Eionet Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Indicators and Assessments NRC Workshop

June 30 – July 1 2016, European Environment Agency Copenhagen

Draft report

Authors: Kristijan Čivić, Ben Delbaere & Frank Gorissen, ETC/BD (ECNC)

This report gives a brief summary of the meeting of the biodiversity NRCs1 that was held on June 30 and July 1. This was the second meeting bringing together the biodiversity NRCs in their new form, this time focusing on the aspects of ecosystem mapping and assessments and on the use of indicators for these purposes.

Day 1 Updates and presentationsBeate Werner, Head of the EEA Biodiversity Unit, opened the meeting on June 30 at 10.00.

“Eionet is a good example of how European cooperation does work in a time of increasing discussion on the state of the European Union.”

Beate referred to three important events ongoing within the EEA and in relation to Eionet:

1. EEA in 2016 is under its regular (5 years) evaluation and the regulation undergoes a fitness check;

2. In this context also the discussion on Eionet is ongoing in particular with a management board seminar on the future and further cooperation of Eionet;

3. As an important external development the fitness check of the Habitats and Birds Directives is in its final stages and its follow-up which is still to be awaited will lead the way to future assessments.

The next ‘State of the Environment Report’ is scheduled for 2020. Assessment tools are currently under development. The integrated assessment and a focus on solutions will be at the centre of this report. The meeting, with its focus on assessment, will contribute to shaping the assessment approach for the EEA 2020 assessments (SOER and Review of the biodiversity strategy).

Plenary update session 10.30 – 12.30

The first part of the day, chaired by Sophie Condé (ETC/BD), was largely devoted to presentations by EC DG Environment and EEA on recent developments and important updates on EEA work2. The following presentations were given:

• Rayka Hauser, EC DG ENV: Rayka presents a summary of the mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 with a focus on next steps per target. She refers to processes in the coming years that will build on NRC input, such as the final review of the Biodiversity Strategy in 2020, the development of post-2020 biodiversity policy, and the efforts for more synergy between EU and global biodiversity processes. Furthermore, some CBD-related milestones are important with regard to EEA reporting processes, such as the 6th National Reports (2019), the testing of an online reporting tool, the 1st IPBES global assessment (2019), the final assessment of the Aichi targets (2020), and work under the Sustainable Development Goals. Rayka also shares some of the developments towards an EU Environmental Implementation Review

1 List of acronyms is available on the Eionet forum: http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/nrc-biodiversity-and-ecosystems-indicators-and-assessments/library/meetings-and-workshops/nrc-biodiversity-2016/2 All PowerPoint slides are available from the Eionet forum

1

(integrated environmental reporting) for which 1st country reports are expected by the end of 2016.

• Update on ongoing EEA work:

o Markus Erhard gave an overview of recent developments with regard to ecosystem assessments and reporting, focusing on the work in MAES (Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services).

o Katarzyna Biała updated the meeting on the development of a roadmap towards SEBI2020. This builds on a process of reviewing the current set based on an agreed set of criteria, a gap analysis to help fill the indicator set to report on upcoming policy priorities, and the development of an action plan for the coming years to gradually further develop and update the SEBI set.

o Mette Lund informs about the recent developments towards a new CDDA data model to be in line with Inspire. The EEA is investigating the full data transformation flow, testing a split reporting approach, providing a tool for ad hoc updating of national designation types, and investigating alternative options for countries not implementing Inspire. She also lists some changes to the Eionet evaluation of core data flows.

Plenary country presentations 13.30 – 17.00

During the second half of the day representatives of different countries shared insights and experiences in connection to the biodiversity indicator – assessment – reporting nexus in the framework of their role as NRC. The following presentations were given:

• Dejan Radosevic (Bosnia-Herzegovina): The current status of the national biodiversity assessments and indicators in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

• Ari-Pekka Auvinen (Finland): Biodiversity and ecosystem service indicators in Finland.

• Thomas Kochert (France): The French assessment of ecosystems and their services (EFESE) – State-of-play and first results.

• Lorenzo Ciccarese (Italy): Practice of ISPRA in developing indicators and reporting to support the government in relation to multilateral biodiversity agreements.

• Mark Wilmot (the Netherlands): How can an Integrated Approach to Nitrogen (PAS) improve Natura 2000 habitats while leaving room for economic development?

• Slavisa Popovic (Serbia): Biodiversity indicators in Serbia.

These six country presentations convincingly demonstrated the intricate link between indicator development (traditionally for biodiversity and more recently also including ecosystem services), assessments at various levels, reporting, and policy development. They also highlighted the

2

differences in development and implementation between countries, with some countries having specific challenges because of complicated governance structures and lack of resources. Common denominators include the effectiveness of cooperation with stakeholders and the usefulness of global and EU processes in providing frameworks and guidance (such as SEBI, MAES, Aichi targets, or SDGs). A concrete example on the link between indicators and a specific decision support tool with regard to the pressure of excessive nitrogen (AERIUS) was presented by the Netherlands.

Day 2 Breakout sessions and conclusions For the composition of the breakout groups, see annex 2.

Day 2, chaired by Beate Werner, was devoted to the exchange of experience between Members States of specific aspects of their work as NRCs and to support in-country capacity. This exchange was facilitated in the form of breakout groups. In these groups ‘frontrunners’ presented some of their achievements, followed by a dialogue between the group members on questions, solutions, tips and experiences. There were two rounds for each of the breakout groups, each with new participants and frontrunners. The groups were composed based on the questionnaire responses prior to the meeting.

The type and intensity of the challenges varies per Member State, but always related to the topic of the breakout group. For this reason, the outcomes of both rounds have been grouped to provide a better overview and to specify where or how to possibly link challenges and ideas.

Group 1 Indicators (incl. monitoring)

There were two main issues highlighted in the two discussion groups. One was the growing role of citizen science approaches to monitoring and data gathering on national level in many countries, often supported by mobile phone apps and social media. This could be a solution to the lack of capacity for monitoring. Good examples of this exist in many countries and could be used to inspire other countries.

Second highlighted issue was that it is important to have biodiversity indicators included into the strategic national documents. Some countries were successful in this while others did not manage to achieve this. Also, it seems that the way this was achieved varies per country. In Finland, for example, this was a result of long-term recognised hard work on developing biodiversity indicators. In other countries (e.g. Serbia) it is just a matter of the right person being part of the right strategic working group and being willing to push for the biodiversity goals.

Points of Discussion

• How often do you need to change a database to accommodate changes in the indicators?

o Databases for storing biodiversity data should be developed in parallel with the monitoring methodology – changing the database structure at the later stage is difficult and has consequences for the data already collected.

3

o It is important to reuse existing data when developing or updating indicators to meet the new needs because they might still provide important information and maintain the consistency of timelines.

• How to link indicators to mapping and assessment of ecosystem services?

o There were not a lot of solutions to this as the mapping and the assessment work is still ongoing or just starting in most of the countries.

o Set of more than 100 indicators showing ecosystem service condition already developed and in use in Estonia – could offer some ideas on linking the two to other countries.

• There is a lack of capacity for monitoring.o Citizen science might be able to contribute to cover at least a part of the capacity

shortage.

• Methodology for awareness indicators is very important and should be customized per sector.

o There is a SEBI-awareness indicator available. Awareness is important because it generates support towards nature conservation.

• A development towards more qualitative and integrated assessments of ecosystems has started, however, this is challenging because it often requires better data to uncover pressures and drivers and their impact on species and habitats.

Additional remarks

• UK presented 3 very well developed indicators they have: Awareness and support to conservation Indicator; Plant genetic resources; and State of pollinating insects. It was pointed out that Surveys on cultural ecosystem services give very different answers to the awareness indicator (Defra example). UK also has a good system of citizen science based monitoring;

• Bulgaria showcased their indicators for species of national importance (Brown bear and Chamoix); Winter birds counting and monitoring; and development of nature index as communication tool and link to ecosystem services approach;

• Switzerland has very good examples of citizen science led monitoring with methodology available, while in Belgium (Flanders) government pays an NGO to run a citizen science based monitoring programme - moderator can protect sensitive data;

• Ireland reported having 44 indicators available to public with all underpinning data. By using data from NGOs and by including NGOs in reviewing indicator creates sense of ownership and shows influence to policy. There is a mobile app and a desktop application for monitoring – observations linked to author – expert data overlapped and visible for checking – Facebook support group for determining species – records shown in 10(50)km grid;

• Estonia reported having set of >100 indicators on freshwater and marine ecosystems already showing condition of ecosystem services. A review is being conducted on how much are biodiversity indicators included into national strategic documents – seems not that much.

• Poland has published methodology on species monitoring (mostly done by experts), birds done by volunteers;

4

• Albanian Environmental Agency has the set of indicators and coordinates the monitoring – set in revision.

Group 2 Ecosystem mapping and assessment

The issues, ideas, solutions or examples raised by the groups can be clustered into four broad categories. An attempt was made to relate experiences and solutions to listed issues and questions. Obviously not all issues have been addressed and many solutions are beyond the reach of Eionet, EEA or DG Environment.

Points of discussion

• Data availability: this covered elements such as lack of base maps (e.g. habitat maps), access to specific data sets (Land Parcel Information System (LPIS) and soil data being mentioned as concrete examples, or access to data from other sectors in general), and lack of data on ecosystem condition or quality.

o ‘Copernicus’ promises to provide a broad range of data needed in the mapping phase. Also the upcoming update and high and very high resolution layers of Corine land cover (expected in November and to be available through BISE) and progress in Inspire and SEIS should improve accessibility. Access to LPIS is a known bottleneck requiring negotiation at high levels.

• Stakeholder engagement and awareness: seen as a very important element for successful assessments, certainly considering ecosystem services, the group raised issues such as how to choose stakeholders, the general lack of awareness and support from stakeholders on biodiversity or ecosystem services, how to effectively involve and get support from representatives from other sectors, how to jointly prioritize ecosystem services or to manage trade-offs, and how to deal with changing government support and uptake over time.

o It was recognized that cooperation with various actors is essential, including to listen to needs from society in order to gain support for results of assessments.

o Stakeholder engagement requires serious investment upfront, with regular meetings, good relation management, and joint definition of aims for assessments at the start of the process. This pays off over time and increases the chances for uptake and success.

o The process of stakeholder engagement must be accompanied by sharing evidence of methods used or actions taken, education, sharing examples and case studies (e.g. MAES, Esmeralda, Oppla), showing benefits and opportunities, using the assessment process and maps as communication tools.

o Building a community to be involved in assessments (e.g. ESCom, the Scottish ecosystem services community, or the Oppla community) provides a good vehicle for long term involvement and support.

o It was recognized that successful engagement processes or stakeholder support (including resources) often depends on ‘the DNA’ of coordinators and decision makers – enthusiastic key figures who can motivate others and make things move.

o From the perspective of the biodiversity NRCs it was specifically proposed to more intensively cooperate with other NRCs and working groups (e.g. the EAGLE WG) to ensure an integrated approach.

• Data quality: in addition to access to data, the quality of available data was seen as a bottleneck. This related to aspects such as mapping resolution (which one is best for which purpose?), classification schemes, standards used, and keeping data up to date.

5

o In connection to classification, reference was made to the many available sources and their guidance documents. Examples of specific relevance to assessments and mapping include the MAES ecosystem typology, EUNIS level 2 classes for national-level mapping, the ‘habitat cross-walks’ between EUNIS, and Corine.

o The combination of earth observation data with biodiversity monitoring data (e.g. Art 17) and ecological knowledge was mentioned as a practical way to produce ecosystem condition maps. (see e.g. jncc.defra.gov.uk/eo)

o A similar pragmatic approach to the lack of habitat maps is by combining various data layers to produce habitat map proxies.

o In any case it is important in terms of communication and stakeholder support to be honest about data quality and to indicate levels of uncertainty.

o With regard to resolution and scale it was advised to start from national level classifications and to upscale to existing European classifications until a workable set is achieved (through iteration of harmonisation steps).

• Capacity and resources: mentioned by some as an obvious bottleneck were issues related to lack of human capacity, expertise (e.g. on assessments and on stakeholder engagement), and lack of funding.

o Possible solutions for increasing capacity related to building on what others have already done rather than starting from scratch (e.g. using tools and methods developed by others), using guidelines and case studies, and sharing experiences. Existing platforms such as the Eionet forum, the BISE pages and Oppla offer opportunities for sharing.

o In connection to the above, the power of working in communities was mentioned as a vehicle for learning, sharing, asking etc.

o Where possible, outsourcing to specialised companies (e.g. mapping company) was seen as a cost-efficient approach.

o Let not lack of capacity stop you from acting, but learn by doing and gradually build capacity and skills.

o A link was made to communicating benefits and outcomes as a means to convince potential donors to provide funding for assessments.

Additional remarks

A number of general remarks were made, largely based on the experiences as presented by the frontrunners and complemented by others. In general terms, group participants shared the intention to better inform each other of experiences and to help by sharing examples and methods (e.g. as was done during the breakout groups as well as through an e-mail to all by the French representative immediately after the meeting). Existing platforms such as the Eionet forum, BISE, Oppla, webinars, and the NRC mailing lists should be used to facilitate such exchange.

Group 3 Reporting process (incl. cross-sector cooperation)

The issues, ideas, solutions or examples raised by the groups did not only focus on the integrated reporting process (e.g. to CBD), but often linked back to other steps of the process. Especially the monitoring phase, and the choices made in that particular phase, was considered as having a large impact on the results of the reporting phase.

Points of Discussion

6

• Involvement of scientists: this is important, but limited publication options make it difficult to attract them.

o To attract scientists, budget should be made available early on in the phase and the results should be made attractive to publish about. The latter is a difficult thing to achieve. A possibility would be to make EU reports a more ‘popular’ form of publication which can be considered on an equal level as a scientific journal. One possible way of achieving this is by creating better exposure of the reports.

• Insufficient capacity and budget: (due to a range of factors amongst different Member States).

o Cooperating with international NGO’s might provide countries which have only recently started developing monitoring process with valuable data on species and habitats.

o “Measure once and use often”. Especially the monitoring phase should be multifunctional and should be used by (and useful to) a broad range of sectors. This ensures that budget or capacity problems with one actor do not influence the completeness of the monitoring (as done in Switzerland)

o “Do not reinvent the wheel.” Sharing knowledge amongst countries and specialists saves time and also works as external stimulation. Showing successes from other countries might be the motivator which is needed to ensure better local governmental support.

• Autonomy of reporters: those responsible for the reporting of the outcomes sometimes feel a pressure to present their results in a manner that better suits political priorities and messages. In addition, reporting pressure leads to fast results that have a risk of being less useful.

o Creating cross-sectoral monitoring in which different governmental institutes unite, can help in removing conflicting interests and improve the efficiency of data collection and processing (as seen in Finland and the Czech Republic). This multi-sectoral involvement leads to a clear shared ownership of data and acknowledgment of its importance.

o A bridging person between science and policy can be very useful in defending different interests and ensure correct outcomes for all actors in the process.

o The relation with the media can play a role in this. Media sources can provide support in stressing the importance of the work, but can also have negative effects on the process.

• Saving and sharing knowledge for the future: this is not continuously monitored and done. This is influenced by different factors across the Member States (e.g. insufficient capacity or no long term-contracts).

o People responsible for the reporting of different sectors (nature, water, marine, etc.) should be regularly brought together to share experiences and improve effectivity and efficiency (as done in France).

• Not all institutes have the same requirements for the data and monitoring should be based on more than just EU-needs.

o It was stressed by all participants that more European requirements will not help in making the process more useful or effective. These will only lead to a larger need for budget and capacity, which are already scarce. Guidance and effective use of current

7

requirements are more important. In this the EEA can play an important guiding role. In addition, results and demands of the monitoring should be the same on local and national level.

• Terminology of reporting: the way data is produced, interpreted and used is not always consequent between researchers and policy makers.

o This is an issue which relates to the different requirements between institutes and governments. This requires a clear structure and supervision along the entire process, from monitoring to reporting.

Additional remarks

• Experts in the government are too busy to assist and check the people doing the reporting; • Lack of technical knowledge (data-analyses software) and specialists; • Citizen science can be a potential source of valuable impacts, but this has not been explored

effectively due to several issues;• INSPIRE influences the process too much and differs from the processes at the national level • Data is not being collected continuously; this leads to gaps in information; • Insufficient budget for most steps in the process; • Italy and Malta have agreed to assist each other with updating and developing databases.

Wrapping up and final remarksBeate emphasises a few results of the meeting on behalf of the EEA. It is important to further explore the possibilities of citizen science as a way to contribute to data collection. Nature is an intrinsic value to the lives of many people, which stimulates them to help in its conservation.

Better implementation of existing legislation and better integration of nature into sectoral policies was seen as a priority over introducing large changes to or developing new legislation. The latter may lead to a further pressure on the already scarce resources for nature monitoring and reporting.

In addition, there seems to be an increasing crossover and sharing of a common terminology and understanding between ecosystem services and other sectors.

Beate closed the meeting by thanking all participants for the very rich meeting and active participation.

8

Annex 1: Participants list

2016 Eionet WorkshopNRCs Biodiversity, Ecosystems, Indicators and Assessments

30 June – 1 July 2016

NRCsAri-Pekka Auvinen ari-pekka.auvinen@ymparisto.fi FinlandLorenzo Ciccarese lorenzo.ciccarese@isprambiente.it ItalyYakup Dağaşan ydagasan@gmail.com TurkeyHeidi Demolder heidi.demolder@inbo.be BelgiumMatthew Grima Connell matthew.grima-connell@era.org.mt MaltaOriana Hanxhari orjana.hanxhari@akm.gov.al AlbaniaLauri Klein lauri.klein@envir.ee EstoniaGordana Kasom gordana.kasom@epa.org.me MontenegroTamara Kirin tamara.kirin@dzzp.hr CroatiaOnno Knol onno.knol@pbl.nl NetherlandsThomas Kochert thomas.kochert@developpement-

durable.gouv.frFrance

Janis Kotans janis.kotans@daba.gov.lv LatviaGlenn Litsios glenn.litsios@bafu.admin.ch SwitzerlandChristina Mallia christina.mallia@era.org.mt MaltaAmy McDougall amy.mcdougall@jncc.gov.uk United KingdomJan Plesnik jan.plesnik@nature.cz Czech RepublicDominik Pietrzak dominik.pietrzak@mos.gov.pl PolandJana Pokrievková jana.pokrievkova@sopsr.sk SlovakiaSlavisa Popovic slavisa.popovic@sepa.gov.rs SerbiaDejan Radosevic d.radosevic@kipn.vladars.net Bosnia and

HerzegovinaDorota Radziwill d.radziwill@gios.gov.pl PolandJohn Smaranda john.smaranda@mmediu.ro RomaniaGabriele Sonderegger gabriele.sonderegger@umweltbundesamt.at AustriaRadoslav Stanchev r.stanchev@eea.government.bg BulgariaEleni Trifon e.tryfon@prv.ypeka.gr GreeceGemma Weir gemma.weir@ahg.gov.ie IrelandZita Zsembery zita.zsembery@fm.gov.hu Hungary

Non NRCsBeate Werner beate.werner@eea.europa.eu EEABen Delbaere delbaere@ecnc.org ETC/BD - ECNCCarlos Romão carlos.romao@eea.europa.eu EEADan-Laurentiu Stoica dan-laurentiu.stoica@eea.europa.eu EEAFrank Gorissen gorissen@ecnc.org ETC/BD - ECNCFrank Larson frank.larsen@eea.europa.eu EEAGorm Dige gorm.dige@eea.europa.eu EEAKristijan Čivić civic@ecnc.org ETC/BD - ECNCMarkus Erhard markus.erhard@eea.europa.eu EEAMette Lund mette.lund@eea.europa.eu EEARayka Hauser rayka.hauser@ec.europa.eu DG EnvSophie Condé sophie.conde@mnhn.fr ETC/BD - MNHN

9

Annex 2: Breakout group composition

IndicatorsEcosystem mapping and assessment

Reporting process + cross-sector cooperation

Name 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B

Ari-Pekka AuvinenFrontrunner Frontrunner

Lorenzo Ciccarese Follower FrontrunnerKristijan Čivić X XSophie CondéBen Delbaere X XHeidi Demolder Follower FollowerGorm Dige X XMarkus Erhard X XFrank Gorissen X XMatthew Grima Connell Follower FollowerOrjana Hanxhari Follower FollowerRayka HauserGordana Kasom Follower FollowerTamara Kirin Follower FollowerLauri Klein Follower FollowerOnno Knol Follower FrontrunnerThomas Kochert Frontrunner FrontrunnerJanis Kotans Follower FollowerGlenn Litsios Follower FollowerMette LundChristina Mallia Follower FollowerAmy McDougall Frontrunner FrontrunnerDominik Pietrzak Follower Follower

Jan PlesníkFrontrunner Frontrunner

Jana Pokrievková Follower Follower

Slavisa PopovicFrontrunner Frontrunner

10

IndicatorsEcosystem mapping and assessment

Reporting process + cross-sector cooperation

Name 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3BDejan Radosevic Follower FollowerDorota Radziwill Follower FollowerCarlos RomaoGabriele Sonderegger Follower FollowerRadoslav Stanchev Frontrunner FollowerDan-Laurentiu StoicaEleni Tryfon Follower FollowerGemma Weir Frontrunner FrontrunnerBeate Werner X XFrank Wugt LarsenZita Zsembery Follower Follower

11