Discussion 1

1. Discussion 1 Question 1 • In most countries no or recently started work on national strategies, a few revising their strategies. • Focus more on monitoring progress than on implementation • Focus on EU level – hopefully also covering the global targets, actually close fit • Fragmentation, green network, ecosystem servises, IAS, focus on Nature directives, management plans for PAs, • Indicators from last strategy not very useful • Issue to get data from sectors, especially agriculture and fisheries; cannot use the sectorial data as it is not fit for our (biodiv) purposes • New strategy may not be connected to data; may be rather political statements • NL will check the mapping of global and EU targets on BISE with his national mapping to see if the differences are also included. Question 3 • Biogeographical regions: where is it relevant to break down the information to biogeo regions. Question 4 • 3, 4, 1, 5, 2 • 1 - Is benchmarking against the European average something interesting to the national level. The need is not seen at the moment. • 2 - Is CIF relevant to outsiders? If you are not a member of a CIF group, you don’t know if you should be interested. A plain mapping as a first start. • 5 – Good idea but what level of implementation. More a question of demanding from research projects that they organize their information better.

2. Discussion 2 Question 1 • Names for PAs not showing at certain scales • Old boundaries not removed • Implementation of Protected planet: Data provider should be CDDA EEA. Contact point could be EEA CDDA manager for the first go, just to evaluate the magnitude of changes to the European areas. • Crowd sourcing may be good approach to mobilise information on the quality of PAs Question 2 • Relevance of CDDA when N2k exists? How to make the SEIS principles apply better here? • Willingness to provide the least possible. Information may exist but not ready to provide it as a dataflow. • The European and the global level may not be the correct level to address the issue of halting the decline in biodiv. Collect or evaluate information on species etc may be better addressed national or local level. • Ecosystem services provided inside a protected area. Evaluate if the service is in good condition. Question 3 • provide the list of species or habitat types monitored in a PA. Additional value is to understand what is going on in this PA – status of species. • No information on national level Question 4 • the regional data provider provides data in Inspire format. Metadata catalogue, services comes from different ministry. • A number of countries are ready or will be this year for Annex I • Protected sites: LegalFoundationDocument: Requirement on site basis, information on the legal act. Voidable.

3. Discussion 3 Question 1 • #2 and #3 in combination, and it should be policy relevant (1). Most important that data exist at national level. Good temporal coverage also, to create trends. Close to # 4. # 5 not well understood, - or a pre-requisite, not a goal in itself. Question 2 A Abundance and distribution • Both official monitoring and citenzen science approaches in places. Some countries with interesting experiences on citizen science (SE, NL). “National authority on the quality of biodiversity data.” Both a kind of secretariat and a designated person (with independent position). • Property developers making the infrastructure needs to pay for the data in the national, central database. The database is partly public. The money contribute to the solidity of the monitoring schemes and building the national databases. • NGOs like hunting societies and fisheries B IAS • Most countries have monitoring schemas available for selected species.