/ EUROPEAN COMMISSION
DIRECTORATE-GENERAL
ENVIRONMENT
Directorate D - Water and Environmental Programmes
ENV.D.2 - Water and Marine

Brussels, 8/12/2005

D(2005) PhQ

Minutes of the 5th WISE-GIS workshop

held on 22November 2005

1.Purpose of the Meeting

The purpose of the workshop was to report on the progress in developing the WISE (Water Information System for Europe) concept, to explain the current status of the WISE implementation plan, to review the work of the three GIS Activity Expert Groups and to provide an information showcase for a number of related European GIS projects and initiatives.

2.Outline of the session

The Agenda for the day was broken down into four sessions. The speakers for each session are identified in a table at the end of these minutes.

The order of the day was disrupted by travel arrangements. The times on the table reflect when the presentations were made.

The minutes follow the original order of the agenda.

3.WISE vision document

Philippe Crouzet presented the WISE vision document. He explained that the JRC, the EEA and Eurostat had compiled the document jointly.

The following key points were identified.

  • The input and agreement / commitment of all parties (e.g. DG Env, Eurostat, EEA, JRC, etc) had been established.
  • The paper stated that the main objectives to provide a common dataset for integration into WISE and to establish a system that will enable effective data sharing and exchange through agreed interoperability standards
  • The paper identified the links to other initiatives such as INSPIRE
  • The roles of each organization were identified and identified as follows:
  • JRC – to establish a base water data set for use within WISE based on the CCM
  • Eurostat – to manage common reference datasets, to establish a codification and to ensure compliance with INSPIRE and GISCO.
  • EEA – to develop, build, and populate a compliant system that will support SoE reporting and enable general WISE information dissemination.
  • Member States – to assist in developing draft INSPIRE implementation rules in support of the initiative.

4.WISE implementation plan

Alfred de Jager presented a vision of the current state of the WISE implementation plan explaining that the plan was not yet finalised.

The following key points were identified

  • The issues that currently apply to reporting were described
  • The aim to support a single user community was identified
  • It was explained that WISE was being considered as an agreed exchange mechanism supported by standards to make WISE data and information available to all stakeholders.
  • Access to data for view and download would then be available to any “WISE compliant” application.
  • The WISE plan is being split into two main processes Input and output.
  • The target to provide a WISE viewer by end of 2006 was identified. This is to be developed by the EEA
  • A proof of concept for the WISE viewer was being progressed by EEA and is being planned for presentation at the WISE workshop.
  • The methods for Reporting information are being determined and will be made ready for the next wave of WFD and SoE reporting
  • A detail plan is to be completed by March 2006 and presented to the Water Directors as an agreed way forward in June 2006.

The following discussion arose

  • It was agreed that the use of Reportnet tools to support co-ordinated reporting would be assessed as part of the initial design process
  • It was confirmed that resources were being allocated by the different organisations to support the WISE implementation. In particular the EEA were in the process of agreeing software development input in support of the initiative.
  • All parties (EEA, JRC, Eurostat) confirmed that they were committed to the project and would want to work with the Member States to ensure its success

5.Article 5 testing

The following main points were reported.

  • The Activity Group 1 had exchanged e-mails to address final schema issues before the commencement of the Article 5 testing.
  • The schema and Access tools were aligned with the final agreed formats.
  • The Article 5 testing had been completed and thirteen Member States had been involved. Most had both used the Access tool and had submitted data through the WISE format.
  • No Member States had however agreed to pass data into the official site.
  • The testing was generally successful with problems being generally kept to a minimum.
  • The Access tool was especially well received and the WISE site was generally well accepted
  • All the errors/bugs encountered during the test for both the tool and web site have been corrected.
  • A number of issues arose with the schema. These were largely minor and have all been corrected.
  • The most fundamental problem was the need to adapt the schema to enable a less stringent approach to mandatory data. This has been completed.
  • The Access tool was enhanced to enable batch processing for some areas presenting problems e.g. converting co-ordinates

Agreed Actions

  • The final schema is to be presented at the WISE workshop on 15 16 December
  • The final testing report is to be circulated to the GIS working group once the Commission had approved it. (Done on 2 December 2005)

6.Visualisation of Article 5 data

The following main points were reported

  • The Activity 1 Group had met twice since the last meeting to progress the Visualisation of Article 5 data
  • The findings of the Activity 1 Group on Visualisation had been prepared as a report that had been circulated prior to the meeting.
  • At the first meeting the Commission had proved and discussed the set of visualisation reports that were to be produced using Article 5 data.
  • The Commission and the Activity 1 group agreed that the visualisations would be made at RBD level and should support general compliance checking and enable comparability.
  • It had been agreed that the work of the group was to be considered as work in progress to be presented to the Member States.
  • The methods for addressing each of the visualisations were then discussed and general consensus agreed for each.
  • Based on data provided for Article 5 testing proposed outputs had been prepared for each required visualisation report.
  • A common structure has been developed for documenting each visualisation. The structure comprised of the following:
  • Name of visualisation,
  • Method of creation,
  • How the map is to be interpreted,
  • Alternative non-mapped optional outputs,
  • Further mapping options for using non-Mandatory data
  • Associated issues.
  • An example map output has also been prepared for each visualisation. Note that in some cases the data provided for Article 5 did not support the required visualisation. In this case obviously no mapped output could be produced.
  • The Activity 1 Group had identified that in some cases the current definition of River Basin Districts were too large and in those cases did not facilitate effective comparison. In these cases reporting at a sub-basin level was the preferred option being recommended.

The following discussion points arose

  • The choice of the name Sub-Basins was confusing to some Member States.
  • The provision of information at SubBasin level may present an unacceptable extra burden
  • It was confirmed that the sub basin option was only suggestion and no schema had been created.
  • The move towards defining visualisation within a structure was helpful as it addressed how compliance would be determined.

Agreed Actions

  • To update the Visualisation document in the light of the discussion and to then circulate once the Commission has approved it.

7.Activity Group 2 – Common encoding system

It was reported that the Activity Group 2 had met to agree and finalise a first definition of a coding system. The coding system was then presented and the rationale for each component of the coding system was explained.

The proposed coding system is shown in the table below.

Code Segment / Type / Min / Max
Sea Region / Num / 1
River Basin district / Num / 3
River Basin (Pfafstetter) / Num / 1 , 9
Entity Type / Char / 2
Optional unique string for lakes / Char / 0 , 2
Country code / Char / 2
Unique string / Char / 1 , 22

The following main points / findings were identified.

  • The consideration of the coding system excluded monitoring points, discharge points, pollution sources and protected areas.
  • The coding system catered for lakes that were unconnected. In this case the Pfafstetter code needed to be replaced with a separate country id.
  • The country code would be based on the ISO 3166 standard.
  • The expected way forward would be for Member States to provide water bodies and then for the coding system would be applied using the CCM and the links would then be passed back to the Member States.
  • A document describing the coding system is within CIRCA and comments are sought by 15 December.

The following discussion points arose

  • The coding system seemed to be mix between a hydrological coding system and the need to meet WFD requirements
  • It will be a complicated process matching water bodies at an element level but will be less problematical at the catchment level
  • There may be a problem with too many inter basins at the sea outlets
  • It was confirmed that water bodies supplied for WFD do not need this code and that there is a statement in the document that the coding system will not be managed by Member States.

Agreed Actions

  • For Member States to comment on the coding document lodged within CIRCA by 15 December 2005.

8.Activity Group 3 – CCM 2 progress

Alfred de Jager gave a presentation of the work that is still in progress to produce the new CCM 2 dataset. He reported that work had progressed on adapting algorithms to ensure a greater degree of accuracy and that crest lines were now stable apart from the Baltic.

Despite the progress no timelines could be given for making the CCM data available.

Member States input in testing the CCM data would be welcomed.

9.INSPIRE

Hans DuFourmont gave a presentation on INSPIRE. The following main points were made:

  • INSPIRE had progressed through a first reading and had received strong support although there had been some dissenters,
  • The process had required several technical clarifications and extra safeguards had been put in place or public data providers.
  • The Austrian presidency see INSPIRE as a high priority so interest in completing the process is anticipated.
  • Work is progress towards a possible second reading in February 2006. Thereafter the due process will still take at least six months.
  • Work has continued with the Drafting rules process. Approximately 180 experts were put forward. From these a core drafting team of less than ten has been set up to write the first cut implementation rules.
  • A kick off meeting of the Drafting Team was held in October and the process of drafting the implementation rules has started.
  • The document will then be made available for review but this is will not happen until the document is sufficiently mature to facilitate constructive response

The following discussion points arose:

  • The various communities would be called upon by the Drafting Teams to help finalise the work of the Drafting teams
  • The issue of a scale was raised and the meeting was informed that the scale requirement had not yet been determined and that different scales may apply to different themes.
  • It was hoped that national issues would be overcome by engaging with LMOs (Legally Mandated Organisations) during the drafting and legal process.

10.SDIC

Philippe Quevauviller informed the group that the area of hydrology had been identified as a key area within INSPIRE.

The question about how the WISE SDIC would interact with the Drafting Teams was then discussed and the following agreed.

  • Input was not required until the initial outputs from the Drafting Groups became available.
  • There should be a split of reviewers from within the WISE SDIC to consider the technical, the Commission and the MemberState perspectives.
  • The input would then be driven by the Drafting Team’s work programme.

In general discussion it was identified that attendees may have documents would be of interest to the drafting process.

Agreed Actions

  • For Philippe Quevauviller to co-ordinate the input of GIS Working Group members to the Drafting process when this was required.
  • For attendees to upload documents to the INSPIRE web site where these might be helpful to the Drafting process.

11.Supporting RTD projects

A set of short presentations were then made on the following projects Geoland, GMES, RISE, MOTIIV and SDIGER.

All presentations were well received and it was agreed that the process was informative and should be repeated at future meetings of the GIS Working Group.

12.Date of next meeting

The date of the next meeting was not agreed but will be determined by the Commission in due course.

13.Any other business

There was no other business.

Speakers at the workshop

SESSION 1. - Activity 1. - UPDATE ON WISE
09:00 / Welcome and introduction / Slides / Philippe Quevauviller
09:15 / WISE vision document / Slides / Philippe Crouzet (EEA)
10:00 / WISE implementation plan / Slides / Alfred de Jager (JRC)
Discussion / All
SESSION 2. Activity 1. – Article 5 testing and Visualisation
11:00 / Article 5 testing / Slides / John Cima (WRc)
11:30 / Visualisation / Slides / Rob Collins (WRc)
Discussion / All
SESSION 2. Activity 2. – COMMONRIVER ENCODING SYSTEM
09.30 / Update on WFD coding / Slides / Albrecht Wirthmann (Eurostat)
Discussion / All
SESSION 2. Activity 3 – USE OF CCM2
14:00 / Update on CCM progress / Slides / Alfred de Jager (JRC)
Discussion / All
SESSION 3. Activity 3 – Links with INSPIRE
15:00 / Update on INSPIRE development / Slides / Hans Dufourmont (Eurostat)
15:15 / Organisation on the WISE SDIC / Slides / Philippe Quevauviller
SESSION 4. Supporting RTD projects
16:00 / Hydrogeological mapping in Europe – A cornerstone for WISE? / Slides / Wilhelm STRUCKMEIER
16:10 / GEOLAND consolidated service and implementation opportunities / Slides / Thomas SCHRAGE
16:20 / RISE project / Slides / Nick LAND
16:30 / MOTIIVE project / Slides / Roger LONGHORN
16:40 / SDIGER project / Slides / Nadège ORLOVA

1