Current and future SEIS based ICT solutions –
related to eReporting, INSPIRE and the SOER process
Stefan Jensen, Head of group
Workshop on future trends in Environmental Reporting – at Swedish EPA
Stockholm, 30.10.2013
Outline
Some European policy framework
a) SEIS and SIIFs - drivers for the evolution of eReporting
b) SEIS and INSPIRE implementation - potentials of a
technical framework to foster interoperability and harmonisation
c) SEIS, SENSE and SOER - tools for deeper integration
with EEA member countries
SEIS and related EU policy instruments
a) SEIS communication 1/2008 >>>
vision, background, principles
c) SEIS staff working paper 6/2012
(EU internal) >>> re-inforcement,
guidance and priority setting
b) Communication on better
implementation 03/2012 >>> policy
relevance through Structured
Information and Implementation
Frameworks (SIIFs)
SEIS implementation outlook – shortcomings
Quality of data and information
lack of comparability in the information provided by the Member States
scale of the data and the level of detail in the assessments
Data flows and information systems
Where the public at large is concerned
Not suited to the needs
Not enough flexibility, not enough feedback possibilities
Where the Member States and local authorities are concerned
better adress cross-border environmental issues
improved ways to find data and information needed
Data redundnacy – not folling SEIS principles
Where the Commission is concerned
More timely access in support of policy proposals
Better monitoring of implementation of legislation
Better disemmination through more open source powered solutions
SEIS implementation outlook – priorities
Assessing (and support the improvement of)
the current capacities within the Member States
(e.g. Copernicus GISC, EMODNET, GEO projects)
Streamlining EU reporting requirements towards fully on-line reporting
(e.g. WISE, BISE, SENSE, eReporting systems)
Improving public access to environment information
(EU open data strategy, strengthen EU environmental data centres)
Improving public participation in the collection and dissemination
of environment data and information
(e.g. review of PSI directive)
Promoting and assessing the implementation of
the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe Directive
(Review INSPIRE – a core architecture for SEIS)
Outline
Some European policy framework
a) SEIS and SIIFs - drivers for the evolution of eReporting
b) SEIS and INSPIRE implementation - potentials of a
technical framework to foster interoperability and harmonisation
c) SEIS, SENSE and SOER - tools for deeper integration
with EEA member countries
3: Concept for a new UWWTD reporting,
assessment and information system
SIIF Principles
Focus on compliance
(implementation/compliance)
Ensure transparency
(publically available and
accessible)
Decentralise (from
centralised to distributed
information systems)
Self-assess
(EU-MS carry
out a compliance assessment
themselves)
7
Keep up to date
(free to
update their national systems
when data become available)
Look forward
(from
assessing non-compliance of the
past to future actions on getting
into compliance)
Reduce burden
(reducing
reporting for areas in compliance,
focusing on non-compliance)
Develop step-by-step
(development of a modular
approach)
E. Hödl-Kreuzbauer (UBA) - B. Fribourg-Blanc (OIEau), 2nd UWWTD SIIF Workshop, DGENV rue de Beaulieu,
24/10/2013
Consolidating the data models
Tabular data:
thematic attributes incl.
compliance data
Reference data / layers:
Spatial data – INSPIRE
conformance
- UWWT plants,
discharge points
- agglomerations
- sensitive areas
Example: simplified reference data:
Data structure and IT system
Guiding principles:
Flexibility, decentral maintenance, more up-to-date
data and information
Implemented through:
Common structure to use for integrated work in WISE
> reference data, INSPIRE data models
Use of standardised, distributed services
> INSPIRE network services (WMS, WFS)
SIIF using distributed services – the simple picture
national SIIF nodes
WFS
WFS
WFS
WFS
holds relationship between
National WFS services and
EU base layers / EU SIIF
node
WFS
Broker / Harvester
WMS
WFS
WFS
Discomap
REST services
reference maps
EU SIIF node
UWWTD
Data viewer
2nd generation
UWWTD
Viewer
integration view
SIIF using distributed services – the experiment part 1
national SIIF nodes
WFS
WFS
holds relationship between
National WFS services and
EU base layers / EU SIIF
node
Broker / Harvester
WFS
Discomap
REST services
reference maps
EU SIIF node
UWWTD
Viewer
integration view
The European SIIF node – WFS/WMS „experiment“ – reference data
EEA starts providing INSPIRE conformant network services
http://inspire.discomap.eea.europa.eu/arcgis/rest/services
The European SIIF node – WFS/WMS „experiment“ – reference data
UWWT
plant
info
related catchment
Info
UWWT
discharge point
info
... and more
SIIF using distributed services – the experiment part 2
national SIIF nodes
WFS
FR data
WFS
holds relationship between
National WFS services and
EU base layers / EU SIIF
node
Broker / Harvester
WFS
HANDCODED
WFS
Discomap
REST services
reference maps
WMS
EU SIIF node
UWWTD
Viewer
integration view
The National SIIF node - WFS „experiment“ – FR data
1: We choose the reader format ”WFS (Web Feature Service)”.
2: Next, we choose the dataset. In this case:
”http://inspire.discomap.eea.europa.eu:80/arc
gis/services/SIIF_UWWTD_INSPIRE_WM/M
apServer/WFSServe”
After that, we click on ”Parameters...” button
and a large form appears. On this form we
have to choose the Feature type.
Next we choose the dataset. The easiest way to do is to introduce the complete url
with the requested feature in the WFS.
For example: “http://www.uwwtd.oieau.fr:80/services/wfs?SERVICE=WFS&VERSION=1%2E1%2E0&REQUEST=DescribeFeatureType&TYPENAME=UWWTD%3AUWWTD%5FUrbanWasteWaterTreatmentPlant
3.- 6. .... Special
configurations
7: One result
....
As of 23.10.2013 15:00 - for trial
WFS GetCapabilities
http://www.uwwtd.oieau.fr/services/wfs/?service=WFS&version=1.1.0&request=GetCapabilities
Issues encountered
Distinction compliance information / thematic data /
(spatial) reference data needs more clarification
Availablility of web services not a given
> sustainable effort for national SIIF node?
Configuration of WFS needs som expertise
> extra guidance needed
Cost of maintaining the system – who covers what?
Scenario 1 (full WFS / evt. WMS based)
National SIIF node provides WFS in agreed format – covering all spatial data –
both, thematic and INSPIRE data elements in the following alternative forms
(i) complete – all data renewed at each update event
(ii) updates only – a) the new data added, old data kept
EU SIIF nodes loads full data from harvester/broker and updates regularily
depending on option (i) or (ii)
Parts of EU wide reference data set in EU SIIF node are replaced by
National SIIF node data („cookie cutting approach“)
Scenario 1 (full WFS / evt. WMS based)
MS SIIF node full national
spatial data
incl. attribute
data
(i) only or
updated by (ii)
EU SIIF node EU reference data
EU SIIF node reference data
partly
replaced /
updated by
country data
SDI
Scenario 2 (hybrid)
a) National SIIF node provides WFS in agreed format – covering only often changing
tabular data and or additional compliance data – link through spatial object/ID
National SIIF node provides updates to their reference data manually to Reportnet
EU SIIF node updates EU reference data sets in regular intervals
b) EU SIIF nodes loads this partial data – as done previously – into harvester/broker
and updates regularily
Reference data sets in EU SIIF node are complemented by National SIIF node data
(„add-on approach“), proper versioning is needed
GREEN = current approach
Scenario 2 (hybrid)
ID linkage
a)
ID linkage
National SIIF node –
partial / dynamic attribute data
with enhanced
QA/QC functions
update x
integrated
b)
Manual update –
ETC/EEA QA/QC
National SIIF node –
more stable spatial reference data
update y
version x and y
Scenario 3 (current – extended Reportnet )
National node provides all data manually to Reportnet
a) National node informs / Reportnet+ checks availability of new data
(i) The entire dataset is exchanged
(ii) Only updates are been exchanged
b) EU node manually updates member state data and
EU reference data sets in regular intervals (maintain versioning)
GREEN = current approach
BLUE = Reportnet development scenario
Scenario 3 (extended Reportnet)
a)
MS node full national
spatial data
incl. attribute
Data (both i
and ii option)
provided into
Reportnet
EU node Reportnet +
Reportnet
initial
QA/QC functions
b) Manual update – ETC/EEA QA/QC
version n
version n+1
Way forward
Conclude on concept validation
review lessons learnt from experiments (”mock-ups”)
> evt. conduct more in-depth experiments
Move from mock-up to first implementation steps
> provide full data modelling (thematic vs. INSPIRE)
> consider cost implications
> build functional system prototype incl. pilot countries
Outline
Some European policy framework
a) SEIS and SIIFs - drivers for the evolution of eReporting
b) SEIS and INSPIRE implementation - potentials of a
technical framework to foster interoperability and harmonisation
c) SEIS, SENSE and SOER - tools for deeper integration
with EEA member countries
Where is INSPIRE on data specifications (slide from 6/2012)
The implementaion rules related Annex II and III
specifications became very generic
For reporting data use cases, the principle was followed to
keep thematic details outside
Many environmental themes are spread across Annex III
specifications
Maintenance discussion still at the very beginning
Future support to codelists / registries of special interest to
EEA
Supporting INSPIRE content/infrastructure (slide from 2012)
Provide selected environmental use cases to the data
specification work
Contribute expertise on environmental data to the data
specification work
Identify potential European reference data sets for
maintenance
EEA SDI catalogue operational since late 2011
Identify and build INSPIRE data models,
reference data, work on INSPIRE conformance
Fresh water
River basin (sub)districts
Flood risk zones
... (tbc)
Urban Waste Water
Sensitive areas
Agglomerations
Plants and discharge points
Marine
Maps of marine (sub)regions
Coastal and marine waterbodies
European coastline
Marine assessment units
Noise
tbc
Natur and biodiversity
CDDA (designated areas)
...
Land
Corine land cover
Industrie Emmission Directives
tbc
Airquality
14 reference layers to be built
and integrated
INSPIRE data themes and MSFD
Presentation by Cecilia
Silvestri, ISPRA at INSPIRE
Conference 2013
Way forward
Working plan and principles
• Stepwise implementation
• „Learning by doing“
• Based on thematic interest and needs
• Based on milestones coming from reporting obligations
• Building data models, data sets and services
• Involving EIONET in stages, establish action list for work
with EIONET
• Capacity building through EIONET NRC EIS and other
networks (e.g. INSPIRE MIG) and tools (e.g INSPIRE
FORUM)
Outline
Some European policy framework
a) SEIS and SIIFs - drivers for the evolution of eReporting
b) SEIS and INSPIRE implementation - potentials of a
technical framework to foster interoperability and harmonisation
c) SEIS, SENSE and SOER - tools for deeper integration
with EEA member countries
SENSE: Shortly recap the project aims
•
Support thematic experts in connecting existing indicator
specifications and assessment at European, national and
sub-national level
•
Support technical experts in advancing the technological
infrastructure (continue to rely on Semantic Web/Linked
Data technology)
•
Facilitate the collaboration between the two communities
mentioned above in order to ensure the handshake
between thematic desires and technical capabilities
•
Support input to SOER 2015 and beyond
SENSE: Shortly recap the project activities
1. Capacity Building: training on indicator concept and
model, as well as infrastructural capabilities and
capacities
2. Contribution to pan-European Reporting: thematic and
technical mapping of indicator components, and
agreement on the overall technical approach
3. Testing: further exploiting new possibilities for sharing SOE
information.
4. Evaluation: evaluating the outcomes and viability of
approaches used to support future SOE reporting
Relations to indicator work and SOER 2015
A
B
C
Synthesis
& Derivatives
Global
Megatrends
Thematic
SOE summaries
Country-level
SOE summaries
11 GMT fiches
20-30 thematic fiches
39 country fiches
FLIS
IMS / CSI
SENSE
11 to 44 indicators
37 to 200 indicators
8 to 37 indicators
FLIS
Reportnet
(incl. PDF, ...)
Eionet
(incl. SERIS)
Synthesis report
2012
2013
2014
?
Signals 2015 and
other derivatives
Dynamic information
3 indicator reports &
stakeholder workshops
?
Static information
SYN
Feedback on replies to initial questions
Countries with
interest now
... with interest
at a later stage
Focus
A) Capacity
building needs (of
countries)
BE,BG,CH,CZ,DE,
EE,ES,IE,LV,SE,T
R, SK
MK
RDF,
IMS
(DB2RDF)
B) Interest to provide
training (by countries)
BE, SE
EE,MK
(based on
training)
C) Availability of national BE,BG,CZ,IE,SE
SOE / IMS
D) Interest to participate
in „experiments“
BE,CZ,SE,SI
No replies so far:
AT,FI,NL
Details pending:
HU,IT,NO,RO,UK
CH,DE,IE,MK,
TR(?)
Scheduled next project steps
SENSE3 as support project to SOER 2015
Currently in EEA and Eionet consultation
Kick-off in September 2013
Draft set of indicators
to work on*
X
* currently in NFP/EIONET
consultation
X – 3 out of 8 also tested in SENSE2
X
X
SENSE2 indicators
SENSE3 indicators
Situation and Way forward
Actual situation
Indicator availability and structure in countries extremely heterogenious
(finding from SENSE2 project)
A common indicator definition is pending (maybe even unlikely)
> EEA needs to come forward with indicator needs for SOER2015 (now in
progress)*
Key interest of countries lies in capacity building
Readiness of some countries to participate in “experiments”
Suggested experiments
a) An enhanced SENSE2-type indicator submission using slightly revised
schemas
b) An enhanced RDF-based indicator exchange based on VOID/RDF
allowing the usage of attractive visualisation tools
c) A metadata-based (non-RDF) submission of (indicator related) data
using the DCAT format as used in the EU open data portal
Summary
Thank you for your attention and for a fruitful discussion