Data issues and outreach Data issues and outreach

BIODIVERITY Clearing house meetingBIODIVERITY Clearing house meetingINSPIRE thematic group on protected sitesINSPIRE thematic group on protected sites

CDDA- nationally designated areasCDDA- nationally designated areasArticle 17-Reporting conservation statusArticle 17-Reporting conservation status

Sheila Cryan and Rania Spyropoulou

EEA

The Biodiversity Clearing House The Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanisms in Europe: Challenges for the Mechanisms in Europe: Challenges for the next 3 years, 15-16 September 2008next 3 years, 15-16 September 2008

• http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/About/chm-meeting-biodiversity-clearing-house/meeting-agenda

Challenges for the next 3 yearsChallenges 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:Biodiversity Clearing House Mechanism:http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/http://biodiversity-chm.eea.europa.eu/SEIS- Next developments 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!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- INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES- Thematic Working group on protected Thematic Working group on protected sitessites

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”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 scheduleProject schedule

• Kick-off meeting: 14.02.2008, Ispra, Italy• TWG Meetings: 23./24.04.2008, Munich,

Germany• 25.06.2008, Maribor,

Slovenia• 18./19.08.2008,

Nottingham, England• Deadline for submitting the Data Prodict

Specification (DPS):• 30.09.2008• Telconferences had been held biweekly.

The INSPIRE Protected Sites Data Product Specification.The INSPIRE Protected Sites Data Product Specification. All INSPIRE-compliant data sets must use one of these All INSPIRE-compliant data sets must use one of these profiles and must specify which is usedprofiles 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:Next steps:

• Internal consultation on the first draft of DPS: 15.10.2008

• Second draft of DPS:28.11.2008

• SDIC/LMO Review:30.01.2009

• Final specification31.03.2009

• During the review phase there will be an implementation test by SDICs and LMOs.

1997-2007 :10 years of work on 1997-2007 :10 years of work on Nationally designated areasNationally 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

1997-2007 :10 years of work on 1997-2007 :10 years of work on Nationally designated areasNationally 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 A synchronised full update of our protected areas products on Data Service. These products together comprise a first on Data Service. These products together comprise a first package of the European Common Database on package of the European Common Database on

Designated areas (national and Eu designations).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 http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/dataservice/metadetails.asp?id=1047

• - the updated CDDA site distribution map for EEA member countries • http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id

=3685 • - the updated CDDA site boundary map for EEA member countries• http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id

=3686• -the updated Natura 2000 sites map ( version July 2008) • http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id

=3689&EditForm=no

1997-2007 :10 years of work on 1997-2007 :10 years of work on Nationally designated areasNationally 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 readyVersion 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 The next reporting round-CDDA nationalnational

• 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 Parameters used in the assessment of the conservation status of a species or habitat conservation status of a species or habitat type in Article 17 reportingtype in Article 17 reporting

Conservation Status - Habitats by Region

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Unfavourable - Bad

Unfavourable - Inadequate

Not Assessed

Unknown

Favourable

Conservation Status - Habitats by Group

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Unfavourable - Bad

Unfavourable - Inadequate

Not Assessed

Unknown

Favourable

Conservation Status - Species by Biogeographic region

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

ALP ATL BOR CON MAC MED PAN MATL MBAL MMAC MMED

Unfavourable - Bad

Unfavourable - Inadequate

Not Assessed

Unknown

Favourable

Conservation Status - Species by Taxonomic Group

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Unfavourable - Bad

Unfavourable - Inadequate

Not Assessed

Unknow n

Favourable