sabine roscher | expert group reporting | 09.03.2018 ... · (title, type of graph used, text in...

Work on improving the quality and

coherence of nature data-flows

Sabine Roscher | Expert Group Reporting | 09.03.2018 | Brussels

Overview

For explanation on the background see “High quality data for nature policy - Improving the quality and coherence of data collected under the nature directives”

Six dashboards have been created, which present

the results of the data quality checks (interactive graphs)

The dashboards will be presented one by one and

the Member States are asked to provide feedback

Further analysis, including checks for Art. 12 / SPA data

will be carried out in preparation of the autumn meeting.

Based on the outcome of the discussion today and the results of further analysis it is foreseen to create a final set of online-statistics in form of data quality dashboards (as those presented).

Please provide feedback to the dashboards along the following questions:

Is the presentation clear and understandable? (Title, type of graph used, text in tool tips, etc.)

If not, what do you suggest to improve the presentation?

Are the results plausible for your country?

Can you suggest additional checks that would help to further consolidate high quality nature data? Which data quality checks do you apply at national level?

Which other thematic data could be used in order to further underpin the robustness of Natura2000 and Art12&17 data (see III above)?

What lessons can be drawn from the test results?

What would help MS to improve data quality?

Questions for feedback during the meeting

1. Comparison of the sum of habitat area in SDF and the area of Natura 2000 sites

4

Habitat area <= site area

Habitat area > site area

Click to open the SDF

From Natura 2000 viewer

Sum = 71024.85 ha

SDF

2. Consistency between “relative surface” (A, B, C) and absolute area (in ha) in the SDFs

A: 100 ≥ p > 15 %

B: 15 ≥ p > 2 %

C: 2 ≥ p > 0 %

From the explanatory notes of the Standard Data Form

RELATIVE SURFACE: = A(b) of Annex III: Area of the site covered by the natural habitat type

in relation to the total area covered by that natural habitat type within the national territory.

Theoretically, to assess criterion A(b) one needs to measure the surface covered by the habitat type in the site, and

the total surface of the national territory that is covered by the same habitat type. Although this is evident,

it can be extremely difficult to make these measurements, especially those concerning the reference national surface.

For the check the reported habitat area (Article 17) was taken as the reference value for the

national habitat surface area.

Habitat area in the site (SDF)

Reported habitat area (Art17) X 100 p =

13

In 86% of all sites the relative surface (ABC) in SDF is the same as the calculated one

Big differences between MS

3. Comparison habitat area (Art.17) with national land area and MAES ecosystems

Comparison of quantified area data from different sources

• Land area

• Sealed area from copernicus imperviousness layer

• Annex I habitat area (Art. 17)

• Overview on the area of MAES ecosystems

Example Malta

Red = impervious area

Cross linkages Annex I habitat types – MAES ecosystems

Source: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/linkages-of-species-and-habitat#tab-european-data

MAES

4. Comparison of the number and area of SCI/SAC & SPA

reported under Article 12&17 (2012) and Natura 2000 (2012)

This analysis looks at the numbers and areas of SCI/SAC and SPA as

reported under

Natura 2000* Art. 12&17 reporting

The data are presented as a % difference between the 2 values being

compared and is therefore comprised of a range of values from – to +.

Natura 2000 is taken as basis for comparison.

* based on 2012 data, exception GR ‘late delivery’

5. Comparison on the habitat areas in Art17 & Natura 2000

Art17

SDF

calc average

• The check compares how far the data on species population in the

Natura2000 database conform to the explanatory notes of the SDF.

• As the combination of missing or erroneous entries is very high, an

aggregation based on 9 categories was introduced. The categories start

from

• “Green: Population size and site assessment criteria for population

available” down to

• “Red: Neither population size, nor abundance nor site assessment criteria

for population available”.

6. Check SDF species population size