Eionet Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Indicators and Assessments NRC Workshop - Réseau Eionet France
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Eionet Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Indicators and Assessments NRC
Workshop
19 – 20 November 2015, EEA
Draft report
Authors: Kristijan Čivić & Ben Delbaere, ETC/BD (ECNC)
This report gives a brief summary of the meeting of the biodiversity NRCs1 that was held on
19-20 November 2015. This was the first meeting bringing together the biodiversity NRCs in
their new form (NRC1on Biodiversity data and information and NRC2 on Biodiversity and
ecosystems indicators and assessment), the start of a new phase.
Beate Werner, Head of the EEA Biodiversity Unit as of 1 January 2016, opened the meeting
on 19 November at 13.30. She described the aim of the meeting, which was basically to:
1) inform NRCs of recent developments at the EEA and how the NRC input feeds in to
these;
2) exchange information on activities carried out by NRCs and their experiences in doing
so;
3) get more clarity on the role and expectations of NRCs within the EEA biodiversity
information flow.
Furthermore, the meeting is an important component in building a community of partners that
all work on similar activities.
This was followed by a quick round table for all participants2 to highlight what aspects of
biodiversity information flow or assessments they are working on.
Plenary presentations
The afternoon of 19 November, chaired by Sophie Condé (ETC/BD), was largely devoted to
presentations by EC DG Environment and EEA on recent developments3. The session was
framed by introductions on the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, its mid-term review and the
fitness check of the Habitats and Birds Directives (presented by Anne Teller, DG
Environment). Further presentations also covered the role of BISE (Sabine Roscher,
ETC/BD), the State of Nature report and expectations for the next round of reporting (Carlos
Romao, EEA), steps towards SEBI 2020 (Katarzyna Biala, EEA), making the CDDA more
Inspire compliant (Darja Lihteneger, EEA), and the rationale for the reorganisation of the
Eionet biodiversity NRCs (Beate Werner, EEA).
Day 2, chaired by Andrus Meiner (EEA), continued with some presentations in a wider
context, covering MAES (Markus Erhard, EEA), IPBES (Amore Torre-Marín, IPBES
TSU/ECA) and the DG Environment contract on an EU biodiversity outlook.
1
List of acronyms included in annex 1
2
List of participants is available from http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-biodiversity-and-ecosystems-indicators-
and-assessments/library/meetings-and-workshops/nrc-biodiversity-2015/participants-list
3
All PowerPoint slides are available from http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-biodiversity-and-ecosystems-
indicators-and-assessments/library/meetings-and-workshops/nrc-biodiversity-2015
1Breakout groups
The plenary sessions were followed by a set of interactive parallel sessions with NRCs
splitting up in smaller groups. These groups all exchanged experiences and views on the four
same questions:
1. Which types of activities related to ecosystems are supported by your organisation
and/or your country?
2. What are the main successes and or issues related to these activities?
3. What could be the role of EEA to help a better implementation of any ecosystem
assessment?
4. What specific roles and responsibilities have NRCs to help in a European ecosystem
assessment?
The specific points addressed during the plenary session and the detailed results of the
breakout sessions are included in annex 2 and 3 (unedited) to this document. The overall
points raised are listed below.
Issues that biodiversity NRCs encounter in relation to their activities for Eionet
Groups were asked to discuss in pairs their activities and what kind of issues they come
across in implementing these. The main issues listed by the groups in connection to
biodiversity NRC activities (no distinction between NRC1 or 2) are:
• Lack of political support by the countries (linking services to ecosystems is not easily
recognized and therefore awareness and support with authorities is missing). In
connection to this it was noted that MAES is not legally binding and can therefore not
be enforced.
• Link to the local level is not clear; activities seem to be too abstract and ‘far away’.
• Lack of understanding or knowledge on how to valuate ecosystem services.
• Lack of data processing capacity (in terms of server or computer power to process
increasingly large data sets).
• Too many (changes to) methodologies [not specified which methodologies this
concerns].
• Lack of (human) resources to work on ecosystem assessments (in addition to other
activities expected from NRCs, e.g. their responsibility on data/reporting).
• Lack of data exchange across sectors (resulting in duplication or use of different
standards).
• Bias in data coverage within countries (i.e. unbalanced good coverage of biodiversity-
related data within protected areas and other natural areas as opposed to more
intensively used areas).
• Lack of knowledge on how to linking (data on) habitats to ecosystems.
• Lack of data collection expertise/capacity.
• Difficulties in aggregation of data across geographical and temporal scales.
2• Lack of transfer of national experience to the European level (i.e. learning from each
other).
• CDDA does not match Inspire/SEIS.
What the NRCs expect from the EEA to support their NRC activities.
The groups listed freely any type of support that the EEA (or others) could provide them with
to ease their role as NRCs. Below is a summary of a ‘wish list’.
• Improved communication and information exchange (e.g. mailing lists, notifications
of new products/files).
• Help to put political pressure on MS to work on ecosystem assessments.
• Provide guidance (e.g. case studies, methodologies, support to associated countries).
• More Eionet meetings, webinars, interactive sessions to support exchange and
learning from each other.
• Harmonization of protocols, reporting.
• Inform about activities and roles of related groups (e.g. MAES working group).
• Offer training, capacity building, study tours.
• EEA to participate in research projects for direct input into matching needs and setting
standards. [during the meeting EEA responded that EEA cannot participate in
research projects as full partner and occasionally takes part in project advisory
boards if there are mutual benefits].
• EEA to help in translating (digesting), making available, or implementing research
results (more widely, rather than in individual projects as meant above). EEA in its
role as end user and in helping setting the research agenda with the Commission, to
help focusing as well on applicability of research activities on national scale.
• Country-focused helpdesk at EEA. [in response the EEA referred to their country
desk officers, which have that role and may be mobilized more].
• BISE to be more an assessment tool and not only a knowledge base/portal.
• Explain more about MAES - focused meetings.
• Specify roles and expectations for individual MS.
What biodiversity NRCs can offer to the process
The groups then held a brainstorm session on what kind of role they see for themselves within
the Eionet setting. This resulted in the following overall suggestions:
• Sharing experience and progress at national level.
• Offering and sharing good practice (what works and why?).
• Validating European products at national level.
• Acting as an interface between EEA and national level.
• Sharing software and tools (+ flowchart on considerations made in developing them).
• Raise awareness nationally about ecosystem services and their value.
3• Contributing to a unified reporting system.
Wrapping up and next steps
The summary by Ben Delbaere of the main group results was followed by a presentation of
Beate Werner of the overall ‘action points’ from the two-day meeting:
• INSPIRE: before the end of the year/early next year EEA will follow up and send out
a questionnaire and organise a webinar to which NRCs are invited to participate.
[note: a webinar has meanwhile been organized].
• Country core data flows (CCDF): NRCs are invited to give feedback on development
of scoring criteria, taking into account the papers from the NFP group and the EEA
management Board.
• BISE: support from NRCs is needed for
– update of country pages
– provide and fill in MAES case studies
• Coordination with CHM focal points would be required for work on TCT EEA to
clarify a possible governance structure to communicate and agree with Countries and
CBD.
• EEA to share with NRCs the options for information exchange:
– BISE, Eionet forum, Webinars, other platform?
– consider peer training as capacity building;
– bringing the (reported) information into the (ecosystem, ES) assessment,
Inspire could help that ‘in limited form’ by supporting the necessary spatial
data formats (because the ecosystem assessment means ‘maps’);
– including more information beyond environment, e.g. sectorial information.
• Networking and governance:
– meetings and NRC structure ‘2 in 1’, will stay with shifting foci
– links with other networks (e.g. MAES, CHM) to be reinforced
– be explicit about roles
• EU 28 – EEA39 – ‘CHM’ have a different coverage, but are important
for Eionet to work synergistically either towards European legislation
or towards countries’ global obligations
– Regarding content contributions and exchange with NRC it might be helpful to
focus on concrete ‘projects’ or ‘outputs’, that also might be relevant to report
to NFP level.
• Sharing tools, such as:
– Assessment tools, Quickscan, ESP mapping tools, Oppla.eu
Beate closed the meeting by thanking all participants for the very rich meeting and active
participation. The discussions and input from all participants gave sufficient food for thought
for future cooperation with NRC1 and NRC2 and between various NRCs. The EEA is
dedicated to support this process and to take the views from the NRCs serious in the EEA
action planning.
4Annex 1: List of acronyms used in the meeting
7EAP 7th Environmental Action Programme (of the EU)
AEI Agri-Environmental Indicators
BIP Biodiversity Indicator Partnership
BISE Biodiversity Information System for Europe
CAP Common Agricultural Policy (of the EU)
CBD-NFP National Focal Point for the Convention on Biological Diversity
CCDF Country Core Data Flow
CDDA Common Dataset on Designated Areas
CDR Common Depository Report
CHM Clearing-House Mechanism
CIF Common Implementation Framework (for the EU Biodiversity Strategy)
CMEF Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (of the CAP)
CSI Core Set of Indicators (of EEA)
EPDF Environmental Priority Data Flows
EUNIS EU Nature Information System
GIIR Green Infrastructure Implementation and Restoration
IMS Indicator Management System (of the EEA)
INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community
IPBES Intergovernmental Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
IR-ISDSS Implementing Rules for Interoperability of Spatial Data Sets and Services (within INSPIRE)
KIP Knowledge Innovation Programme (within Horizon 2020)
MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MAES Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services
MAWP Multi-Annual Work Plan (of EEA)
MPA Marine Protected Area
MSFD Marine Strategy Framework Directive
MTR Mid-Term Review (of the EU Biodiversity Strategy)
NCA Natural Capital Accounting
NRC National Reference Centre (part of Eionet)
SEBI Streamlining European Biodiversity Indicators
SEIS Shared Environmental Information System
SOER State of Environment Report
SPI Science-Policy Interface
TCT Target Crosslinkage Tool
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
WDPA World Database on Protected Areas
WFD Water Framework Directive
5Annex 2: points raised during the plenary meeting
(only edited for readability purposes)
Some examples of participants’ expectations from the meeting
• Assessments and mapping aspects from different countries
• Feedback to new regulations development
• Compare approaches from other countries to mapping and assessment of ecosystems
• Reorganisation of EIONET and linkages between EIONET and MAES process
EU biodiversity policy developments
• Things will happen very soon in cooperation between the directives (nature directives,
Water Framework Directive and Marine Strategy Framework Directive) – Vilnius
process.
• Extrapolation of indicators to 2020 is being done inspired by global biodiversity
outlook (GBO4).
Discussion:
? In the EEA countries, progress of the National Biodiversity Strategies has to be
reported to the government. How is this done on national level?
? How is data fed into the assessment?
Slovakia: State Nature Conservancy is involved. Trying to streamline this process with
Article 17. It used to be very general. Now there is a National Action Plan with steps and
targets in relation to species and habitats. Hopefully in the future the assessment will be
more simple using Art 17 data to measure progress on national level.
Germany: There is day to day cooperation between the scientific agency and the ministry.
There is a working group from several departments to get all aspects into the WG.
Italy: Institute works with the ministry on reporting on Art 17 and did reporting on Bird
Directive. It also provides technical (support) to the ministry in reporting – working
together.
? In the Netherlands Nature Outlook is still ongoing. It covers 2020-2050, so beyond
the EU Strategy to 2020. What is the best way to communicate to this group?
There is the EIONET forum website to share information. Send an email to Joanna and
she can upload the information. We should think about a platform to exchange info in
digital form.
? What is going on with fitness check? Can nature directives be simplified? From
outside of the EU the system seems very big and complicated. Is there tendency to
simplification?
There are proposals for simplification, but also for adding new things, or to merge the
2 directives. The process for revising is very complicated. Question is what can be
improved and is it worth the effort of going through the procedure. EC is open to
suggestions. Focus now is on filling the gaps. There is demand for indicator based
6reporting based on Aichi targets. There is a push to streamline Sustainable
Development goal and Aichi targets.
? Science-Policy Interface is funded from DG research. How will this fit into the
existing landscape of things?
This will be explained at MAES workshop in December. It should be an intelligent
platform for dynamic exchange between policy demands and information feedback. DG
research has a list of questions to test the mechanisms. Requests from policy side dealt
with by broad scientific community and answered in a simple way.
EEA organisation and EIONET developments
State of Nature report
? Is it possible to improve in the future to have more cross-linkages on the pressures.
More cross-fertilisation on pressures between different units.
? Assessment of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy will happen in 2020 to have the
new strategy in 2021. So delivery of next reporting round might not be in time.
EEA is working on the list of pressures and threats. Cross-linkages cannot be in the
reporting – it is an analysis of data afterwards.
In deadlines for reporting we can win a month or two. EEA is trying to improve the
procedures to speed up the process and have the assessment per bio-geo region in
2020 already and not in 2021. Might need support on political level. EEA will do best
to cut corners and speed up the process.
? In progress to the target: the diagram shown looks very positive.
There is no inconsistency with the data. Progress to the target is only looking into
positive data not in the negatives.
? Article 17 is reporting only for the EU MS. Is there some reporting for non-EU
member states?
Perhaps we can discuss in EIONET if some sort of reporting (lighter) could be done
by EIONET members.
There is a need to clear the process and remove redundancies. There is a need for
integrated assessment. In MAES we use ecosystem assessment not biogeographical. It
is difficult to on one hand have simpler but on the other hand better and more precise.
Reorganisation of EIONET network and Revision of plans for EIONET priority data
flows
? It is not indicated what is new in comparison to the old situation.
There was only 1 NRC in the past and now there are 2.
There 2 type NRCs and this is the first meeting in this new setting.
Making the CDDA data model INSPIRE compliant
? What will be procedure for consulting EIONET for INSPIRE.
7 A: A questionnaire will be the first step. Then to organise a webinar to show the new
data model, show differences and transition to the new model. Perhaps a specific
meetings (with a smaller group of countries with some experience in INSPIRE) for
detailed discussions in certain countries. Webinars not best for going into details.
Questionnaire this year (2015). Webinar next year (2016).
? How much will data collection procedure for CDDA differ to the current data
collecting procedure? Estonia put a lot of effort into automatization of exporting
data for the CDDA. If yes this needs to be communicated in time.
EEA is working on this and will explore and test how this is possible. More will be
known after tests – early 2016. Not clear yet how much change is required. There will be
compatibility from current to new CDDA data model. Would be good to have some
experiences form other data sets and INSPIRE compliance. This will also be exchanged.
2015/2016 CDDA delivery will be done in the old procedure still.
? INSPIRE is technical driven development. Not sure what the consequences will be.
Smaller changes can be made and adjustments. But if the changes will affect
content and factual data, in a federal country, this would cause problems if it will
ask for data that federal level does not have.
What is required by INSPIRE can be provided by CDDA there is no conflict. No
additional data is expected to be necessary. There will be options on levels of data
delivery (e.g. simple text field or more complex structure – but there will be option to
choose an option).
Webinar will be organised in beginning 2016. Questionnaire by end of 2015 with 6-10
questions easy to answer by early January. Next round of CDDA no major change
related to INSPIRE.
? What if responsible institution for INSPIRE is different from NRC, how will data
flow go?
Only 1 data flow. EEA tries to work with these communities. There should not be
conflict and double delivery. EEA is member of INSPIRE coordination committee.
Early December is the next meeting. This question can be asked there.
SEBI / BISE /CHM
• EC is doing the review of the indicators that were considered and in the end used for
MTR.
• EC is funding a MINDGAP project by UNEP WCMC about different indicator sets -
With countries national strategies what indicators were used.
• SBSTA was proposing that CHM focal point could provide information on meeting
the Aichi targets. They could do it but the information needs to be approved
(validated) by SBSTA focal point.
• Online reporting tool and the TCT tool could be integrated. There will soon be
bilateral discussion between CBD and the EEA on how they can work together. MS
could also indicate how their targets link to CITES or CMS
8• Country pages in BISE could be filled in by EIONET; concerning the TCT it is not
clear who can do what. Difficult to promote the tool.
? A link between NFP for CHM and NRC is already in the description of NRCs.
? NFP and NRC are different people. They communicate but difficult to coordinate.
? Does a checklist (algorithm) exist showing when does information need to be
delivered, who needs to provide what in what format. A workflow (perhaps digital).
An interactive tool showing the process.
Does not exist. Problem is this is different from country to country. EEA cannot look
into processes of each country. NRC profile specifies what knowledge is required.
Can clarify a bit between CBD and EEA level.
The core group, which developed TCT, has possibility to continue. They were invited
to the CHM and NFP meetings. The results can be presented there and clarify the
requirements on national level for this tool. EEA needs to know if the tool needs to be
further developed. Participants should say if the tool should be further developed.
Users to say if it is useful and what improvements might be needed to make it as
useful as possible. Then also explore how it could go with CBD reporting tool. So
explore country requirements.
Discussion day 2
MAES and IPBES
? Does Switzerland have support from ESMERALDA and what message can be
brought back to Switzerland?
MAES is not limited to EU but includes N and CH. CH can join ESMERALDA
thematic workshop. Building of community of practice is important step. For
monitoring GEOBON should be further developed with EEA.
? In Finland was difficult to convince the government of the importance of MAES.
How to improve this?
Political support is very important. Upcoming EU presidencies (Slovak and Dutch)
want to put this high on the agenda. One way would be through Council Conclusions.
But it is important to reach the ministers and show them that this is technical work but
very important for policy.
? How are contributions to IPBES being financed?
All IPBES authors are voluntary; Israel is also participating with Europe. All the time
is voluntary only participating to meetings for countries is cofounded. That is why the
political support is the key.
? Switzerland was white in the map of pressures. Isn’t nitrogen a core data CH delivers
to the EEA? It is motivating to see your data in the map.
Gaps can be filled and the map improved if we can get the data, but resources are
limited.
9? How does data set become CCDF4? So CDDA and Natura 2000 will become
CCDF? Natura is very complex process. Does anything need to be changed? E.g.
you cannot have Natura data each year. So what is difference for MS if a data set
becomes a CCDF?
We cannot and will not change procedures of the legal data flows. EEA is supporting
this with its supporting tools. Certainly it will not change the timing. EEA wants to
give an overview and where is the focus of data processing – important political
message to the network where resources go. EEA is ready to help streamlining. CDR
and reporting tool is very important tool and streamlining is at the technical level. It
will not change the arrangement between the EC and MS.
It is a way to show which data flows are happening and important – to bring them to
be more visible.
? Would be useful to know which MS will select which ecosystem service for
mapping? More info on the state of Copernicus?
Each ecosystem provides more services so we talk about what is the valuing process.
And it is not the selection process but how to get the full picture.
Copernicus there is a website to contact people. Grassland layer will be available very
soon.
Final discussion
Synchronize meetings of both NRCs this is useful. Good to have 2 days to digest and
think through things for second day. This seems to be good format.
This meeting useful to bring experience to European level but also to exchange
experience between countries (colleagues).
Why do we have 2 NRCs? NRC is contact point on all aspects not just one specific
issue. When one issue raises it should be in focus, but in 5 years might be another
issue in focus. Discussion last 2 days was useful, but there will always be 1 NRC
(person) for Germany (even if there will be 3 and 4).
Support to have 1 coordinator focal point. Usually the work will be done by more
persons anyway. If the coordination is between 2 reference centres they should
coordinate between themselves. Previous system was better.
? If you are not in MAES how do you see the role of your MAES representative and
your own? How do you want to link to MAES process? How to help non-EU
countries? EEA is not allowed to be part of research projects – only in steering
committees.
? Can EEA facilitate the country-to-country level exchange of information (e.g. on
indicators). BIP does not really work in that way.
Norway representative will check if and how Norway could join MAES WG facility.
Ahead of this meeting there was a background document circulated with what the MS
are doing on MAES and with contact point. Document available as background and
can be a starting point. This list will be updated annually and available on BISE.
4
CCDF – Country Core Data Flow
10Circulate the list of participants of MAES to see who is contact point in which
country.
There were trainings on mapping tools very appreciated by countries. We will do that
again perhaps on valuation methods. This was very efficient and not too expensive.
The themes will be decided from what is emerging bottom up.
? What was meant by the need for a help desk fro each country?
It was meant as really support on MAES issues - on technical issues of assessments
(help on national level) with the knowledge of the country situation.
There is a country desk officer for each country. They can be used to direct country
specific questions and then get the right answers.
? Guidance on what is needed, data guidance, assessment guidance?
? Lack of capacity in the country, can it be supported by other more experienced
countries (perhaps peer support – not necessarily by EEA)?
? What kind of tools should be made available?
Make existing tools available and also in relation to which tool is best for what - tool
box with guidance what is to be used for what.
There are communities of practice there is ESP tool which is already available. Quick
Scan is more general tool which can be used to combine GIS layers in different ways.
OPENES is creating tools which are available on OPPLA platform. It is important o
get feedback on user experience to know which is more or less useful. There are
things still in research so not yet operational in place.
Hands on workshops were very useful on this. Perhaps MS could take initiative and
give hands on training (EEA could support) some experts sitting together and
exchange experience.
There is a service ´Ask Oppla´ where you can get information: www.oppla.eu
There is discussion on how to make the toolbox from al the ongoing processes.
Perhaps on Oppla which should be self-maintaining. How this will happen is still
discussed (also connected to BISE and its role in it). EC and EEA are assistance and
guidance in the process but it is user led. In January 2016 there is a workshop for non-
EU countries in JRC.
There are reports on the MS level as starting point from most advanced countries. So
this is a start to exchange knowledge.
? What is meant with the need for harmonisation and streamlining?
It is about delivery data for MAES.
There is guidance in MAES and digital atlas. There is a portal to access to delivered
data.
There are document on how to make a case study or web mapping service. There is no
need to really exchange data. More to just have general information available.
? How to access data from non-environment domain (e.g. agriculture) useful for
MAES. There was fear we would identify farms. Then indicators were defined to
11specify which data is needed (not all). It is up to MS to share this data. Do you have
access to other sector data in your countries?
Need to define what data. In some cases we have some data, but need to be very
precise in what data is needed from other sectors. E.G. LPIS data.
Wrap up and closing remarks:
• BISE- there will be request reminder asking assessment NRCs to contribute to MAES
case study;
• CHM TCT meetings in January 2016 so will be followed up on this;
• You want to have more meetings we will see how to pick up on that. EIONET only 1
meeting can be done paid for 1 person – matter of resources. There will be webinars;
• We need to see if BISE is the right tool and platform to exchange info;
• EIONET is between EU 28 and EEA 39 a tool to exchange and contribute between
these 2 groups of countries;
• NRC 2 in 1 – there are clear 2 profiles and it does not matter if this is covered by 1 or
2 person. There will always be 1 workshop and relevant issues will be discussed. In
the country there should be coordination to decide who is coming to the workshop
based on the focus. At MS level country needs to decide who will go (only 1 can be
reimbursed by EEA);
• Tools: a webinar or a common guidance or a paper made by several people. It would
be nice if we work along certain projects and outputs.
12Annex 3: information collected during the breakout groups
(literal transcription - unedited)
All groups were invited to identify types of activities that they were engaged in as part of the
NRC role (column 1), the successes relating to these activities (what works well; column 2),
and the issues that may need to be improved/addressed (column 3).
Activities Successes Issues
- Assessments • Preliminary assessments will be feeding • How to determine the best level of
- CDDA data into NBSAP, MAES relevant detail for mapping (MT)
- Mapping measures -> more detailed mapping will • More detailed data collection
- Data collection be done in due course (MT, I) • CDDA concept does not match
• Reporting obligations on annual basis INSPIRE / SEIS
(MT)
• Study on Wigry Ramsar site (PL) ->
expertise and experience to main MAES
project
• Mapping and assessment of urban
ecosystems (Urban MAES), also
supporting GI (PL)
• National level mapping and assessment
to be ready soon (PL)
CDDA -> Mapping • Software development • Different data (scaling, missing
protected areas and • Methodologies for mapping and values, administration problems)
Natura 2000 assessments • Making user-friendly web
Mapping in general • Mapping in the field and data collection applications for each ecosystem
service
• Various data flows, working in
parallel without much exchange
• Lack of data-flow standardisation
across Europe
• Share CIF model
Ecosystem services • Quantitative descriptions – grasslands • More interaction within and
• Adaptive management between countries
• Habitat mapping • Cooperation: forestry – Birds
organisation – Nature
conservation agencies
• EIONET to offer forum for more
exchange on ecosystem
assessments
Science-policy • Stakeholder consultation (guideline) • Hard to involve opponent
interface • Do’s and don’ts stakeholders
• Management of expectations with • Transfer of national experience to
governments European level
• Use of info-graphics and indicators
Mapping • INSPIRE gives framework for mapping • Missing a lot of information for
ecosystems (CH, B) real comparability
CDDA
• Agreed data model and workflow • Relationship to INSPIRE (upload
Data coordination • Compatibility on an aggregated level vs. service)
• Technical development –> good • Aggregate across scales
framework for data/ information • Data from different dates
exchange • Resolution
• Misunderstanding (e.g. on
political level) that technical
developments lead to thematic
agreements
13Activities Successes Issues
Indicators • National Biodiversity Observatory – • Data availability (existing, field
rather independent from political methods, taxonomic biases,
Assessments
messages ownership)
• Question oriented indicators • Data processing: methods,
• Attracting academic network conceptual framework
• Dealing with heterogeneity and
overseas
• Data formats for GIS layers
• Getting a “core” set of flora and
fauna data
• Reference state
• Indicators often not policy
relevant
• Country reporting vs. informal
data collection
• How to deal with OST
• Lack of resources
CDDA • Collecting and processing data • Lack of human capacity
Ecosystem assessment • Ecosystem assessment • Lack of data expertise & human
capacity
Stakeholder • Better understanding • The process is slow
consultation • Better commitments • Raised discussions (can also be
positive)
Link to services • Progress in discussion, analysis and • Conceptual discussion (including
(economic aspect conceptual knowledge values)
value)
Monitoring • MEETNET: measuring net • Need for a lot of volunteer work
• Engagement with NGOs which receive (by NGOs)
funds
• Volunteer work in monitoring
• Volunteers becoming data owners
• Data in GBIF
• Identify and create protocol for
volunteers
• Networking place working together
with NGOs
IAS • Long tradition on reporting on IAS (in • Not well-organised
Belgium) • Organised before the EU Strategy
• A network on IAS
• Protocol to assess the degree of • Discussions between the regions
invasiveness on how to do the reporting
MAES • Some good data sources (e.g. forests • Lack of political support and
and agriculture) understanding
• Mapping ecosystems, new data from • Hard to link ecosystem data with
LIFE projects services
• MAES process not legally binding
causing lack of actions by
governments
• Some ecosystems are missing – no
economic interest
• Does anyone look at/ reads the
assessments?
14Activities Successes Issues
Conservation of species • Species success stories • Lack of funds for conservation
and habitats • National plans for conservation of projects
critical species • Geographical unevenness
• Red list of habitats and species • Lack of interest from different
• Guidelines to manage habitats and stakeholders
species
Indicator development • Indicators for environmental quality • Not enough resources to keep up
objectively used in reporting with updating/ collecting data
• Implementing indicators for forestry • Not enough data to create all
and protected areas indicators needed
• No established flows in some
areas/ topics
• Lacking biodiversity and
ecosystem indicators
• Difficult to make indicators for
ecosystem services
Natura 2000 mapping • Habitat baseline inventory of Natura • Missing data and mapping actions
sites • Natura 2000 habitat may not be
• Good data for all Natura sites the classification system most
• Natura 2000 mapping and monitoring needed for good data
projects
Making proposals for • Natura 2000 network proposal with • Lack of monitoring system and
developing the more than 1000 potential sites sporadic collection of data; no
(potential) Natura 2000 • In 2018 Latvia will revise its Natura order and proscribed obligations
Network 2000 network and probably delineate • Concern and problems about
new territories “use” of compensation measures
for impact on Natura 2000 site
Mapping • In 2016 Latvia will start species and • Pressure from society against new
habitats inventory in whole country inventory
• List of potential protected areas related • Lack of serious evaluation of
to national legislation potential protected area
• Problems with new inventory and
possible restrictions for different
activities
Inventory • Collecting new data on flora, fauna, • Wide area: 780 000 km2
habitat types with field inventory
surveys and growing data according to
endemism (IUCN, Bern)
• Valuable outcomes from MBIMP
• New species found
• Completed 25 cities
Assessment methods • Monetary evaluations might be feasible • Economic values always specific
and interesting to concrete decision/ scenario
• Assessment using the local approach • Values may differ to large extent
(Tier – approach) for each indicator if between different sites and due to
applicable with reasonable effort, methodological issues
comparable to national and • Measurement of cultural
international level, when useful also at ecosystem services and its
local scale integration into the ecosystem
• Good examples of policy interesting concept is not yet satisfactory
ecosystem assessments: - what are the • Check together the
benefits; for which policy areas communication of Ecosystem
(broader than just biodiversity) services concept, the indicators,
and spatial mapping – could be
optimised
15Activities Successes Issues
Ecosystem assessments • Some data is available • Do not cover the whole country
(in general) • Agreed general methodologies • Quality of data is variable
• Working groups established or under • Data for some ecosystems is
preparation totally missing
• Coordination bodies in place • Detailed methodologies at
• Pilot projects implemented national level do not exist
• Acquiring licenses to get data and
programmes
• Technical problems in assessing
large mass of data
• Common/ detailed methodology
about the format of data and map
delivery
• Financial political support is not
existing
• Human resources is not sufficient
• Pollution data (nutrients) exists
but not used
Habitat mapping • Vegetation is more or less mapped • Data availability for animals
• Distribution data of vertebrates and • Animal data not used for habitat
protected species is quite good (in mapping
Estonia) • Coordination of efforts at official
level
• Relation between habitat ->
ecosystem and their definition
Getting the right data • There is more information and of • Lack of harmonisation
for ecosystem higher quality than before • Data availability from other
assessments at all • Better cooperation with other departments (e.g. agriculture,
levels departments/ region water)
• Using the same basic data for assessing • Data on functional biodiversity is
the ecosystem services lacking for assessing ecosystem
• Using common minimal data model for services (e.g. soil fauna)
data collection • Lack of data in general
Natura 2000 • Involvement of stakeholders in the • How to make ecosystem services
management planning process (PL and DK) assessments relevant to the local
level -> how to transfer the
message from EU level to local
level
• Local level has no connection
with work on ecosystem (services)
work
16You can also read
