PEER REVIEW WORKSHOP ABOUT DATA MANAGEMENT Introduction Paul HAENER International Office for Water FRANCE p.haener@oieau.fr October 2016 About peer review missions related to data management 2 1
Data management workshop Objectives This workshop aims at sharing lesson learned and best practices on water related data management between practitioners from UE Member-States. It will focus more particularly on how are organised, at basin and national level, the data collection/ sharing, as well as the data processing, valorisation and dissemination, in relation with: The reporting to EC; The elaboration of the basin characterisation (water resources status and the mapping of pressures) of the 2016-2021 RBM Plans; The monitoring of the implementation of the programme of measures of the new plans. 3 Per review missions done in relation with ToR including data management related topics Country RCA Mention related to data/info in ToR Denmark Ministry of the Environment - Nature Agency The availability and use of data (monitoring data, etc.) for the assessment of pressures and impacts in coastal waters, with emphasis on modelling tools Peer review yet done No Finland River Basin District of River Kokemäenjoki Data and information available for sharing and for public use France Rhine-Meuse Water Agency Ensure that the PoM is designed and implemented with transparent and meaningful information Italy Tiber Basin Authority Water information System: interoperability among regional data bases and national statistic system Norway Glomma River Basin District Are the programmes of measures and the water information system Vann- Nett well correlated? Spain Miño-Sil River Basin Authority Water Information System/Data and Information sharing as horizontal management for RBM Planning. Effect of the actions proposed in the Programme of measures on the pressures identified and the status indicators used, and their effectiveness for achieving environmental objectives Sweden South Baltic Water District An evaluation and future recommendation on our work with Water Information System/Data and Information sharing how well do we use WFD data as a basis for a decision support system at local, regional or national level? Sweden Northern Baltic Sea Water District Authority Perspectives on the balance of the work: from weak parts in this chain and possible overworked parts containing redundant information. done but report not yet available 4 2
Finland/River Basin District of River Kokemäenjoki Data and information available for sharing and for public use Basic characterization, typology, classification and environmental objectives: Finland should use its database system much better in the next cycle. Partly for classification, but also for the impact analysis, measures, objectives and also in the interaction with the public. Public consultation: New platforms are suggested like internet based social media, making water management information and data accessible, organizing visits along watercourses, put forward good examples, coordinate projects, aid in applying for funds. 5 France/ Rhine-Meuse Water Agency Ensure that the PoM is designed and implemented with transparent and meaningful information No specific recommendation Nota: Underline a good example of how data can be used to convey an important message: It illustrates how the improvements that have been made so far since the 70ies have led to good status for a large number of components. 6 3
Italy/ Tiber Basin Authority Water information System: interoperability among regional data bases and national statistic system Basic classification, environmental objectives, model and tools linked to the Water Framework Directive: Sharing of data and results between different authorities is necessary for a joint common approach and for an efficient use of resources. A common data information system could also serve as a mean for improved collaboration. As a comparison Finland has a centralized national database, where all data for the water framework directive is kept. The system is only for internal use and is called Heartha. In Sweden, a centralized national system has not been possible as data is collected and modelled by different authorities. Instead a system that links/uploads data from around 30 different databases has been developed. 7 Norway/ Glomma River Basin District Are the programmes of measures and the water information system Vann-Nett well correlated? At the moment the local appraisal of measures (local tiltaksanalys) is not well correlated with the content in Vann- Nett. This is a problem since not all of sub unit plans are easily available on Vannportalen. Vann-Nett should be more operational on the local level for the politicians and officers. Exports and interfaces containing the measures proposed should be easily found and understood by the sector authorities both for single measures and aggregated on different geographical scales. 8 Measures in Vann-Nett (as well as PoM:s and RBDMP:s) should be aggregated and grouped in a logical way so that they can be analyzed on their impact on i) ecological status and ii) sector (i.e. i) measures by impact: measures on eutrophication, measures on harmful substances, measures on ecological flow ii) measures by sector: agriculture, scattered dwellings, point sources ). 4
Spain / Miño-Sil River Basin Authority share the experience of the information and transparent way to inform citizens and end user of the consumption and manage of water in the basin to generate trust to find collaborative solutions to save resources. Nowadays and for the next years, the volume of data that the technician we will manage will increase exponential. It s not possible to manage it manually and it s necessary to focus in automated procedure. To advance in this way, the most important thing is to have the data available for automated process: structured and online. It s equally important the time series as the metadata. 9 Sweden/ South Baltic Water District An evaluation and future recommendation on our work with Water Information System/Data and Information sharing how well do we use WFD data as a basis for a decision support system at local, regional or national level? The general impression about VISS is that the system is easily accessible on the web for consultation, has a good synthetic presentation of the geographical and physical characteristics of the WB, together with the main issues related to WFD (Environmental quality objectives, environmental status, impact sources, monitoring stations, protected areas, etc.). Progressive web browsing functions allow the easy access to further thematic information on individual subjects. The VISS is only collecting all available data s coming from very different actors, each one producing them with his own standard and way of referencing. 19.000 monitoring points exist in all Sweden, and among them more than 3.000 only for South Baltic district. Very few part is produced at a national level, most of the data s being produced by counties, municipalities, industries, associations. Standardization of quality procedures, for production, validation of the data s would be now very useful to ensure more sturdy data system. Also common reference system should be defined, and given to all producers. Very few data are actually available about water quality for pesticides, and water use from agriculture (only very important catchments in agriculture are submitted 10 5
3 topics proposed for the workshop Topic 1: Use of water information systems for planning, PoM implementation / monitoring, and decision support at basin national and European level Topic 2: European reporting: organization in EU countries and links with national water information systems Topic 3: Challenges and solutions for facilitating the data sharing between partners and the open access to the public 11 Main components of water data management Topic 2 Topic 2: European reporting: organization in EU countries and links with national water information systems Governance of water related data management Data production Shared and integrated data management Data processing and valorization Information/ knowledge dissemination Topic 1 Topic 3 Topic 3: Challenges and solutions for facilitating the data sharing between partners and the open access to the public Topic 1: Use of water information systems for planning, PoM implementation / monitoring, and decision support at basin national and European level 6
Reminding the global objectives/outcomes Objectives: Compare issues, practices and practical experiences of Member States and basin organizations on data management regarding WFD implementation Promote the exchange of questions and solutions in this domain Address the need for explanatory elements of strategies followed by the Members States and identify the best practices Outcomes: Workshop report gathering the main information Task of the rapporteur Presentation of the main at the "Lessons Learned" workshop and final Peer Review project report 13 A chance for having open exchanges ½ day per topic (see agenda) This is not a political meeting Open exchanges between experts with time available for entering on some details and with possibility: To have mutual questioning about procedures an solutions implemented in each country To agree on some message that could be presented to European level To identify some good practices and On line presentations welcome Remind of the role of the animator/ rapporteur / rapporteur to CIS/DIS group Rapporteur for group 2 to be identified 14 7