State-of play on GIS in the Rhine River basins Current status of the discussion in

1. Workshop on Implementation of GIS Requirements in the International River Basins, Brussels, 11 December 2002 State-of play on GIS in the Rhine River basins Current status of the discussion in GIS Working Group within the Rhine Commission Peter Krahe Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde Koblenz, Germany

2. Organisational StructureDecision making in the River Rhinebasin(draft)

3. Organisational structureDifferent levels for reporting are identified Part A: Superordinate part (River basin district Rhine) Part B: River basin units (working areas)

4. Examplefor reportingon River district levelPressure mapschool book

5. Example for reporting on working area level Hydrological AtlasSwitzerland

6. Organisational structureGIS-Group Members of the GIS-group Rhine: • Institute for Inland Water Management and Waste Water Treatment, Lelystad, NL (lead of GIS-group in 2002) • Bundesumweltamt, Wien, A • Agence de l‘eau Rhine-Meuse, Metz, F • Ministerium für Umwelt und Forsten Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz, D • Bundesanstalt für Gewässerkunde, Koblenz, D • International Commission for the Hydrology of the river Rhine, Lelystad, CHR/KHR

7. Feasibility study GIS-Group Main activity of GIS-Group: Feasibility Study to deliver GIS-based maps of the river Rhine basin to meet the requirements imposed by the EC Water Framework Directive (WFD) Background of the study: The Water Framework Directive (WFD) specifically asks for maps and digital spatial data for three tasks: 1) Reporting to the European Commission 2) Being element of River Basin Management plans 3) Installation of an information and communication platform for River basin district

8. Feasibility study GIS-Group Basic assumption: Three working levels result from general conditions • Collection level : Collection and coverage of spatial factual data and geometries of the water bodies to be reported --> appropriated scale 1:20.000 - 1:50.000 • Reporting level river basin unit Rhine: ---> appropriated scale has to be discussed in the study • reporting level river basin district Rhine ---> appropriated scale has to discussed in the study

9. Feasibility studyshort history • September 2001: start • December 2001: report CHR (4) • December 2001: start Aris • January 2002: report BfG (3) • January 2002: Cooperation with ahu • May 2002: Draft final report Aris/ahu (2) • May 2002: GIS group – report (1) • June to October 2002: Discussion with preparatory committee • November 2002: Progress report

10. Feasibility studyAim of the study • Manual, including efforts, to come to the maps required by the WFD for the Rhine district: • Base data: water bodies • Thematic maps • Data management • Internet Information System (Web Mapping)

11. Feasibility studyResults • Steps are described • Including efforts • Not in form of a manual

12. Feasibility studyExternal developments • EuroGlobalMap: • European dataset 1:1.000.000 • Supported by NMA’s (National Mapping Agencies) • Deliveries start in Nov 2002 • EU Working Group 3.1 (GIS): • Now handles subjects important for the Rhine activities • Develops European ‘standards’ • Guidance document in October 2002

13. Feasibility studyBase data sets • Surface water bodies: • Bottom-up – use national datasets • Top-down – use pan-European dataset • Top-down preferred: • No (much less) generalisation and homogenisation problems • Suitable dataset in development: EuroGlobalMap

14. Feasibility studyThematic maps • One scale level of the data supports Working level and District level reporting: • 1:500.000 to 1:1.000.000 • From collection level to reporting level: • Coding system is essential • Steps for map making described

15. Feasibilty studyData management • Important issues: • Data exchange • Data model • (De)central data management • Meta data • European agreements in development in EU WG 3.1

16. Feasibility studyInternet (Web Mapping) • Report describes alternatives • Could replace maps? • Decision later • Remarks: • If data are collected at a central body, then Web Mapping is fairly simple (one location) • Access to underlying data will require access to decentral institutions

17. Feasibilty studySome conclusions • For map-making data collection at a central body is necessary; • Minimal central efforts by: • Using pan-European dataset • Making countries responsible for data delivery at right scale • Putting effort in specs for data exchange, coding and metadata

18. Feasibility studyDecisions necessary – short term • Which waters to be included under discussion: • < 500 km² (National reporting) • > 500 km² (Working areas) • > 2500 km² (River basin district) • Maps are required? (yes)

19. Feasibility studyDecisions (later) • Cartographic requirements (atlas-like?) • Assignment of central body • Level of Web Mapping (EU WG 3.1) • GIS group can support these decisions

20. Feasibility studyContinuation • EuroGlobalMap has to be checked (end 2002) • EuroGlobalMap might be influenced • Incorporate results of EU WG 3.1 • Data exchange/access • Metadata • Coding • Web Mapping • Incorporate results of ground water group

21. Outlook The following meetings are important for progress within the Rhine-GIS: • Preparatory committee, September 18 and 19, 2002 (Bonn) • EU strategic coordination group (SCG), • September 30 and October 1, 2002 • EU WG 3.1 (GIS), October 17 and 18, 2002 (Ispra) • EU Water Directors , Kopenhagen, November and 22, 2002 • Preparatory committe, December 11, 2002 • Workshop on implementation of GIS requirements in the international river basins, Bruxelles, December 11, 2002 • Coordination committe, January , 2003 • Workshop on implementation of GIS requirements in the international river basins ,Bonn, February 10, 2003 (follow up meeting to Bruxelles)