community (INSPIRE) of 2004.
Source: GMES BICEPS Report

14. COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT (2009) “Building a European marine knowledge infrastructure: Roadmap for a European Marine Observation and Data Network”
Discovery of Data. It is difficult for potential users to obtain an overview of what data are available for a particular parameter in a particular region.
Access to data. Those holding the data may not release them either because of confidentiality or security constraints, because they do not or cannot allocate sufficient resources for archiving and maintaining data.
Use of data. Even where data are available, their use or re-use may be limited by the data policy of the owner.
Cost of data. The prices imposed by some data-owners undoubtedly reduces the uptake of these data by users.
Coherence of Data. Developing a complete picture in time and space over a sea-area using data collected by different bodies is complicated by fragmented standards, formats and nomenclature. This is particularly the case when there is a need to study cross-border areas.
Quality of Data. There are no universally-recognised measures of quality, precision or accuracy. Metadata documentation may be sparse or inadequate so potential users do not know what confidence to ascribe to the data.
Quantity of Data. Finally there is some concern as to whether enough data is being collected. The current fragmented nature of data collection makes it difficult to determine whether the right data is being collected, whether it is being collected frequently enough or whether there are gaps in its coverage

15. SEIS IP Action Streams
Streamlining of ‘demand’ and ‘rights & obligations’:
EU legislation on sharing of data and information
the content of required information for:
policy development, assessment & implementation
reporting under the environmental acquis
Building a more efficient data and information sharing infrastructure
Improving the availability of “fit-for-purpose” data underpinning environmental information through monitoring

16. 1. Streamlining of demand and rights & obligations (1)
EU legislation which impacts on the sharing of data and information
Directive 2003/4/EC on “public access to environmental information”
Directive 2007/2/EC INSPIRE
Regulation EEA/EIONET
Elements of “thematic” legislation
Directive 2003/98/EC on the “re-use of public sector information”, PSI
Etc...
A “coherent” regulatory framework is needed

17. Streamlining of demand and rights & obligations (2)
The content of required information
For policy development, assessment & implementation
At ALL levels of government
Indicators
Early warning and risk management
For reporting under the environmental acquis
Towards Commission, EEA, Conventions …
National & regional regulatory reporting

18. 2. Building a more efficient data and information sharing infrastructure
e-Environment services
Use(r)-centric
Interoperable & connected services
Interoperable (harmonised where necessary) data specifications
Cross-border functionalities (where relevant)
Cornerstones and ‘policy enablers’:
National/regional e-Government ‘embedded’
EEA reportnet & e-Commission services
INSPIRE Directive
EU 2020 “Digital Agenda”

19. 3. Having data “fit-for-purpose”
What is the current situation ?
Establish the baseline
Does what we have fit-the-purpose ?
If not … what do we do about it ?

20. SEIS – BASIS project 2009-2011 - Tasks -
Provide a baseline assessment of the operational capacity of the Member States to collect data required for:
the implementation of the environmental Acquis, including reporting obligations;
the integration of environmental concerns in other policies
Undertake a comparative analysis and fitness-for-purpose assessment.
Policy scenario development:
Propose for the identified problematic issues related to the lack of comparability and quality of data a number of specific operational policy objectives accompanied with options on measures for reaching these objectives.
The impacts of the options will be assessed and underpinned with qualitative and quantitative societal – and cost-benefit arguments

21. SEIS information resource
The operational programmes in place in the Member States to collect systematically data relevant to the implementation of environmental policies and their integration into other policies
monitoring infrastructures - data processing - management/sharing virtual infrastructures - information systems for turning data into information
Content:
Programme design and activities
Policy context and scope
Organisations tasked with the programme
Data parameters monitored, and quality assurance procedures
Technology, systems, and connectivity
Programme costs and funding mechanisms

22. SEIS-BASIS

23. COSTS & BENEFITS – WHO WILL BE ‘AFFECTED
Policy Options ?
do nothing:
In addition of what is going on …
Guidelines for addressing all identified 'problems' == 'soft governance'
thematic
for integrated analysis/assessment (cross-thematic)
guidelines addressing 'sustainability' - how to resource activities,
'good' practices
Binding guidelines
adopted as legal acts (amendments, new ones...) + guidance documents
idem 2
Binding guidelines combined with a dedicated Community financial instrument
COSTS & BENEFITS – WHO WILL BE ‘AFFECTED

24. Discussion …..