inspire annex one themes thematic working group on protected sites state of progress n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES Thematic Working group on protected sites State of progress PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES Thematic Working group on protected sites State of progress

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 8

INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES Thematic Working group on protected sites State of progress

1 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES Thematic Working group on protected sites State of progress

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES Thematic Working group on protected sitesState of progress Rania Spyropoulou EEA

  2. INSPIRE – ANNEX ONE THEMES- Thematic Working group on protected sites The Thematic Working Group • Thematic experts: Rania Spyropoulou with Franz Daffner (EEA), Dirk Hinterlang (Germany), Keith Porter and Andrew Newman (UK) • Contact person of EC: JRC, Vanda de Lima • Editor: Kristin Stock • Facilitator: Markus Seifert

  3. Project schedule Kick-off meeting: 14.02.2008, Ispra, Italy TWG Meetings: • 23./24.04.2008, Munich, Germany • 25.06.2008, Maribor, Slovenia • 18./19.08.2008, Nottingham, England • Teleconferences have been held bimonthly. Data Product Specification (DPS): • Submitted on 30.09.2008

  4. Next steps: • Internal consultation on the first draft of DPS: 15.10.2008 • Second draft of DPS: 28.11.2008 • SDIC/LMO Review: 30.01.2009 • Final specification 31.03.2009 • During the review phase there will be an implementation test by expected users.

  5. Definition of “Protected Sites” • In the INSPIRE Annex I context a protected site is: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. • Under the INSPIRE directive protected sites are spatial objects, that need to have distinct boundaries of their own, rather than being a mere specific category of some other spatial object type (e.g. cadastral parcels). • (points used for caves and linear features are under discussion)

  6. The INSPIRE Protected Sites Data Product Specification. All INSPIRE-compliant data sets must use one of these profiles and must specify which is used • The profiles are as follows: • Simple (Core): The simple profile contains a very limited set of fundamental attributes, including geometry, identifier, name, designation type, legal foundation date and document reference. Only current Protected Areas are included. The Simple Profile is a subset of the Full Profile. • Full: The full model including all attributes and historical as well as current Protected Areas, but with most attributes being optional, so values be omitted. • Natura2000: The full model with all attributes and historical as well as current Protected Areas, and with mandatory attributes required for updating and maintaining of Natura2000 site data by Member States. Member States may use this profile to provide Natura2000 site data. The Natura2000 Profile is the same as the Full Profile but applies additional constraints.

  7. Annex I - List of incoming meetings 2009 23-24 Feb - Address TWG and Euradin project (testing addresses), Ispra5-6 March - Administrative nits TWG, Ispra 9-10 March Protected Sites TWG, Copenaghen10-11 March, Cadastral Parcels TWG, Helsinky16 March Cross TWG, DT, Ispra17 March, Hydrography, Ispra26-27 March, Comment resolution Workshop, Ispra

  8. Comments received: 336 - Mostly on editing issues 3 main questions related to data for Natura 2000 sites insist: • How will any revision of the SDF and the GIS for Natura 2000 sites be reflected in the INSPIRE legislation? Ensure that the thematic area is in controll of informationexchange. • Can the proposed INSPIRE Spatial Data Model positively feedback to the redesign of the SDF and the GIS requirements of the Natura 2000 sites dataflow? WP4 • Is the current proposal covering the existing data sets submitted by member States? Testing needed