Minutes of the Technical Group Meeting of WG DIKE

DIKE TG1/2012/12

Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
Technical Group meeting of Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE)
3 July 2012 (9:00-17:30)
European Environment Agency, Kongens Nytorv 6, Copenhagen
Document: / DIKE TG1/2012/12
Title: / Minutes of the Technical Group meeting of WG DIKE – Final
Prepared by: / DG Environment
Date prepared: / 22/08/2012

Minutes of the Technical Group meeting of WG DIKE

1 Opening of meeting, adoption of agenda, terms of reference

The Commission opened the meeting and, together with the European Environment Agency (EEA), welcomed the participants. The meeting was chaired by David Connor of DG Environment's Marine Environment and Water Industries Unit. A list of participants is given in Annex 1. The papers and presentations for the meeting are listed in Annex 2 and are available on CIRCA. The draft agenda was adopted without further changes (DIKE TG1/2012/01).

The draft Terms of Reference (ToRs) for technical work to be addressed during the meeting and in the period up to the next meeting of WG DIKE was introduced (DIKE TG1/2012/02). The UK proposed some amendments to these ToRs; a final version is given at Annex 3.

To set the scene for the agenda of the meeting, the EEA gave an overview presentation on 'Access to data from Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) reporting' (DIKE TG1/2012/007), including emphasis on priority setting in relation to regionally relevant data sets and their links to indicators. The Commission emphasised that Article 19(3) of the MSFD should be fulfilled in a way which will enhance regional coherence and support future assessments. The potential use of the European Marine Observation and Data Network (EMODnet) was highlighted, noting that DG MARE expected to set up a governance arrangement involving Member States and that the next contracts for EMODnet have explicit requirements to engage with Member States on MSFD data issues (via WG DIKE).

2 Quick win 5: Reporting outcomes of initial assessments data from reporting sheets using a grid-based approach

Following an initial proposal by Germany and discussions at WG DIKE in March 2012 on the potential to use grids for reporting, the European Topic Centre for Inland, Coastal and Marine Waters (ETC/ICM) presented details of how grid-based reporting could be achieved (DIKE TG1/2012/03, TG1/2012/08). The ETC/ICM highlighted that a grid-based approach had the benefit of being independent of administrative borders and allows for more efficient handing of data post its submission. The use of such grids was already in place for other Directives (e.g. Habitats Directive).

Several Member States provided feedback on the proposals, including that there was a need for further discussion on the use of grid-based reporting, that it should not be a requirement for 2012 reporting, on the difficulties of extrapolating point data to grids, on the need to integrate many data sets to derive a status assessment for an area, and on the need to discuss boundary issues with neighbouring countries. Some Member States were supportive of using grids (for certain purposes), whilst others had concerns which needed further discussion. It was noted that the waters of the Azores, Madeira and the Canary Islands were not covered by the available INSPIRE-compatible European grids.

The Commission and the EEA clarified that:

1. discussions on the use of grids should distinguish the submission of geographic data by Member States from subsequent visualisation of information using grids (such as through a WISE viewer);
2. information reported in the reporting sheets for Art. 8, 9 and 10 needed to be associated to geographic assessment areas, which could be represented as GIS polygons (multiple, possible overlapping) or as sets of grid cells (in a common grid);
3. the option of submitting geographic data in grid format for 2012 reporting was an alternative to use of polygon data; it related only to reporting of assessment areas and not to associated data sets which are being addressed under Art 19.3 and are often better kept in their native format (e.g. point, line);
4. assessment information (for each reporting sheet) should apply to the entire assessment area (whether represented as one polygon or by multiple grid cells), based on a Member State's assessment of available data for the area; in this context, there should be no direct link between individual data points and particular grid cells of an assessment area.

Four countries (DE, DK, IT, MT) indicated they were considering reporting their assessment areas in grid format; it was consequently concluded that there was a need for technical guidance on reporting using grids. This would be prepared by the ETC/ICM.

3 Map of MSFD regions and subregions

The EEA presented a further revision of the draft map of the MSFD regions and subregions (DIKE TG1/20102/04rev1 and TG1/20102/09), including amendments to now distinguish EU and non-EU waters in each region and to show extended Continental Shelf areas where these had been provided by Member States. It was noted that boundaries of the regions and subregions appeared to be substantively agreed, and that outstanding issues related mostly to the depiction of MS waters within the regions/subregions.

Following comments by Member States, it was agreed that the map should be amended to:

1. Update the areas of marine waters for Greece and Cyprus;
2. Not show formal subdivisions (only designated by Spain);
3. Correct the Bay of Biscay boundary for Spain's waters;
4. Show Croatian waters as EU waters, as they will join the EU in July 2013;
5. Confirm the areas of Continental Shelf between Ireland, France and the UK;
6. Confirm the boundaries around the Faroes (Denmark);
7. Add a legend to indicate the meaning of the different colours.

Member States should provide any further comments/corrections to the EEA; an updated version of the map would be prepared for the next meeting of WG DIKE.

4 Quick win 1: Developing an overview to allow prioritisation and identification of data used in initial assessments

The ETC/ICM presented a proposal for Member States to provide a metadata catalogue covering the datasets used in their Initial Assessments under Article 8 (DIKE TG1/2012/05, TG1/2012/10); this would help fulfil the requirements of Article 19(3) by providing a list of data sets with web links to where they could be accessed. The intention would be to use existing metadata catalogues, wherever possible, based on existing metadata standards. The EEA highlighted that these catalogues should indicate the nature (e.g. topic, parameters) and format of data used so that commonalities between Member States could be identified; this in turn would enable the prioritisation of future work on common datasets, linked to common indicators and future assessment needs.

In discussion, it was noted that there was a need to clarify what metadata was needed and in what level of detail, and that the catalogue should be linked to the reporting sheets for Articles 8, 9 and 10 and to the INSPIRE processes. It was emphasised that web links (or associated information) needed to point to specific datasets used rather than to more general catalogues of associated data.

It was concluded that provision of metadata was a sound initial step to implementation of Article 19(3), provided it could be linked to the reporting sheets for Articles 8, 9 and 10. Directly linking the metadata on underlying data sets to the metadata for the assessments in the reporting database would provide an efficient way of capturing the information and ensuring a direct linkage between the two processes; if this were done, Member States indicated the catalogues could be completed by April 2013 (i.e. the same deadline as the non-priority reporting which includes the assessment metadata). The EEA indicated that this provided a practical proposal to implementation of Article 19(3) with only a slight delay from the January 2013 timeline of the Directive. A precise proposal along these lines will be prepared for the next meeting of WG DIKE. Italy and the UK offered to provide input on specific aspects of metadata (e.g. relating to the values of indicators used, aspects of date stamping).

5 Quick win 2: Developing experience with working in a distributed network - nutrients, chlorophyll, and dissolved oxygen

The EEA and ETC/ICM presented a paper on the potential use of the distributed network systems of EMODnet for providing MSFD-relevant datasets (DIKE TG1/2012/06, TG1/2012/11). The paper focused on the provision of nutrient, chlorophyll and dissolved oxygen data via the Chemistry and Biology EMODnet portals and sought feedback on the feasibility and technical aspects of using such systems for MSFD reporting.

In discussion, it was noted that:

1. The MSFD should be considered as a 'use-case' for EMODnet; this would need to include defining standards for MSFD data (linked also to INSPIRE standards and processes);
2. EMODnet may not address all types of data used in MSFD assessments; there is a need to further assess the potential linkages from the metadata catalogue (proposed under item 4) with the types of data being accommodated by EMODnet, including assessing whether they are unprocessed data sets or processed 'data products'; further work should be closely linked to the indicators needed for future assessments and hence also to future monitoring programmes;
3. Member States would need to work closely with the EMODnet consortia to develop practical solutions for access to MSFD data sets; this should include liaison between WG DIKE and the Marine Observation and Data Expert Group (MODEG);
4. As it is unlikely that there will be an institution from the EMODnet consortia present in every Member State for all data topics, it would be essential that the consortia develop ways to access MSFD (and other) data sets from MS-designated sources (e.g. MS web sites not linked to the EMODnet consortia) without the need for the data to be held by one of the consortia institutions. Such mechanisms need to link to INSPIRE processes which require MS to provide access to environmental data; additionally, it is necessary to review data structures, as these currently differ in approach between EMODnet chemistry and biology portals;
5. There is a need to flag the data used for a particular MSFD assessment in EMODnet; it might also be useful to flag data of potential use for MSFD; such labelling would best be done as part of the metadata prior to it being made available to EMODnet (i.e. by MS when preparing an MSFD dataset);
6. Existing data flows, such as from the Member State to the ICES data centre for regional sea convention assessments, and to the EEA for State of Environment assessments, needed to be accommodated;
7. Quality assurance aspects need to be considered; at present ICES/RSCs typically undertake a QA on data provided prior to its use in regional assessments; this QA aspect is not yet present in EMODnet.

The comments above will help shape a forward process to be developed for discussion at the next meeting of WG DIKE.

6 Quick win 3: Developing maps of human activities and expanding on chemical parameters

The EEA advised the meeting that a new theme on data about the distribution and intensity of human activities in the marine environment would be started soon under EMODnet. As this type of data was also of direct relevance to MSFD implementation, Member States were encouraged to actively engage in this project. This could be achieved initially via discussions between WG DIKE, MODEG and the appointed EMODnet consortium for this topic. The Commission advised that such data should be obtained, wherever possible, from 'sustainable' data sources (i.e. from organisations who actively maintain and update the data), as this offered the best long-term solution for maintenance of these data at a European level.

Several Member States indicated that such data on human activities had already been collated as part of the MSFD initial assessment and to help assess the footprint of pressures on the marine environment. It would therefore be important that future EMODnet work does not duplicate this work.

7 Quick win 4: Streamlining of different reporting streams related to marine species and habitats

Due to a lack of time during the meeting, this item was not discussed; rather it was considered more appropriate to focus on discussing the long term objectives for this aspect of WG DIKE's work (i.e. access to data under Article 19(3)). To this end, the four objectives set out in section 1 of paper DIKE 5/2012/09 were reviewed; based on this discussion, the objectives were modified as follows:

The long-term objectives for developing WISE-Marine (i.e. by 2018) in regards to access to data are:

a.  To have defined a prioritized list of data sets (either data or data products)[1], directly linked to GES indicators and monitoring programmes and which will support future assessments, and that are common at a sub-region, region or EU level (as appropriate, depending on the topic and appropriate regional scale) in support of 2018 MSFD art 8 and afterwards the art 20.3b assessments;

b.  To have agreed the content and format of each data set, according to the needs of MSFD for use in assessments, such that the data sets can be readily aggregated (within countries, within regions, at EU level); these should use relevant INSPIRE standards and where needed more detailed standards, such as developed within SeaDataNet, EMODnet and Eionet;

c.  To have established effective and efficient data management mechanisms at national and EU levels which allow ready access to the data[2] for the EEA and the EC according to the requirements of MSFD Article 19(3), including regular updating of the data as new data are collected. This should make best use of existing mechanisms, including reporting under other EU Directives, the Data Collection Framework, EMODnet, GMES and Regional Sea Convention mechanisms;