1 / 10

Marine Strategy Framework Directive: technical issues for reporting under Article 11 monitoring

Marine Strategy Framework Directive: technical issues for reporting under Article 11 monitoring. DIKE Technical Sub-Group 4 July 2013 , EEA, Copenhagen. Reporting under Art. 11 monitoring. Current status of development: Recommendation approved by MSCG in May 2013

osias
Download Presentation

Marine Strategy Framework Directive: technical issues for reporting under Article 11 monitoring

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Marine Strategy Framework Directive:technical issues for reporting under Article 11 monitoring DIKE Technical Sub-Group 4 July 2013, EEA, Copenhagen European Commission DG Environment Unit C.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry

  2. Reporting under Art. 11 monitoring • Current status of development: • Recommendation approved by MSCG in May 2013 • Includes 10 agreed questions for reporting • Relate directly to Directive (especially Art. 11 and Annex IV) • Indicate the key questions for Art. 12 assessment by Commission • 'Response' to questions formulated as 'Summary Information' (with specified format e.g. value(s), dates, select lists) plus a text option within an agreed structure (general, programmes, sub-programmes) • This 'minimum information' was discussed and further developed by a DIKE Drafting Group on 4 June • Comments on this draft 'content' due 2 July; revised version to be released to WG DIKE (cc MSCG) on 12 July; final comments by 31 July • Develop draft schemas and database Aug-Sept

  3. Technical issues to address • In what application does MS or RSC prepare and hold the information? • What is the process for 'reporting' the information?

  4. Applications used to prepare/hold the information • Various options open to MS: • Web-based system (e.g. CMS) • Internal database • Excel (similar structure to Reporting Sheet) • Word (similar structure to Reporting Sheet) • Others? • Conclusion • Need for consistency in content and format (preferably also in structure – programmes/sub-programmes) – as per Reporting Sheet

  5. Process for reporting: options MS or RSC EC/EEA Web-based application (e.g. CMS) Formal report to Commission via ReportNet: xml format 'push' system - MS (or RSC) manually exports in xml format and uploads to ReportNet OR 'pull' system - data can be automatically harvested from MS (or RSC) system (web discovery service) upon request from Commission A MS EC/EEA Internal database Formal report to Commission via ReportNet: xml format 'push' system - MS manually exports in xml format and uploads to ReportNet B

  6. Process for reporting: options EC/EEA MS Database provided by Commission (from Atkins) Excel Word Formal report to Commission via ReportNet: xml format 'push' system - MS manually exports in xml format (Atkins tool) and uploads to ReportNet C Web form provided by Commission (from Atkins) Excel Word Formal report to Commission via ReportNet: xml format Automatic saving to xml format direct into ReportNet Manual transfer D • Possible applications: • Word • Excel • Internal database • Web-based application Paper report (if MS wish to use) Formal report to Commission via ReportNet: paper (pdf) format E Export as Word or pdf upload to ReportNet

  7. Example – web form in ReportNet

  8. Which options to focus on? • Preferred approaches: • Web-based national/regional systems – eventually as 'pull' system (option A) • Web-form on ReportNet (option D) or stand-alone database (option C)? • Do we expect?: • National non-web databases (option B) • Paper reports (option E) • Too many options is complex to handle – balance MS ways of working with EU tools for reporting

More Related