DIKE_11-2015-05
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD)
Common Implementation Strategy
11th meeting of the
Working Group on Data, Information and Knowledge Exchange (WG DIKE)
with Working Group on Good Environmental Status (WG GES)
0900-1700: 19 June 2015
DG Environment, Room C, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels
Agenda item:
5
Document:
DIKE_11-2015-05
Title:
Indicator structure and common elements for information flow
Prepared by:
ETC/ICM for EEA
Date prepared:
08/06/2015
Background:
This document provides an overview of the indicator-based assessment structures in use,
or under development, in two of the RSCs (OSPAR and HELCOM) and at the European
level (EEA). A short analysis is provided that demonstrates the commonality between
these approaches, and highlights some of the elements that may need further work in
order to share these information to an agreed common set of indicator meta-information
that could be exploited through WISE-Marine. Ultimately, this would help streamline the
provision of information from MS/RSCs to the MSFD and aid regional coherence, thus
avoiding parallel processes being required.
This paper should provide steps towards convergence on agreeing the common elements
of an indicator assessment, and provide guidance to MS/RSCs that are yet to formulate
their approach.
WG DIKE is invited to:
a. Review and comment on the overall analysis and approach;
b. Review and agree the common schema as presented in Table 7.
1
DIKE_11-2015-05
Indicator structure and common elements for information
flow
1 Summary
It is expected that assessments developed in the context of the Regional Sea Conventions will be
used in support of the 2018 MSFD Art.8 assessments, including through the use of commonly agreed
indicators. For two RSCs, developing their next assessments (HELCOM's HOLAS II and OSPAR's
Intermediate Assessment 2017), the indicator assessment approach is seen as a direct contribution
to MS needs in 2018.
An analysis of the two RSC approaches, and the EEA approach to indicator assessment (Figure 1),
suggests there is an underlying common structure and the possibility to agree a set of core
information that could be mapped between the regional approaches/European approach and utilised
in the provision of information that feed upwards from Member States to RSCs to the European
level.
A draft of a common schema is presented, which builds on these existing approaches. This draft
needs to be developed in agreement with WG DIKE, the result of which will be an MSFD indicator
specification.
Figure 1 Indicator common categorization and number of information fields in each structure
There are, however, some differences between the approaches and each of the structures could be
modified to provide more explicit information, or improved compatibility to MSFD information
needs. If this approach is seen as acceptable, agreement would need to be made on which of the
common categories would be required and which could be optional, and which specific fields within
each category would be appropriate to obtain a common mapping of information.
2
DIKE_11-2015-05
2 Indicator assessments
For environmental assessments, indicators are a well-established method to apply a metric to the
status and trends of specific pressures and states. This approach, in one form or another, has been
used in the RSCs and at the European scale for the last two assessment rounds. The MSFD criteria
also correlate to an indicator type approach, and this is recognised by the RSCs in their planning for
their next regional assessments – the so-called 'roof reports'.
The accompanying document DIKE_11-2015-03 (indicator overview section) provides a summary of
the status of the availability and planned use of these indicators across the entire MSFD area. The
breadth of subject matter of these indicators has already led to the formulation of agreed structures
for the information that forms part of the indicator; this is equally true for the EEA, OSPAR and
HELCOM. Information on the developments within the Mediterranean and Black Sea are not yet
known. Each of these organisations has elaborated templates of information elements; Table 1
summarizes their approach and status.
Table 1 overview of existing indicator structures
Organization
Development status
Presentation format
Structure
EEA
Currently used for coreset Online
indicators (CSI)
Follows a strict meta-data
template adapted from the
European SDMX Metadata
Structure (ESMS)
HELCOM
Currently used for some
existing assessments (i.e.
Eutrophication) and
available for use for roof
report
Online
Follows a document-based
structure based on an
agreed HELCOM set of
information
OSPAR
In draft and awaiting
contracting party
agreement. Available for use
in roof report
Planned to be online
Follows a document and
meta-data-based
structure,
developed
within OSPAR
UNEP/MAP
Not known
Not known
BSC
Not known
Not known
3 Common elements to the indicators
Building on experience from the MSFD initial assessment reporting, and with a clear aim to reduce
the overall burden of sharing information between MS, RSCs and the Commission/EEA, a structured
and explicit approach is required to make information within RSC indicator structures available to,
and usable by, the Commission/EEA in an overall European marine assessment. Explicit means to
make clear references and information placeholders to key parts of an indicator structure, so that
information and results are not buried within other elements, and are clearly marked so that those
unfamiliar with the regional setup can easily identify the information needed to understand and
interpret correctly the conditions for a particular indicator assessment.
Based on an analysis of the indicator specifications from OSPAR, HELCOM and EEA it has been
possible to build a common categorization of the type of information that is used in the indicators
3
DIKE_11-2015-05
(see Table 2). These categories represent a de facto understanding of what key pieces of information
are needed to present a robust indicator assessment.
Table 2 Common categorization of indicator elements
Category
Description
Access and use
Explicit information on access rights, usage rights related to the data products,
indicator publication etc. i.e. data policy, copyright restrictions etc.
Assessment findings
Key messages, assessment results, trend analysis and conclusions presented
primarily as text
Assessment methods
Methodologies, aggregation methods, indicator specifications, references to other
relevant methods
Assessment purpose
Purpose of assessment, rationale of approach, targets and policy context
Contact and ownership
Contact details for assessment indicator, including authorship and organisational
contact points
Data inputs and outputs
Data sources, assessment datasets, assessment results, snapshots etc.
Geographical scope
Assessment units, other geographical information, countries
Labelling and
classification
Identification and classification systems, such as INSPIRE, DPSIR, MSFD criteria
Quality aspects
Explicit information content on quality of assessment, including data and methods.
i.e. uncertainty, gaps in coverage etc.
Temporal scope
Time range of assessment, usually expressed as a year range
Version control
Publishing dates, references to previous indicator versions, URI's etc.
Table 3 summarizes for each indicator structure the application of a common categorisation. The
numbers in the matrix refer to the number of information fields from the indicator that fall within
the category. While the numbers are not analogous to the quality/completeness of information in
each category, they give an indication of where emphasis is placed in explicit information content
and where more elaboration could be needed. The colour coding is an aid to show where there are
no relevant information fields (pink), one occurrence of a field (yellow) and more than one
occurrence within a category (green).
Table 3 Categorization of the 3 indicator types according to information fields used (count)
Categories
Access and use
Assessment findings
Assessment methods
Assessment purpose
Contact and ownership
Data inputs and outputs
Geographical scope
Labelling and classification
Quality aspects
Temporal scope
Version control
Grand Total
EEA
fields
HELCOM
fields
4
5
6
2
8
1
7
3
2
6
44
3
7
7
2
3
1
1
6
1
31
OSPAR
fields
1
8
1
4
2
2
8
10
1
2
3
42
4
DIKE_11-2015-05
Each indicator structure is analysed in greater detail in the
Indicator assessment structures described section.
4 Indicator assessment structures described
4.1 EEA Core indicator1
The core indicators are presented as part of the ‘Data and Maps’ services on the EEA webpage. The
format relies on a mixture of text, tabular information and maps to present the indicator. The
structure was not developed specifically for the MSFD, nor for marine assessments. The content is
well structured, due partly to the elements being underpinned and described within an XML
specification standard, which also means the indicator, or parts thereof, can be outputted in
different formats/configurations.
Figure 2 Screenshot of indicator presentation on EEA webpage
1
An example can be found here http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/chlorophyll-intransitional-coastal-and-2/assessment
5
DIKE_11-2015-05
Table 4 summarizes by information category how the EEA indicator is structured. While the absolute
numbers of fields related to any particular category do not imply that the structure is weak/strong in
these categories, it does provide information on where explicit references and placeholders have
been thought useful/necessary.
Table 4 EEA Indicator information elements
EEA
Category and relevant fields
Assessment Findings
Assessment methods
Assessment Purpose
Contact and Ownership
Data inputs and outputs
Geographical scope
Labelling and Classification
Quality Aspects
Temporal scope
Version control
Grand Total
Number of
Fields
4
5
6
2
8
1
7
3
2
6
44
Notable features
-
EEA makes an explicit reference to the indicator units e.g. concentration expressed as
microgramme per litre; this information would be very important for comparisons when
looking across a range of indicators from different sources/regions.
-
The indicator approach is well developed in terms of a technical platform i.e. underlying XML
schema and it is evident the information fields have been refined over a number of iterations
to provide the most relevant set of information to the widest audience.
-
The labelling, classification and versioning fields are both numerous and well utilised – this
reflects the wide range of indicator type products available via the EEA.
Possible enhancements for MSFD
-
There is no specific reference to geographical assessment units. However the map products
do depict the results by MSFD sub-regions, and the metadata structure has a field for
‘contributing countries’.
-
There is no explicit reference to an ‘assessment dataset’ which both OSPAR and HELCOM
refer to; the EEA structure refers to the overall underlying dataset.
-
With the exception of the DPSIR label type, there are no specific labels that link the indicator
to a specific MSFD utilisation i.e. using the MSFD criterion id’s.
4.2 HELCOM Core indicator2
The core indicators are presented thematically as part of the ‘Baltic Sea Trends’ section on the
HELCOM webpage. The format relies on a mixture of short texts, tabular information and
dynamic/static maps to present the indicator. The recently updated structure, which is similar but
not identical to the online version, has been developed specifically for the MSFD.
2
An example can be found here http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-trends/eutrophication/indicators/chlorophyll-a/
6
DIKE_11-2015-05
Figure 3 Screenshot of presentation of indicator on HELCOM webpage
Table 5 summarizes by information category how the HELCOM indicator is structured. While the
absolute numbers of fields related to any particular category do not imply that the structure is
weak/strong in these categories, it does provide information on where explicit references and
placeholders have been thought useful/necessary.
Table 5 HELCOM Indicator information elements
HELCOM
Category and relevant fields
Assessment Findings
Assessment methods
Assessment Purpose
Contact and Ownership
Data inputs and outputs
Number of
Field
3
7ctr
7
2
3
7
DIKE_11-2015-05
HELCOM
Category and relevant fields
Geographical scope
Labelling and Classification
Quality Aspects
Version control
Grand Total
Number of
Field
1
1
6
1
31
Notable Features
-
The indicator makes explicit references to both an assessment dataset and assessment data
sources. For transparency and reproducibility it is preferable to have both of these pieces of
information as only referring to the overall data sources can make it more challenging to
reproduce the exact dataset that was used in an assessment.
-
The indicator structure has extensive and explicit assessment methods and quality aspects
components. These make it easier to both understand any possible weaknesses and
limitations of the indicator, and also to compare against other regional indicators.
-
The HELCOM indicator structure makes explicit references to MSFD GES criteria.
Possible enhancements for MSFD
-
There is no explicit placeholder for temporal scope i.e. the year range of the assessment
-
There is no direct reference to which countries the indicator assessment applies to (i.e. a list
of countries), although this can be inferred from the map of assessment units/data results
-
Although an authorship citation is provided, there is no explicit reference to the access and
use rights to the assessment dataset, or map products.
4.3 OSPAR Common Indicator3
The common indicators structure is yet to be adopted by OSPAR, and the OSPAR website and
information system (ODIMS) are currently under development to accommodate this feature. Based
on the draft proposal the indicators will be presented on the OSPAR website as part of the
assessment and linked to ODIMS. The format relies on a mixture of text (some of which is tailored
specifically for web presentation), tabular information and maps to present the indicator. The
structure was not developed specifically for the MSFD but does address it. The content is well
structured, and reference is made to known meta-data terminology such as INSPIRE keywords. It is
anticipated that the structure presented in this report will be modified by OSPAR, partly to address
their own internal review of information, but also triggered by feedback from this analysis.
Table 6 summarizes by information category how the OSPAR indicator is structured. While the
absolute numbers of fields related to any particular category do not imply that the structure is
weak/strong in these categories, it does provide information on where explicit references and
placeholders have been thought useful/necessary.
3
No online representation is available yet, the information is built on a document to the OSPAR Coordination
group (CoG) 6-7 May, 2015 “Conclusions of ICG MAQ(1), (2) 2015 and intersessional work” document reference
0306
8
DIKE_11-2015-05
Table 6 OSPAR Indicator information elements
OSPAR
Category and relevant fields
Access and Use
Assessment Findings
Assessment methods
Assessment Purpose
Contact and Ownership
Data inputs and outputs
Geographical scope
Labelling and Classification
Temporal scope
Version control
Quality Aspects
Grand Total
Number of
fields
1
8
1
4
2
2
8
10
2
3
1
42
Notable Features
-
The OSPARs structure explicitly states data and indicator access and use rights. This is an
important pre-condition for a common sharing platform as there is explicit agreement on
what can be used, and any limitations on use.
-
Although the terminology differs, OSPAR makes an explicit reference to both an assessment
dataset (a snapshot) and assessment data sources.
-
The indicator structure makes a specific labelling for MSFD criteria.
Possible enhancements for MSFD
-
A clearer information provision to the data product relating to an assessment result would
be useful
-
The field ‘linkage’ would benefit from a more structured approach as a collection of links –
most of which will be intrinsic to interpreting the assessment, may be too ambiguous and
lead to information not being translated correctly in a common set of information fields.
-
The structure would be improved by more explicit references to quality aspects of the
assessment, monitoring and data aggregation methods.
5 A common indicator schema
Based on the information presented relating to the three indicator assessment examined, a first draft
of a common schema is presented in Table 7. As a guidance for discussion and agreement in WG
DIKE, an indication is given as to whether the field should be a required element or optional, in order
to ensure an adequate provision of information to the MSFD assessment and WISE-Marine.
9
DIKE_11-2015-05
Table 7 MSFD indicator schema draft outline
x = more than one field present in existing indicator structure
o = one field present in existing indicator
n = no explicit fields in existing indicator
Category and relevant fields
Access and Use
Conditions applying to access
and use
Assessment Findings
Key assessment
Key messages
Results and Status
Trend
Assessment methods
Indicator Definition
Methodology for indicator
calculation
Methodology for monitoring
Indicator units
GES - concept and target
setting method
Description
Explicit information on access rights, usage rights
related to the data products, indicator publication etc.
i.e. data policy, copyright restrictions etc.
Content type
i.e. Copyright, data policy
text or URL
Key messages, assessment results (text and graphic
form), trend analysis and conclusions presented
primarily as text
Longer description of assessment results by assessment
units
Short descriptions of trends
Textual description of assessment results, could include
graphics
Textual description of assessment trend, could include
graphics
Methodologies, aggregation methods, indicator
specifications, references to other relevant methods
EEA
HELCOM
OSPAR
n
n
o
Recommendation
Required
x
x
x
text
Required
text
text and
figures
text and
figures
Required
Required
Optional
x
x
o
Short description of indicator aimed at general audience
Text and tabular information on the process of
aggregation and selection etc
Short textual description of monitoring
requirements/method
Units used for indicator
text
Required
text
Required
text
Optional
text
Required
Text describing concept used and target method
text
Optional
10
DIKE_11-2015-05
Category and relevant fields
Assessment Purpose
Indicator purpose
Policy relevance
Relevant publications (policy,
scientific etc)
Policy Targets
Description
Purpose of assessment, rationale of approach, targets
and policy context
Content type
Justification for indicator selection and relevance
Text relating indicator to policy
text
text
Required
Optional
Citable URLs to policy documents related to indicator
text
Optional
Description of policy target
text
Optional
Contact and Ownership
Contact details for assessment indicator, including
authorship and organisational contact points
Authors
Citation
Point of contact
List of authors
Full citation
Organisational contact
Data inputs and outputs
Data sources, assessment datasets, assessment results
(tabular and dataset), snapshots etc.
Data sources
Underlying datasets
Assessment dataset
snapshot dataset that was derived from underlying data
Assessment result
summary results dataset/table/figure
Assessment result- map
GIS version of assessment result i.e. Shape file or WFS
Geographical scope
Assessment units, other geographical information,
countries
Assessment unit
Countries
Other geographical unit
Labelling and Classification
Nested assessment unit (if available)
Countries that the indicator covers
alternate source of geographical reference for indicator
i.e. ICES areas
identification and classification systems, such as
INSPIRE, DPSIR, MSFD criteria
EEA
HELCOM
OSPAR
x
x
x
x
x
Recommendation
x
text
text
text
Optional
Required
Required
x
x
x
text and/or
URL
URL
File or web
service
File or web
service
Required
Required
Required
Optional
o
o
x
text
text
Optional
Required
text or URL
Optional
x
o
x
11
DIKE_11-2015-05
Category and relevant fields
DPSIR
MSFD criteria
Indicator title
INSPIRE topics
Quality Aspects
Data confidence
Indicator methodology
confidence
GES - confidence
Description
assessment framework linkage
criteria coding as listed in Annex III tables 1 and 2
Full title of indicator as published
Keyword topics
Explicit information content on quality of assessment,
including data and methods. i.e. Uncertainty, gaps in
coverage etc.
Adequateness of spatial and temporal coverage, quality
of data collection etc.
Content type
text
text
text
text
text
Required
Knowledge gaps and uncertainty in methods/knowledge
text
Required
Confidence of target, descriptive text
text
Optional
Temporal scope
Time range of assessment, usually expressed as a year
range
Temporal Coverage
assessment period expressed as year start -year end
Version control
Publishing dates, references to previous indicator
versions, URI's etc.
Last modified date
Published date
Unique reference
version linkage
date of last modification
publish date of indicator
Citable reference unique to resource i.e. URI, DOI
Link to other versions of assessment
EEA
HELCOM
OSPAR
x
x
o
x
n
Recommendation
Optional
Required
Required
Required
x
date range
Required
x
o
x
date time
date time
text or URL
URL
Sum Required fields
Sum Optional fields
Optional
Required
Optional
Optional
21
15
12
DIKE_11-2015-05
At present the common fields are not mapped directly to existing information fields in the OSPAR,
HELCOM and EEA structures; this needs to be completed together with these organisations. WG DIKE
would need to validate this and decide on whether each suggested category/field is
required/optional for a common structure. This could be carried out by written comments to the
table, or through TG DATA if necessary.
This mapping would then be used as the basis for translating between the RSC/Member state
structures and the common schema for reporting. This would mean that the existing indicator
structures would be directly related to the MSFD common approach without a major restructure of
the existing indicator structures.
13
DIKE_11-2015-05
6 Annex 1: EEA Core indicator specification
EEA
Number of Fields
Category
Assessment
Findings
Assessment
methods
Field
Key Assessment
Key messages
Results Data product Chart:Title
Results Data product Map:Title
Indicator Definition
Methodology for gap filling
Methodology for indicator
calculation
Assessment
Purpose
Methodology references
Units
Justification for indicator
selection
Key policy question
Policy context
Policy documents
Policy Targets
Scientific references
Contact and
Ownership
Data inputs and
outputs
EEA Contact Info
Ownership
Data sources
Results Data product Chart: Data source
Results Data product Chart: Image
Results Data product Chart: Links
Results Data product Chart: Table
Results Data product Map:Data source
Results Data product Map:Downloads
Usage
longer description of assessment results by
regional sea
Short descriptions of trends
Title of Chart
Title of map
short description of indicator
Text describing the method for filling missing
values in dataset
Text and tabular information on the process of
aggregation and selection etc
Citable URLs to regional reports and scientific
papers on methodology
units used for indicator
Scientific justification of use of indicator
what the indicator is addressing from a
management perspective
background text on policy setting
Citable URLs to policy documents related to
indicator
Description of policy target
Citable URLs to various types of regional reports
EEA named resource
Organisational owner
Citable URL to underlying dataset for overall
assessment
Citation reference to dataset
Image (interactive in this case)
Further functions etc
table of trends
Citation reference to dataset
Further images, information for map indicator
product
14
DIKE_11-2015-05
EEA
Number of Fields
Category
Geographical
scope
Labelling and
Classification
Quality Aspects
Temporal scope
Version control
Field
Results Data product Map:Image
Usage
Geographic Coverage
Countries covered by the indicator
DPSIR
Indicator Codes
Indicator specification
Indicator title
Tags
Topics
Typology
Datasets uncertainty
Methodology uncertainty
Rationale uncertainty
Category of DPSIR type
EEA coding of indicators
URL to full indicator template
Short descriptive title of indicator
more detailed keywords for filtering/discovery
filtering/discovery of key topic areas
Nature of content type i.e. descriptive indicator
short descriptive text
short descriptive text
short descriptive text
Indication of how often assessment indicator is
run
Year range
Creation date of instance of indicator
Aggregation of Create, Publish and Last modified
date
Last modification to indicator instance
Publication date
Link to latest version of assessment
Link to this version of assessment
Frequency of updates
Temporal Coverage
Create date
Dates
Last modified date
Published date
URI latest version
URI version instance
Image (map and legend) of indicator
15
DIKE_11-2015-05
7 Annex 2: HELCOM Core indicator specification
HELCOM
Number of
Field
Category
Assessment
Findings
Field
Usage
Key message
Short descriptions of trends
Textual description of assessment results including
graphics and tables
Textual description of long term trend including
graphics
Text and tabular information on the process of
aggregation and selection etc including assessment
units
short textual description on selection of data
Status
trend
Assessment
methods
Assessment Protocol
Data description
Good Environmental State concept
Good Environmental State target setting method
Monitoring methodology
Current monitoring
Arrangements for updating
indicator
Assessment
Purpose
Anthropogenic Pressures
Relevance of the core
indicator
Policy relevance of the core
indicator
Policy relevance
the role of XX in the
ecosystem
Additional relevant
publications
Publications used in
indicator
Contact and
Ownership
Data inputs
and outputs
Authors
Cite this indicator
Map (Viewer) Results
product
Data source: assessment
dataset
Data source: underlying data
trend or target
data or model
short textual description of monitoring
requirements/method
stations on map, which countries are monitoring
short text on indicator arrangements (no dates)
Text description linking indicator to DPSIR pressure
element
short justification of use of indicator
summary background text on policy setting
(tabulated)
more detailed information on legislation
background
Scientific relevance of the indicator
(blank)
Links to various related reports (assessment, targets
etc)
Textual citation of all authors of indicator
Textual citation of indicator, including URL reference
GIS application
usually excel snapshot
Text description and URL's describing underlying
16
DIKE_11-2015-05
HELCOM
Number of
Field
Category
Labelling and
Classification
Quality
Aspects
Version
control
Geographical
scope
Field
Usage
data sources
Full title of Indicator
Confidence of indicator
status
Good Environmental State confidence of target
Description of optimal
monitoring
Results and confidence
Confidence
data quality assurance
routines
Short descriptive title of indicator
Archive
Map (image): Results
product - including
assessment units
Link to previous versions of assessment
spatial/temporal coverage using high/moderate/low
high/moderate/low
short description of deficiencies in monitoring
text and maps in detail for expert audience
high/moderate/low
(blank)
Image (map and legend) of indicator
17
DIKE_11-2015-05
8 Annex 3: OSPAR Common indicator specification (DRAFT to be
adopted)
OSPAR
Number of fields
Category
Access and Use
Assessment
Findings
Assessment
methods
Assessment
Purpose
Contact and
Ownership
Data inputs and
outputs
Geographical
scope
Labelling and
Classification
Field
Conditions applying to access
and use
Description
Conclusion (brief)
Conclusion (extended) - only for
online version
Figures (other)
Key message
Resource abstract
Results
Results (extended) - only for
online version
Results (figures)
Analysis of trend results and conclusion
Linkage
Background (brief)
Background (extended) -only for
online version
Background (figures)
Purpose
access rights and usage
(blank)
tabular list of figures
short textual summary of main trends
textual summary (abstract)
Description of indicator results
(blank)
tabular list of figures
multiple linkages to guidelines, decisions,
methods etc
combination of relevance of indicator and
relation to pressures
(blank)
tabular list of figures
Relevance text
Email
Point of contact
(blank)
Lead organisation AND/OR individual
Data Snapshot
Data Source
assessment dataset
underlying data sources
Contributing countries
Countries (2)
E Lon
Indirect spatial reference
N Lat
S Lat
Subtitle 3
W Lon
ISO country list of assessment countries
contributing countries
Assessment bounding box
Assessment units
Assessment bounding box
Assessment bounding box
Textual and graphic representation of
assessment area
Assessment bounding box
Assessment type
OSPAR orientated list
18
DIKE_11-2015-05
OSPAR
Number of fields
Category
Temporal scope
Version control
Quality Aspects
Field
Component
Sheet reference
Subtitle 1
Subtitle 2
Thematic Strategies
Title
Topic category
End date
Start date
Date of publication
Lineage
Metadata date
Knowledge gaps - only for online
version
Description
related to MSFD descriptors OR thematic
assessment
identification ID
detailed title
MSFD title
OSPAR theme
Indicator assessment title
INSPIRE related topics
Assessment temporal range (end date)
Assessment temporal range (start date)
(blank)
previous assessment version
Date of creation of metadata record
quality assessment / gaps in knowledge
19
DIKE_11-2015-05
9 Annex 4: Analysis and mapping in detail (Excel workbook)
Microsoft Excel
Worksheet
20