Biodiversity and Area Management

Biodiversity and Area Management

INSPIRE Thematic cluster onBiodiversity and Area Management / Final report (phase 2) / p. 1 of 9
Common template for Thematic cluster reports / 2016-01-27
/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE
Institute for Environment and Sustainability
Digital Earth and Reference Data Unit

INSPIRE Thematic cluster on

Biodiversity and Area Management

Phase 1 and 2- Final report

Author(s) / Brian MacSharry
Reviewed by
Approved by / Robert Tomas
Date of Approval / 27.1.2016
Title / INSPIRE Thematic cluster on Biodiversity and Area Management Phase 1 & 2 Final report 2015
Creator / Brian MacSharry
Date of last revision / 15/1/2016
Subject / Phase 1 and 2 – Final report
Type of Deliverable / Report
Status / Draft
Publisher / European Commission JRC
Description / Report on activities relating to the Biodiversity and Area Management Cluster
Contributor / Brian MacSharry
Rights / Public
Language / EN
Distribution List / JRC , ENV, ..
Identifier / INSPIRE Thematic clusters – final report
INSPIRE Thematic cluster onBiodiversity and Area Management / Final report (phase 2) / p. 1 of 9
Common template for Thematic cluster reports / 2016-01-27

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose and Scope

1.2. Structure of the report

2. The use of the INSPIRE Thematic Cluster on …

3. INSPIRE thematic clusters – SW environment

4. Current and planned support and pilot activities

5. Recommendations and conclusions

1.Introduction

1.1.Purpose and Scope

This report is deliverable D2.0 “Report on the use of the on-line platform” as defined (Annex 2: Chapter 7) in the Expert contract (391388 and 392071). The report describes users activities that have taken place in the INSPIRE thematic cluster on (Biodiversity and Area Management), facilitator’s recommendations on improvements on the used SW environment as well as the general recommendations on INSPIRE implementation in the community addressed by the cluster.

1.2.Structure of the report

Section 2describes statistically the activity taken place in the thematic cluster platform (e.g. number of members, discussion topics, responses, uploaded good practices etc...). The chapter also describes a method used by the facilitator to promote and facilitate the platform. Section 3presents facilitator’s view and improvement recommendations (if relevant) on the structure as well as functionality of the SW collaboration tool. Section 4 summarises facilitator’s experience with supporting the community in implementing INSPIRE, it highlights interesting discussion topics and / or agreed additions / changes to the INSPIRE technical guidelines. Section 5 presents facilitator’s recommendations and conclusions, if relevant, for improvements related to the follow up activities (phase2).

2.The use of the INSPIRE Thematic Cluster on Biodiversity and Area Management

2.1 Number of Members:

The Biodiversity and Area Management Cluster is broken into 5 sub-groups reflecting the different themes under the various Annexes. Overall the group has 80 members with each of the 5 sub-groups having between 12 and 35 members (see figure 1). With the Annex I Protected Sites themes having the most numbers reflecting its central role in reporting obligations in Europe. There has been an increase in membership and activity across each group and across the cluster since the previous reporting period (Jun 2016). This increase coincides with the period of the INSPIRE conference in late May.

Figure 1: breakdown of number of members per sub-group as of 15 Jan. 2016

2.2 Discussion topics and responses:

Discussion topics are spread across the Cluster and group level, with the majority of discussions occurring within the Protected Sites group

2.2.1Group discussions

There are 5 Group Discussions with 9 replies

Use of reference to standard grid for distribution maps in the context of Nature Directives reporting; one reply

Areas defined in emergency plans to protect the inhabitants from a possible volcano eruption are in this Theme?; zero replies

On line validation of datasets; one reply

Dependence between HB and SD; Two replies

Controlled activities; Five replies

2.2.2 Protected Sites:

There are 12 Discussion topics with 20 replies. Topics covered are

  • PS data model regarding designations; seven replies
  • How INSPIRE deals with underground PS boundaries?; two replies
  • Inspire Identifers from the Natura 2000 Database; zero replies
  • EEA project on implmenting INSPIRE PS using the CDDA; 1 reply
  • schematron file available for Protected Sites application schema v4.0.; zero replies
  • Schema version / TG version mapping?; zero replies
  • Correcting percentageUnderDesignation bug in PS Simple xml schema?; four replies
  • Protected Sites Simple - Marine Institute Prototype implementation; five replies
  • Who has implemented the Protected Sites Schema? and who has struggled?; one reply
  • Discussion: Are you using the Protected Sites profile for delivery of CDDA?
  • Discussion: Code lists for Data Specifications

The larger number of discussions and replies for this theme is to do with the strong link between this theme and reporting obligations e.g. Natura 2000 and the Common Database on Designated Areas. Several of the discussions refer to aspects of the Protected Sites data specifications while others refer to general application of reporting on a type of protected area, e.g. the discussion on how to report underground protected areas.

2.2.3 Area Management

There is one discussion in this theme with zero replies.

  • Who has implemented the Area Management schema? and who has struggled?

2.2.4Biogeographical regions

There is one discussion in this theme with zero replies.

  • Who has implmented the Bio-geographical regions schema

2.2.5. Habitats and Biotopes

There is one discussion in this theme with zero replies.

Who has implemented the Habitat and Biotopes Schema? and who has struggled?

2.2.6Species Distribution

There is one discussion in this theme with two replies.

Who has implemented the Species Distribution Schema? and who has struggled?

2.3 Methods used to promote and facilitate the platform:

The cluster have been promoted via emails via JRC email, emails sent to know contacts within national agencies and via other fora such as personal contacts, via recommendations e.g. Alex Ramage passed on contacts to the Scottish Archaeology Agency and twitter. This has resulted in several contacts some of whom have engaged in the forum and others who have engaged off line via emails or phone calls. In order to engage with the archaeological community I attended the European Association of Archaeology Conference held in Glasgow on the 3rd and 4th September where I was invited to a session organised on the INSPIRE Protected Sites Data Specifications- with a focus on cultural heritage. The European Environment Agency (EEA) have been implementing a pilot project to input the Common Database of Designated Areas (CDDA) into the Protected Sites Schema. As part of this process they have promoted the discussion boards and have passed on issues found. In addition while attending working groups and meetings the forum has been promoted.

INSPIRE Thematic cluster onBiodiversity and Area Management / Final report (phase 2) / p. 1 of 9
Common template for Thematic cluster reports / 2016-01-27

3.INSPIRE thematic clusters – SW environment

The collaboration tool where taken up by individuals has shown its benefit. The nesting under the themes is both sensible and logical.

The “sub-groups” of users or a space on the tool function is useful. Though I have received two emails on this issue even though it is clear on the site. Perhaps a second place with a “Look here you can create your own user group!” may help.

One issues that is difficulty to manage is the reluctance of users to engage with the forum and contact facilitators directly either via email or phone to discuss issues outside of a discussion fora.

4.Current and planned support and pilot activities

I have engaged with the European Environment Agency to a significant extent on the biodiversity issues specifically with the Protected Sites profile. The rational for doing this was that they are the agency (either directly or via the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity) who issue instructions and advice to Member States on the various biodiversity reporting obligations. At the start of 2015 they released a pilot study of applying the Protected Sites schema to one of the reporting obligations – CDDA the national protected areas datasets. I will discuss with the EEA and the ETC/BD the application of the PS theme to the Natura 2000 network as well as the Species and Habitats themes to the reporting obligations under the Birds and Habitats Directive. These latter reporting obligation will not occur until 2019 though work will be done on modifying the reporting format from now onwards. As part of this process the EEA was engaged in a series of bilateral discussions and are running a “CDDA webinar for INSPIRE” on Tuesday 19th which I will partake in and a physical meeting in Copenhagen on the 4th and 5th of Feb which I will be partaking in. The EEA is one of the key stakeholders in the implementation of the PS profile as they are the collecting agency for protected area data – nationally designated and Natura 2000- for Europe and will be working with countries to implement the relevant reporting models which need to be INSPIRE compliant. The EEA needs to give clear instructions to Member States on how to implement and use the various INSPIRE schemas. This is especially true in the design of the reporting requirements for the Habitats and Birds Directives which need to incorporate the Species and habitats and Biotopes data speciations. Similarly the EEA is the key body for Biogeogaphical regions and via its European Topic Centre on Biodiversity for Habitats and Biotopes and Species Distribution via the Article 12 of the Birds Directive and Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Reporting Obligations.

5.Recommendations and conclusions

The discussion to date on the sites in addition to the meetings held in Madrid, Rome as well as the INSPIRE Conference have highlighted a number of examples and users not yet captured in the cluster discussion board.

Case studies by country: having case studies by country on the site would be a benefit to show case how the themes are being implemented.

Continued and expanded promotion of the site- I have mentioned this to contacts I have in ESRI and FME but have held off engaging them further as I am not sure to what extent we should be posting case studies/examples from service providers. Roberto Lucci from ESRI and Dean Hintz from Safe Software but flagged examples that are very interesting e.g

The EEA is a key stakeholder in the implementation of the PS profile as they are the collecting agency for protected area data – nationally designated and Natura 2000- for Europe and will be working with countries to implement the relevant reporting models which need to be INSPIRE compliant. Similarly the EEA is the key body for Biogeogaphical regions and via its European Topic Centre on BioDiversity for Habitats and Biotopes and Species Distribution via the Article 12 of the Birds Directive and Article 17 of the Habitats Directive Reporting Obligations. Attendance at all EEA Protected Site meetings and ensuring that the reporting formats relevant to this cluster are INSPIRE compliant is key- therefore the continued engagement with and support by the EEA is critical. The upcoming webinar and physical meeting at the EEA in Janand Feb 2016 are key dates.

A user group that has joined the discussion rather late in the day and thanks to discussion at the Madrid meetings was the archaeological/cultural community. The biodiversity themes are very strongly linked to existing reporting obligations and there is a view that they are exclusively for these obligations – in part as there are very clear examples of this. This community is keen to engage with the process though are hampered to one extent by the lack of a central reporting obligation. Opportunistic attendance at key meetings and conferences is a good way of engaging this audience.

Implementing the changes proposed for the Rome meetings is also a key factor as they flag a few of inconsistencies between the actual datasets and schema as it currently stands. Failure to do this will result in data creators being “creative” in their application of the standards which will lead to confusion at later dates. These changes, once adopted by INSPIRE representatives, also need to be clearly communicated via several mechanisms- the discussion boards, email and crucially at the relevant EU level reporting obligation meetings.