2nd Bireme Workshop - Belgian case

presentation of the Belgian case.

Transcript

1. The Belgian case Paris, 3-4 May 2018 André Heughebaert Belgian Biodiversity Platform
2. Interviews • Based on questions identified during 1st Workshop • We made a bilingual French/Dutch online survey • Six national experts answered: • Reporting: Birds Dir.(2), Habitats Dir.(3), IAS(1) • Regions: Brussels(1), Flanders(3) and Wallonia (2)
3. Key actors • Brussels Capital Region: Brussels Environment • Flanders: • Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) • Nature conservation NGO (Natuurpunt) • Wallonia: • Regional administration (DEMNA) • Nature conservation NGO (Natagora) • Federal state: • Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences (RBINS) 3
4. Birds Directive
5. Habitats Directive
6. Lessons learned (1) • Good collaborative spirit • Sharing of restricted access data • Sharing of tools expertise • Ad hoc filtering and cleaning procedures necessary • Very few species were left behind due to :
 sensitive, unavailable or untrusted data
7. Lessons learned (2) • Heterogenous formats and tools • Time consuming data assembling/cleaning effort • GBIF data/services/tools not used!
8. Lessons learned (3)
 IAS Regulation • Baseline distribution of IAS already published in 2017 • Flanders data partially available on GBIF, others not • TrIAS project (including all key actors) to systematically publish all relevant data ahead of EU reporting • Intensive use of DarwinCore, IPT and GBIF.org • DwC Extension on IAS management measures • EASIN distribution maps will be much more accurate
9. https://osf.io/ae4nq/ Thank you! André Heughebaert This presentation is reusable