Implementing GEOSS Data Sharing Action Plan: Biodiversity Insights

1. EuroGOOS Annual Meeting 2009/10/06-2009/10/08 • 2b) Practical ways to contribute to the GEOSS data Core: Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Health • Chair: Rob Jongman (EBONE project) • Reporter: Kate Larkin (EuroSITES project) • 5 presentations • Overview, demonstration of EuroGEOSS, project case studies (land, marine) • Summary + Conclusions GEO GEPW5 8-9 February 2010

2. EuroGEOSS: Implementing the GEOSS Data Sharing Action Plan: Biodiversity Stefano Nativi

3. Presentations from 3 projects / case studies: Stefan Lang

4. Summary of discussions: -Q. What data qualifies as ‘GEOSS Data Core’? -Primary data: in situ ocean biogeochemistry, ecosystem level to species and genetic level (EU bioinformatics), precipitation, population -Derived data Going beyond ‘data’ utilising tools e.g. maps, biogeographical zones, environmental stratification, ecosystem distribution, modelling output of catchment, DEM (Digital Elevation Model) to produce slopes, floods, forecasting, Integrated image analysis and modelling systems. -Q. How will GEOSS Data Core deal with data from different processing levels and geographical ranges from local to global? (raw data to derived products) and from individual datasets through to catalogues of data – need to be homogeneous and use test cases. -Q. How can we best include ‘citizen network’s for biodiversity measurements? They already exist several countries, using mobile phone networks/camera/GPS. NB. These provide observations NOT distribution data. Sharing data adds value. -Q. How do we ensure data tracking/tagging? Descriptive metadata information and QC (some self-regulating, others time consuming.

5. Summary of discussions: • There are still challenges of open access to bio/eco data • Multi-source data sharing – dilemma between GEOSS philosophy and restricted access by industry etc. e.g. UNEP-WCMC protected areas global database – habitat and RS data not yet coordinated. • Confidentiality/policies/mandates of individual organisations. • Restricted access to some datasets e.g. location/precise measurements for species conservation or mandates/policies. • How can we get SME’s/industry involved and balance research/commercial needs with open access? E.g. stimulate the market/interest byupload examples of products to the service providers. Near real-time data streaming vs. ‘harvesting’ downloads weekly/monthly • Data analysis and Quality control for biodiversity/ecosystem variables can be time consuming (= expensive/restricted access), research needs e.g. publications vs. society needs (data available with minimal time delay) • Biodiversity/ecosystem datasets are largely produced by • research funding – need more policy driven data and funding.

6. Some conclusions from 2b) • Research vs. Operational: Biodiversity/ecosystem/health monitoring is generally at a less mature operational stage (i.e. largely research driven) compared to physical/geophysical monitoring. Data collection/data management are largely funded by research projects not long-term or subscription funding, so issues with real-time and sustained observing. • Huge range of biodiversity/ecosystem/health datasets from primary to derived data, local to global, GEOSS Data Core, non-commercial/other. • Contributions of biodiversity/ecosystem/health datasets are expected to increase with emerging technology (sensors, computing) which will allow more accurate and near real-time autonomous monitoring/products of ecosystems and biodiversity, health indicators with increasing complexity e.g. in situ genetic analyses • Enhance the capability for near real-time data flow of biogeochemical data (Technology, QC, tagging, metadata) • -Support research and development and access and uses of emerging sensor technology for new ecosystem/biodiversity indicators/variables e.g. species identification using genetic/molecular approaches, mass spectrometry, computer model products

7. Some conclusions from 2b) -Need to find a way of registering homogeneous datasets to the GEOSS Data Core, including metadata e.g. sensorML and links back to the raw data from the product to ensure traceability. -Metadata and Quality Control needs to be clearly defined -Test cases need to be used to help develop how GEOSS can deal with global data not just Europe/Africa as currently tested. -Europe plays a key role in GEOSS and should lead by example and support Data Sharing Principles…..in a matter of weeks -Test cases from SBA’s Biodiversity, Ecosystem and Health already exist for the GEO Data Core (e.g. E-BONE, ENVIROGRIDS, EuroSITES, BIO_SOS, MS.MONINA and others). Data from these and other projects could be used as test cases in the GEO Data CORE -