Update on the status of RBMP reporting WISE Working Group D, DG Env Brussels 13/14-10-2010 Mette Wolstrup, Atkins Danmark a/s

RBDs and sub units Download of submitted RBD subunits spatial data from cdr /eionet webpage Import of data to geodatabase and compilation of one layer Testing for boundary inconsistencies (gaps/overlaps) Adding new attribute information from WFD master database

State of RBDSUCA submission MS Completed reporting RBDSUCA RBD spatial AT ** ES MT BE FI NL BG FR PL CY HU PT CZ IE RO DE * IT SE DK LT SI EE LU SK EL LV UK NO NOTES: Status: 12/10/2010 The reporting status columns reflect if largely complete (green), partial (yellow) or no reporting (red) has been done. The RBDSUCA column refers to whether the XML schema has been submitted The RBD spatial column refers to whether spatial data has been submitted for RBDs * No updates made to previous spatial submission ** RBD spatial data submitted at RBD level, not national

Spatial submissions Data submitted by: AT, BG, CZ,DE, EL, ES, GR, FI, FR, HU, IE, LV, NL, NO, PL, RO, SK, UK No data submitted by: BE, CY, DK, EE, IT, LT, LU, MT, PT

Compilation of spatial layer Data was merged into one layer and checked for boundary inconsistencies.

Quality assessment Data imported into a geodatabase and merged to one layer Check for boundary inconsistencies by building new topology. Comments: Boundary inconsistencies are evident between all countries National inconsistencies were found within FR, UK and RO There are overlaps and gaps between all national boundaries ranging from 1cm to > 100 meters. This indicates that at least one of two neighbouring countries does not snap to ERM or the use of a too high cluster tolerance – depending on method.

Next steps Adding of European level attribute information (e.g. for joining as international RBDs) Release of updated layer as reference dataset this year Call for remaining countries to supply RBDSUCA xml and spatial information otherwise previous submission will be used