1 / 7

MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY. MSFD Metadata Catalogue 19.3 reporting analysis. Document: DIKE TSG1 WP3 follow-up on art 19.3 data reporting. Article 19.3 Overview. Data collected through monitoring programmes under Article 11.

hazel
Télécharger la présentation

MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE (MSFD) COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY MSFD Metadata Catalogue 19.3 reporting analysis • Document: DIKE TSG1 WP3 follow-up on art 19.3 data reporting WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 PeriklisPanagiotidis, ICES

  2. Article 19.3 Overview Data collected through monitoring programmes under Article 11 Metadata catalogue under Article 19(3) Assessments under Article 8 Progress towards achieving GES under Article 9 Progress towards targets under Article 10 WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 PeriklisPanagiotidis, ICES

  3. Metadata reporting options for the Member Countries • Existing metadata fields for Art. 8 electronic reporting including a web link • Where data sets have been prepared specifically for use in the Initial Assessment, MS should list these and list how they can be accessed. • Directly to the Commission and EEA or by posting on the MS web site • Using the “metadata catalogue” option. • MS may use a mixture of both WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 PeriklisPanagiotidis, ICES

  4. Overview of the submitted metadata • Option a. followed by 10 MS (BE, CY, DK, FI, FR, EL, IE, LV, SE, UK) • Option c. followed by 6 MS (DE, IT, LT, RO, SL, ES) • Option b.i followed by NL • PL did not report WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 PeriklisPanagiotidis, ICES

  5. Geographical Coverage WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 PeriklisPanagiotidis, ICES

  6. Evaluation/Usability of the submitted metadata • Formats used: nonISO, INSPIRE, CDI, EDMED, DB records, .doc • Languages used: links to reports written in English by UK, IE, IT, RO and partly by EL, FI, DK, CY • Linkage to data source issue. Not enough information to locate the datasets/reports WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 PeriklisPanagiotidis, ICES

  7. Summary Increasing the variability of the metadata sources adds extra complexity as far as the information extraction is concerned; and the usability of the information provided is negatively affected by the disparate sources/methods. While moving towards the 2018 deadline it becomes more and more clear that simple, standardised and harmonised reporting workflows are the key to success. WG-DIKE/MODEG 04 JULY 2013 PeriklisPanagiotidis, ICES

More Related