NFP/EEA Working Group on Eionet priority data flows (EPDF) - Status and developments for water Beate Werner Eionet FW workshop Copenhagen, 18 – 19 June 2015

NFP WG “European Priority data flows (EPDF)” Terms of reference: Deliver a joint EEA/Eionet proposal to the Management Board (Nov 2015), including: 1.Revised definition and selection criteria guidance for priority data flows; 2.Proposed list for an updated set of priority data flows according to the developed criteria; 3.Proposal for revised evaluation criteria for monitoring reporting of data flows; 4.Proposals for longer term development of the priority data flow report to potentially cover a broader range of data flows (not just priorities) Group started work beginning 2015, reports directly to NFPs

Data flow mapping exercise Objectives: Understand what data flows are presently reported via Eionet ReportNet CDR Identify the basis of the reporting obligations – ‘legal’ or ‘voluntary’ Map how each data flow is presently used by EEA: –in EEA indicators (CSI + others); –in regular EEA assessments and technical reports –necessary for EU reporting under international conventions; –regularly provided to other EU institutions e.g. ESTAT indicators (excl. solely to Commission for their compliance purposes) –regularly provided to other international organisations (OECD etc) Identify relevant expert groups beyond Eionet supporting the respective data flow e.g. EU committees, working groups etc.

SA 1.5EEA AMPWISE SoE - Water Quality in Rivers (EWN1)annualNumerical 519 EEA-33YCSI 19/20Y SOER + state of water (SoW) Y ESTAT SDI indicator; and agri-env indicators; DG AGRI rural development indicators; DG ENV pressure indices SA 1.5EEA AMPWISE SoE - Water Quality in Lakes (EWN2)annualNumerical 451 EEA-33YCSI 19/20YSOER, SoW SA 1.5EEA AMPWISE SoE - Water Quality in Groundwater (EWN3)annualNumerical 468 EEA-33YCSI 19/20YSOER, SoW Y ESTAT SDI indicator; and agri-env indicators; DG AGRI rural development indicators; SA 1.5EEA AMPWISE SoE - Water Quantity (EWN4)annualNumerical 241 EEA-33YCSI 18YSOER, SoW YEstat JQ/ ENV WFD SA 1.5EEA AMPWISE SoE - Emissions to Water (WISE-1)annualNumerical 97 EEA-33N YSOER, SoW ?ENV, WFD SA 1.5 Water Framework Directive Water Framework Directive - River Basin Districts and Competent Authorities - Article 3 once, updatesMixed 46 EU28+IS+LI+NON YY SA 1.5 Water Framework Directive Water Framework Directive - Characterisation of River Basin Districts - Article 5 once, updatesNumerical 59 EU28+IS+LI+NON YSOER, SoWYY SA 1.5 Water Framework Directive Water Framework Directive - Monitoring Programmes - Article 8once, updatesMixed 239 EU28+IS+LI+NON YY SA 1.5 Water Framework Directive Water Framework Directive - Programmes of Measures - Article 116 yearsDescriptive 171 EU28+IS+LI+NON YSOER, SoWYY SA 1.5 Water Framework Directive Water Framework Directive - River Basin Management Plans - Article 13 6 yearsMixed 1083 EU28+IS+LI+NOY WFD indicators (WFD001; WFD002; WFD003); REFRESH indicator YSOER, SoWYY SA 1.5Floods Directive Floods Directive - Units of Management and Competent Authorities - Article 3 once, updatesMixed 56 EU28+IS+LI+NON YY SA 1.5Floods Directive Floods Directive - Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment - Article 4 & 5 6 yearsMixed 323 EU28+IS+LI+NON Y YY SA 1.5Floods Directive Floods Directive - Flood Hazard Maps and Flood Risk Maps - Article 6 6 yearsNumerical 233 EU28+IS+LI+NON Y YY SA 1.5Floods DirectiveFloods Directive - Flood Risk Management Plans - Article 7, 8 & 106 yearsDescriptive 0 EU28+IS+LI+NON YY SA 1.5 Bathing Water Directive /7/EC Bathing Water Directive - Identification of Bathing Waters - Article 13.1 annualMixed 354 EU28+AL+CH+MEYCSI 22YBW rep.YY SA 1.5 Bathing Water Directive /7/EC Bathing Water Directive - Monitoring and Classification - Article 13.2 annualMixed 347 EU28+AL+CH+MEYCSI 22YBW rep.YY SA 1.5 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - Implementation - Article 15 2 yearMixed 203 EU28+NOYCSI 24YSoWYY SA 1.5 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - Situation Report - Article 16 2 yearDescriptive 42 EU28+NOYCSI 24YSoWYY SA 1.5 Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive - National Implementation Programme - Article 17 2 yearDescriptive 38 EU28+NON YY SA 1.5 Drinking Water Directive - 98/83/EC Drinking Water Directive - Report on Quality of Water for Human Consumption - Article 13 3 yearMixed 88 EU28N YY SA 1.5 Nitrates Directive - 91/676/EEC Nitrates Directive - Report - Article 103 yearMixed 133 EU28N YY MAWPReporting obligation (i.e. legal and 'voluntary') Current PDF ( ) 'Core' and motivation decision EIONET SoE info needed for EEA Indicators SoE info needed for regular EEA assessment products or services (specify) Info needed for EU legal reporting Data provided for use by other EU partners (e.g ESTAT, JRC) Strategic AreaInstrumentsObligationsFrequency Type of information DeliveriesCountriesY/?/NMotivationCoverageY/?/NIndicatorY/?/NProduct or service Y/?/N Use (excl. compliance checking) Mapping table – all EEA data flows

Identifying the benefits of identifying a ‘core’ set of data flows relevant to Eionet Three key benefits were originally identified by identifying Eionet priority data flows: 1.on the Eionet country side, it provided a mechanism allowing countries to focus their resources on putting regular reporting procedures in place for the identified data flows; 2.it ensured the EEA received a basic core set of environmental information for use in its activities; 3.it allowed the monitoring of reporting progress against agreed, stable, well ‑ defined objectives.

Key points discussed Do we still need the concept of ‘priority’ or ‘core’ data flows? What are the benefits today of identifying a data set as ‘core’? With many more data flows now being handled directly by EEA/ETCs under legislation, what is the main rational and what are the issues putting in place a revised structure for ‘core’ data flows? Thinking about why we still score reporting performance – does the original rationale for scoring still exist? How to determine if a data flow is ‘core’? Qualitative or quantitative approach, or mixture of the two?

How to determine if a data flow is ‘core’? Qualitative or quantitative approach? Qualitative (current approach): A data flow is designated as an Eionet priority data flow if it is considered ‘important’. –High flexibility to determine which data flows are included, easier to ensure coverage of main thematic area, easier to limit the numbers of data flows considered as core. –Not always transparent why one data flow is included and not others Quantitative: In principle, a basic ‘scoring’ system can be applied to assess the potential inclusion of a data flows –Transparent –May not ensure adequate thematic coverage, dependency on the choice and weighting of metadata parameters

Illustration: quantitative-based approach to defining a ‘core’ data set

Key points discussed What is the current role of Eionet in reporting under EU legislation? e.g. air quality, air and GHGT emissions, E-PRTR, IED, WFD, floods and bathing water directives, UWWT, MSFD, Birds & Habitats directives… If formal reporting and decision-making is all taking place via e.g. EU working groups, why is Eionet taking ownership of data flow reporting? Eionet connection to current and future data flows in Reportnet (CDR) - understanding of ‘Eionet’: Eionet seen as a network of countries Eionet seen as a network of institutions; Eionet seen from point of view of the expert from NRC institutions; Eionet seen from the National Focal Point role; Eionet seen from the European Topic Centre perspective; Eionet seen from EEA point of view.

Next steps End May – mid June WG webinars: –finalising criteria for a data flow to be considered a ‘core’; –elaborating criteria to evaluate reporting performance (focus on core data sets, but potentially applicable to all data flows) 30 June: Initial WG proposal circulated to all NFPs 30 June - 30 August: Consultation/review by NFPs, NRCs and ETCs Sept: Preparation of draft ‘final’ proposal by WG 1 October: Draft ‘final’ proposal circulated to all NFPs Oct. 2015: Draft ‘final’ proposal discussed at NFP meeting 1 November: Final proposal submitted to Management Board

Thank you Communication: Forum working space groups/eionet-priority-data-flows-wg