1 / 19

WP4 Revision of the Dataflow - Standard Data Form -

Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives Brussels, 18 July 2009. WP4 Revision of the Dataflow - Standard Data Form -. Sabine Roscher. WP4 sub-group meeting. meeting 26/27 March in Paris participants: UK - Dave Chambers BE - Marc Dufrêne CZ - Michael Hosek

thowe
Download Presentation

WP4 Revision of the Dataflow - Standard Data Form -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives Brussels, 18 July 2009 WP4 Revision of the Dataflow- Standard Data Form - Sabine Roscher

  2. WP4 sub-group meeting meeting 26/27 March in Paris participants: UK - Dave Chambers BE - Marc Dufrêne CZ - Michael Hosek DE - Ulrike Raths DG Env ETC/BD Written contributions NL, FR, DE, GR

  3. Removed from SDF (1/2) • Relation with other described sites (1.5) This field has been removed from the SDF, because the GIS data show the spatial relation of the site sufficiently. • History (4.7) The field was originally meant to log the stage by which a site record developed. It has been removed from the SDF, because today systems for versioning of the datasets are available. • Site Protection Status and Relation with Corine Biotop Sites (5) The relation with the Corine Biotop Sites is no longer relevant. The information on national designation will be available from the Common Database on Designated Areas (CDDA), which results from the well established EIONET Priority dataflow or by means of Inspire.

  4. Removed from SDF (2/2) • Altitude (2.4) • The data on the altitude of a site are no longer considered as relevant for the SDF. • Slides and other photographic material(8) • Also slides and other photographic materials is no longer considered as relevant for the SDF.

  5. SDF / CDDAcomparison of designation Example DE: 73 % designation code and percentage cover the same 17 % designation code the same result but cover missing in the SDF CDDA would be improvement 90 % same result my means of GIS overlay with CDDA data 8 % discrepancy, either SDF or GIS overlay correct 2 % designation in not in CDDA data

  6. Revised / adapted Fields (1/4) • Site type (1.1) • The categories for the “site type” are reduced from 11 to 3. The remaining ones are A(=SPA), B(=SCI), C(=SCI+SPA) • Site centre location (2.1) • Explanatory notes improved, units changed to (decimal degrees). • Site surface area, site length (2.2, 2.3) • Also for small sites the area should be > 0, site length is optional now. • Administrative region code and name (2.5) • This field has been simplified to level 2 as a more detailed level is not considered as essential percentage of the administrative region removed as not considered as relevant.

  7. Revised / adapted Fields (2/4) • Habitat types (Annex I) (3.1) • instead of percentage cover in the site the cover in hectare • instead of the classified value for the relative surface the percentage cover in the Member State • the field data quality is introduced to indicate whether the data quality is good, medium or poor. • Species (Article 4 BD, Annex II HD) (3.2) • simplified to one form, which can be used for all species groups. • entries for different “population types” (breeding, wintering, …) of a species possible now • structure of the form field for population size was substantially enhanced • the percentage cover in the Member State instead of the classified values introduced.

  8. Data are not ‘fit for purpose’ example population size Use case Assess sufficiency of national N2K-Network for a particular species. Basic flow Obtain population size (min and max) for a specific species in all N2000 sites in a particular country in order to compare national population size reported by Art. 17. Issues A significant issue relates to the content of the search fields. The following situation could apply: It is not possible to extract data on population size from N2K database due to heterogeneity of entries. => Solution Standardize entries (allow for min/max values only, put unit in separate field, put qualifier in separate field)

  9. Examples for data heterogeneity here: entries for population size

  10. Proposed Standardfor entries on population size G = good (e.g. based on surveys), M = moderate (e.g. partial data with some extrapolation) P = poor (e.g. rough estimation)

  11. Proposed Standardfor entries on Habitat types G = good (e.g. based on surveys), M = moderate (e.g. partial data with some extrapolation) P = poor (e.g. rough estimation)

  12. Revised / adapted Fields (3/4) • Other species (3.3) • The categories for motivation of the listing of a species in this optional field were supplemented with a new category for Annex IV or V species on comprehensible request of some Member States. The entries for population size are structured in the same way as for the Annex II species. • Ownership (4.5) • As the missing structure of the field does not allow using the data for statistical purposes, standardised categories were introduced.

  13. Most important general impacts and activities with effect on the site • most relevant impacts and activities (negative and/or positive) with effects on the side as such • code list same as Article 17 • level 3 categories, • Maximumof 5 for the highest rank • Maximum of 20 for the ranks => harmonization with Art. 17 for the existing field (6.1) => replacement of Vulnerability (4.3) (obligatory)

  14. Most important general impacts and activities with effect on the site

  15. Revised / adapted Fields (4/4) • Site management (6.2) • better linkage to documentation on management plans and/or other relevant information on national level, rather than collecting too many details on site management within the Natura2000 database. • Maps • Digital boundaries obligatory • ISO 19005-1: Document Management - Electronic document file format for long term preservation instead of paper maps

  16. Newly added to the SDF • Percentage of marine area in the site • This information is needed very often for statistical purposes but it is not available yet. In order to close this substantially gap in the data a new field was introduced to the SDF.

  17. Summary and Outlook • Streamlined version, focus set on most important data • Fields deleted which are no longer considered as relevant or where information is redundant, more importance attached to GIS data • Focus on data quality (‘data fit for purpose’) • Improvement of data structure, standard, guidelines, quality assurance • Evaluation data comparable to the former version • Introduction of new version possible with acceptable effort

  18. Summary and Outlook • Comments from Member States (within 8 weeks) • Adoption of data structure, transfer of data into new structure, XML for upload, improvement of qa/qc • Discussion of timeline for transition phase

  19. Thank you for your attention

More Related