Towards national biodiversity monitoring coordination centres: comparison of governance, data interoperability and standards. Conclusions of the Biodiversa+ Governance pilot

The Biodiversa+ pilot “Towards national biodiversity monitoring coordination centres: comparison of governance, data interoperability and standards' was set up to support the establishment of a transnational European network of national biodiversity monitoring schemes by benchmarking the current situation of biodiversity monitoring governance on a national/sub-national level. The findings of the pilot will feed into the development of the European governance landscape of biodiversity monitoring, most notably the process to establish an European Biodiversity Monitoring Coordination Center (BMCC), under the lead of EuropaBON, a key collaborator of Biodiversa+. The pilot was tasked to review the governance structures as well as data management and interoperability solutions of national biodiversity monitoring schemes. These provide the foundation for establishing national biodiversity monitoring coordination centres or hubs which will be the national counterparts for the design of the BMCC (or sub-national counterparts in the case of sub-national regions). Also, the use of data and metadata standards (Darwin Core (DwC) and Ecological Metadata Language (EML)) were mapped. All ten participating countries and sub-national regions produced a report to describe their current situation. The analysis presented here is based on these national and sub-national reports, which are available in annexes. Based on the findings in this report, four key conclusions can be drawn: ● There is great variation between countries and sub-national regions in terms of biodiversity monitoring governance, data management and interoperability solutions. However, the use of DwC and EML is relatively common. ● Biodiversity monitoring governance in countries and sub-national regions differs based on the centrality of one main responsible organisation and the overall number of organisations involved in biodiversity monitoring. ● Regarding data management and interoperability solutions, no distinct clusters of countries (or sub-national regions) emerge: while some are more advanced than others, each have areas that require improvement. ● State of play in developing the national hubs is promising, as already half of the participating countries and sub-national regions report having a national hub in place. Recommendations for a way forward: 1. Ideally each country (or sub-national region) should have a (sub)national biodiversity monitoring coordination centre or hub, or as a minimum requirement, one identified focal point, to allow efficient connection with the BMCC; 2. Steps towards setting up national and sub-national hubs should be identified, building on the findings of this report, detailed vision, functions and funding model to be presented in the Biodiversa+ Strategic Phase III report; 3. Development of national and sub-national biodiversity coordination centres need to be prioritised independently of BMCC (European level) developments so that once it’s established, the national component of the BMCC will be already covered by a comprehensive and functional network. The pilot was coordinated by the Ministry of the Environment of Finland, and there were tenactive contributors: Autonomous Province of Bolzano, the Azores (Portugal), Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, and Sweden.