8th GBIF European Nodes Meeting Preparatory Survey Anne-Sophie Archambeau

The Survey 10 questions to EU Node Managers – five on local (Node) activities – five on broader (European) activities Conducted in April 2016 Open questions with free text answers Report available on GBIF Community Site

Participation 13 country participants (out of 22) 2 associate participants (EEA, Naturalis) And some quick updates by s.

General remarks Rich and condensed information : – Various Node activities – Diversity of European Nodes References to many projects/initiatives This year, the other regions will also fill in the same kind of survey.

Preliminary question on attending the meeting Reasons why the node managers doesn’t come: Restructuration of the node and/or Political issues 3 Lack of funds and/or human resources 3 Conflicting meetings 1 No node manager 1

Q1 : Node status How established and sustainable is your Node? Most of the respondent nodes see themselves: well established (13) sustainable (8)  Less sustainability than last year  Lots of uncertainty after  Inconsistency between engagement in GBIF and functioning of the node

Q1 : Node Staff An BE DA FI FR GEEIIL NO PL PT ES UK Average: 4,2 SW

Q2: How do you experience the collaboration with the national/organisational network of partners? Generally good and positive relations However :  Still some competition instead of collaboration (often due to lack of governance) => Sometimes easier to work with newer and smaller institutions than bigger historical ones.

Q3: What are the main projects you are working on? Data Mobilization/publishing (8) Data Portal (8) IAS (3) Citizen science (2) Capacity enhancement (2) Lots of others : Specific thematic (soil, threaten, genetic, freshwater..), EU directives, Data Analysis, Data Validation, Checklists, e-learning, indicators, Linnaeus NG software …

Q4: Strengths & Weaknesses Good networking 8 Governance structure/support 4 Technical process/softwares 3 National portal 2 Good data coverage 2 Staff 2 - Stable Team 1 Training/support 2 Building checklist 1 Being thematic node 1 Open Data Culture 1 Providing facilities for the National Node 1 Lack of resources (funds and/or staff) 7 Involvement with stakeholders/administrative issues 3 Communication 1 Coordination effort is big 1 Unusual structure of the node 1 Extensive access control: Encourages contribution but penalty is performance and stability.

Q5: 0pportunities & Threats New data portal/new RI 3 GBIF recognition 2 Data provision/new data types 2 Special interest Networks 1 Automatisation to allow time for Scientific Data Use 1 Being at heart of EU 1 Openness agenda 1 Celebrating 1O years of activity 1 Insecure funding 10 Politics 5 Staff issues 5 Other initiatives as competitors 3

Q6: What are the broader projects you are involved in?

Q7: collaborations/interactions with other GBIF Nodes? Collaborations Around ALA Encounter Bay (documentation): BE, FR,PT,SP CoopBioPlat :ERANET- LAC around ALA implementation: ES,FR,PT +Ar,BR,CR ALA install in GE: FR,GE NORDIC : FI, NO, SW + LifeWatch DK and SW EUROPEANA : FR, GE Leverage Nodes capacities Update data : AN,ES E-learning : ES, FR, PT Advices on hosting : BE,IL

Q8: What can you offer to other European Nodes? What can you offer? Technical expertise Helpdesk Databases GIS Web development Data validation Label transcription Support scientific use Species checklists Data Mobilisation Knowledge exchange Standards and Tools Harvesting IAS risk assesment protocol Annotation BioCase Statistics Collection managment Hosting IAS Citizen science Science-Policy Interface E-learning Training Image hostings and services Implementation of ALA portal

Q9: What do you expect and/or desire from other European Nodes? Knowledge exchange and Best Practice sharing 8 Especially on improving Data quality/validation 3 Common Digit/mobilization initiatives 3 Joint proposal (H2020…) 3 Communication between nodes 3 Thematic areas 3 Training/BDI/Teaching collaboration 2 ALA portal 2 Others (1):Translations, MOOC, sharing WP, sharing checklist, user-end, Moving towards actual delegation of common responsibilities between EU nodes …

Q10: What should/could we achieve together in Europe? Project proposal 4 (Joint) Data mobilization 5 EU policy relevant data 4 Supporting scientific uses/regional uses cases 4 Engage new countries/support to non gbif 3 Adoption of common tools/ALA dev 3 Data types/checklists/ link to other data 3 Others : BDI curriculum and teaching collaboration, multi-language portal of EU biodiversity

Q10: What should/could we achieve together in Europe? Project proposal 4 (Joint) Data mobilization 4 EU policy relevant data 4 Supporting scientific uses/regional uses cases 4 Engage new countries/support to non gbif 3 Adoption of common tools/ALA dev 3 Data types/checklists/ link to other data 3 Others : BDI curriculum and teaching collaboration, multi-language portal of EU biodiversity