1 / 42

Lessons learnt

Lessons learnt. WFD Article 3 and Article 5. Where issues arose. Issues arose around collating information Developing a coherent schema that meets all requirements Issues associated compiling a coherent set of geographic data. Determining visualisation requirements

wmarissa
Download Presentation

Lessons learnt

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. Lessons learnt WFD Article 3 and Article 5

  2. Where issues arose • Issues arose around collating information • Developing a coherent schema that meets all requirements • Issues associated compiling a coherent set of geographic data. • Determining visualisation requirements • Tried to establish process that minimised effort • Engaging with the Member States made the real difference – Client tool • Harmonisation with other reporting initiatives Feedback session to shape the next phase

  3. 1. Schema definition

  4. Activity 1 group • Activity 1 group established through GIS working Group • to improve on Article 3 process • Committed set of attendees • Germany, Holland, Croatia, Austria, United Kingdom, Ireland, • Others joined later e.g. Spain, Czech Republic, Eurostat, EEA • Always constructive and got down to the real technical detail • Encouraged buy-in to the process

  5. Development process • Schema issues discussed face to face with Member States • 1st draft issued for comment • Comments received. An issue log raised • Dialogue on issues and schema revised • Second meeting to finalise the detailed issues • Final schema resolution undertaken through e-mail exchange

  6. Key Comments / Issues

  7. Documentation • A log of changes was maintained and made available. • Common understandings were identified • Use GIS guidance terms where possible • Schema standards were established and adhered to • A Schema explanation document was created

  8. Knock on effect WRc were able to • Compile and assess all comments • Implement agreed changes and re-issue schemas • Amend data input and XML generation tool to match revised schemas • Amend WISE to validate revised schemas • Develop xsl stylesheets to produce user-friendly report for RBDs ?

  9. 2. Coherent GI data

  10. Article 3 data • River Basin Districts, Main Rivers and Competent Authority Boundaries were the real problem area. • Troublesome as GI submissions were open to too much variability • Scale, precision, projection, level of detail • Difficult to realise the initial expectations

  11. River Basin Districts • Variation in sizes of RBD • Little or no harmonisation at Country borders • Sometimes no harmonisation within countries • Country borders did not match • RBD boundaries had to be adapted to create a European map. • International River Basins a separate manual process

  12. Main Rivers • Extreme level of variability across countries • Impossible to use data provided for European Maps • No appropriate coherent river map for Europe • EEA / Eurostat map not appropriate • CCM1 issues with coastal and low lying areas • Used Eurostat map to select rivers • Upper and lower limit for selection • Supplemented with Member States information • Added transitional waters

  13. Competent Authorities • Inherent issues with data • In many cases the boundaries were at a different scale to RBD data • Boundaries were not co-incident with RBDs or other Competent Authorities • Competent Authorities may have many office locations • Resolution was to create a point dataset of the main offices of each main competent authority • Manual process

  14. Article 3 data - Lessons learnt • It would have been better work for Member States to have worked together when collating the trans-boundary RBDs. • Work to create a Pan European map of rivers should have been anticipated. • The provision of Competent Authority spatial information should have included a representative point reference.

  15. For Article 5 data the position improved • Closer involvement with the developing of the reporting sheet process was crucial • The approach to record water bodies as a point feature alleviated problems • Article 5 data can be supplied at different scales and the CCM used to normalise the submissions and enable analysis and comparability • Unique Ids have been established at a country level that will support common coding initiative

  16. Not all problems resolved • The provision of groundwater, coastal and protected area boundaries needs to be resolved • RBD assignment, polygon/point • The reporting sheet process still not considering visualisation in enough depth • For Article 5 being considered and visualisation process established • Visualisation should now be addressed for Article 8 data • 2010 data will require detailed assessment • There will be an issue in linking low level Article 5 data to the elemental level of the CCM

  17. 3. Visualisation

  18. A learning process • Turning points • Wasserblick conference • Activity 1 group input • Steps in the learning process • Proving what could be done with the point data • Understanding the roles and responsibilities • Commission compliance assessment • Member States detailed information • European level public presentation of WFD returns • Establishing a standard for describing visualisation that can link to the reporting sheets

  19. Variation in water body size

  20. Variation in water body size

  21. Variation in water body size

  22. Point Water Bodies depict general coverage HMWB and AWB graduated by length All Waterbody categories

  23. Data submission interpretation

  24. Data submission interpretation

  25. Viewing water body data at small basin level

  26. Viewing water body data at small river level

  27. River Basin District the effective unit for EU

  28. Sub-Units Sub-Units • Need for sub-units of comparable size • Subdivision of larger RBD’s needed • Ideally range between 5,000 & 20,000 km2 • Delineation in collaboration with Member States

  29. Sub-Units may be needed for comparability

  30. Visualisation definition • Common specification derived for output • Meaningful name; • method of creation; • interpretation; • non-mapped outputs; • public viewing/comparative analysis; • portrayal using optional data; • use of further data beyond mandatory • issues associated with each map • Example of each map • Issue if no data available

  31. Lessons learnt • European presentation at RBD level • May be need for some sub-basin delineation • Detail held and presented by Member States. Hot links? • Commission assessment to identify trends and ensuring overall good management • Internal analysis tools • Formalising the information presentation process provides a common understanding • Build on common visualisation specification • Include examples (difficult if no data) • Need to work Member States to ensure common interpretation

  32. 4. Member State engagement

  33. Engaging with the WFD user • Activity 1 group provided a group of users (Member States) to interact with. • Highlighted difficulty in determining a requirement without ultimate users involved. • Already highlighted Schema and visualisation • Confirmed need for a client tool • Could be used to confirm interface • Ensured outputs were as required

  34. 5. Harmonising the reporting process

  35. Main steps in the process COUNTRY Entrance When? What? / rules How? Where? Publish

  36. The WFD process COUNTRY WFD Compliance data Entrance When? Directive What? / rules Guidelines Reporting sheets Schema How? Schema Where? Database WISE Publish (Prototype)

  37. The SoE process COUNTRY SOE data Entrance (Eionet-Water) When? ROD What? / rules Data Dictionary How? DEM Where? CDR Waterbase Publish (SOE-WISE)

  38. Cannot consider the WFD process in isolation COUNTRY WFD Compliance data SOE data Entrance (Eionet-Water) When? Directive ROD What? / rules Guidelines Data Dictionary Reporting sheets Schema How? Schema DEM Where? Database CDR WISE Waterbase Publish (Prototype) (SOE-WISE)

  39. WISE – harmonised process Common tools, Common processes, Common standards Information source Water Environmental Reporting Compliance / Analysis WFD Nitrates UWWTD Drinking Water SoE Others …

  40. Shapes what is WISE? The “Water Information System for Europe” needs to be: • a concept (2003) – ideal or common vision • a co-operation - between EU bodies and MS • a set of common processes – accepted by all players • an information portal – for information management • a gateway for information – Reporting,European indicators • a definition of requirements - for EU bodies, MS and public • a set of standards – exchange,data structure, metadata, display • a set of tools – submission, analysis, compliance, dissemination

  41. 6. Feedback

  42. Thoughts on any of these • How to improve the physical submission process • Article 5 • Article 8 • Do we need to formalise the role of the Activity 1 group • Schema definition • Visualisation definition • Tools approval • Should we improve Member State involvement in determining the reporting process • Comments of the visualisation specification process • Any others

More Related