Future needs for EIONET data flows for European

biodiversity assessments

Break- out group A

Prioritizing critieria for new proposals

1. Agreed reporting obligation at the European/global level. Legally binding measures

2. Relevant indicator developed at national/European/international level

3. Policy relevance at the European/global level4. Added value in terms of existing/ improving the level of the relevant level of the relevant institutional capacity on the countries

5. Added value in in terms of meeting an acknow-ledged data/information gap at the European level.

Comments to Question 1

Why are we are trying to expand what we have when we have such great gaps in the dataflows today? More efforts should be made by the EEA to help MS to help meet present requirements.

Difficult to explore new areas where we have not agreed on indicators for common implementation framework

Comments to Question 1

Emphasize not increasing the burden

First priority is Aichi targets A indicators. C category more relevant for national levels.

SEBI and Aichi indicators often the same.

Thread of flexibility. Reporting to European level and global – should have flexibility

Need to harmonize data

New dataflows Ecosytem services indicator

IAS – data available in a number of countries in various states of availability (i.e. UK, Norway, Switzerland can deliver today), gaps in others

Bats – data available through Batlife (Eurobats. Important for public awareness

Insects

Number of NGO’s

Question 2 – general comments

Problem with mobilization of data, financial resources needed to be accessed.

Comments cont.

Role of NGO’s in developing and supporting new indicators

Important to use grassroot support when available

Valuable with voluntary citizen science reporting, but difficult to cover an entire country. Pointwise monitoring better for supporting indicators.