1. Work on the coherence of data-flows / improving data-quality
Sabine Roscher| Expert group reporting| | Brussels
Work on the coherence of data-flows / improving data-quality

2. Follow up action to Fitness Check
One of the actions identified in the follow-up action plan to the Fitness Check is that "the Commission with Member States and the EEA will… Improve data quality, by making a systematic assessment of the coherence of the data-sets provided by Member States, followed by discussions in relevant expert groups (by 2019)"
‘Coherence’ of datasets relate to aspects such as level of update, accuracy, consistency and completeness.
Coherence/consistency can be investigated:
within a dataset (i.e. within Natura2000 database),
between datasets (i.e. comparison of specific parts of Natura2000 database with Art12&17 database),
by comparing with other thematic data (i.e. national or European forest statistics)

3. Use of Natura 2000 and Art 12&17
The use of Natura 2000 and Art 12&17 data is multipurpose such as e.g.:
assessing and enhancing completeness of the Natura 2000 network (Natura 2000 sufficiency assessments)
providing a regular assessment of the State of Nature in the EU
informing on progress towards the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020, in for target 1 (fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives), target 3a (maintain and restore ecosystems and their services) and target 3b (increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity
identification of priority habitats and species, such as the “Low Hanging Fruits”, to be discussed among Member States within the Natura 2000 biogeographical seminars characterising ecosystem condition as part of the MAES process
providing the biodiversity component of the “The European Environment – State and Outlook report” (SOER)
underpinning outreach products such as the “Natura 2000 Barometer and Viewer”

4. Data quality matters
Poor quality data such as e.g. lack or outdated information on ecological characteristics of Natura 2000 sites can have significantly negative impact on EU and MS efficient policy implementation
Inconsistencies and contradictions within and across datasets can jeopardise their credibility especially when used for cross-sectoral discussions on statistics and indicators

5. 1. Coherence of Natura2000 data
Qa/QC reports based on validation routines which check consistency of tabular and spatial data
Comprehensive qa/qc reports per MS available
Available but content might need to be improved
In addition to these reports a mechanism helping to draw attention to the most problematic and policy relevant issues in terms of quality of Natura 2000 data
Needs to be developed
For each Natura 2000 sites the sum of the habitat area is compared to the total area of the site (excluding caves)

6. 2. Coherence of Art 12&17 data
Content of qa/qc reports to be work on in 2018
Validation rules for the reporting tool in preparation …

7. 3. Consistency Natura 2000 data and Art 12&17
Plausibility check on quantity of species /habitats in SDF compared to Art 12&17 data
Habitat area in SDF compared to area covered by the habitat reported under Art17
Population size in SDF compared to population size reported under Art 17 & Art 12
This check is likely to be relevant in terms of detecting possible errors in Art.17 total area surface/population size values or, alternatively, excessive values for habitat area or population size in values in the SDFs.

8. 3. Consistency Natura 2000 data and Art 12&17
Comparison of the quantity of species/habitats calculated from SDF data compared to reported data on Natura 2000 coverage under Art 12&17
Total population size in SDF compared to reported data on Natura coverage for Annex II species
Total habitat area in SDF compared to reported data on Natura 2000 coverage for Annex I habitat types
This check might be relevant to identify possible major issues of Art 12&17 data deliveries as regard Natura 2000 coverage

9. Information on Natura2000 sites in Art 12&17
Number of sites reported under Art 12&17 compared to number of sites in Natura 2000 database
Surface area of sites in Art 12&17 data compared to area of sites in Natura 2000 database
These checks are likely to identify issues of Art 12&17 data deliveries regarding data on the number and area of Natura sites.

10. Comparison of the number of sites
Example: Comparison of the number of SCIs/SACs
more In Natura more in Article 17

11. Comparison of the number of sites
Example: Comparison of the area of SCIs/SACs
more In Natura more in Article 17

12. Information on Natura2000 sites in Art 12&17
Spatial analysis
comparison of the location of Natura 2000 sites and Art 12&17 distribution for species and habitats
This analysis could be relevant to draw attention to rates of inconsistency between datasets which are clearly above an EU average, which might be indicative of a significant data quality problem.

13. 4. Natura2000 reference lists & Art17 checklist
Example
Art 17 distribution of Agrimona pilosa along with the SCIs where the species is present.
This species is reported as widespread however only 1 site falls within an Art 17 grids. The recently added 2 additional sites also fall outside of the Art 17 distribution.

14. 4. Natura2000 reference lists & Art17 checklist
All habitats and species included in the Reference Lists for a MS/region should also be present in the Art 17 checklists for this MS/region
Example:
Habitats included in the Reference List with one or more SCI/SAC designated but not listed in the Art 17 checklist
(excluding “SR” category in the Reference List)

15. 5. Number of management plans
Comparison of the number of management plans in SDF and reported under Art.17
This analysis could be relevant to draw attention to rates of inconsistency between datasets.
Art 17 reporting format
SDF

16. Comparison with other data sources
Quantitative information on habitats/species compared to other statistics
Total Annex I forest habitats as % of forest area in national territory
Total Annex I habitat types related to agriculture as % of agricultural area in national territory

17. Strategy for communication of results on the coherence checks
To raise awareness of the Member States on data quality issues – or on achieved good data quality, the long-term objective is to create online presentations of all relevant outcomes of the coherence checks possibly in form of a certain number of thematic dashboards. These dashboards should be created and maintained on the basis of the latest published EU-wide Art 12&17 and Natura 2000 datasets.

18. Establishing “data quality dashboards”
As a first step towards the establishment of data quality dashboards it is intended to get Member States feedback on the proposed list of data coherence checks. Additional proposals for relevant coherence checks are welcome.
Secondly a first set of coherence checks will be carried out and presented in the spring meeting of the Expert Group on Reporting. This would allow drawing some first lessons learned.
Subsequently an agreement on the coherence checks, the underlying methodology and the presentation of the results (“dashboards”) need to be achieved. The implementation of data quality dashboards is envisaged until 2019.