8th GBIF European Nodes Meeting
Preparatory Survey
Anne-Sophie Archambeau
The Survey
• 10 questions to EU Node Managers
– five on local (Node) activities
– five on broader (European) activities
• Conducted in April 2016
• Open questions with free text answers
• Report available on GBIF Community Site
Participation
• 13 country participants (out of 22)
• 2 associate participants (EEA, Naturalis)
And some quick updates by emails.
General remarks
• Rich and condensed information :
– Various Node activities
– Diversity of European Nodes
• References to many projects/initiatives
• This year, the other regions will also fill in
the same kind of survey.
Preliminary question
on attending the meeting
Reasons why the node managers doesn’t
come:
• Restructuration of the node and/or
Political issues 3
• Lack of funds and/or human resources 3
• Conflicting meetings 1
• No node manager 1
Q1 : Node status
How established and sustainable is your Node?
Most of the respondent nodes see
themselves:
• well established (13)
• sustainable (8)
 Less sustainability than last year
 Lots of uncertainty after 2016 -2017
 Inconsistency between engagement in GBIF
and functioning of the node
Q1 : Node Staff
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
Average: 4,2
4
2
0
An BE
DA
FI
FR
GE
EI
IL
NO PL
PT
ES
SW UK
Q2: How do you experience the collaboration
with the national/organisational network of
partners?
Generally good and positive relations
However :
 Still some competition instead of collaboration (often
due to lack of governance)
=> Sometimes easier to work with newer and smaller
institutions than bigger historical ones.
Q3: What are the main projects you are
working on?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Data Mobilization/publishing (8)
Data Portal (8)
IAS (3)
Citizen science (2)
Capacity enhancement (2)
Lots of others : Specific thematic (soil, threaten,
genetic, freshwater..) , EU directives, Data Analysis,
Data Validation, Checklists, e-learning, indicators,
Linnaeus NG software …
Q4: Strengths & Weaknesses
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Good networking 8
• Lack of resources (funds and/or
Governance structure/support 4
staff) 7
Technical process/softwares 3
• Involvement with
National portal 2
stakeholders/administrative
Good data coverage 2
issues 3
Staff 2 - Stable Team 1
• Communication 1
Training/support 2
• Coordination effort is big 1
Building checklist 1
• Unusual structure of the node 1
Being thematic node 1
Open Data Culture 1
Providing facilities for the
National Node 1
Extensive access control: Encourages contribution but penalty is
performance and stability.
Q5: 0pportunities & Threats
• New data portal/new RI 3
• GBIF recognition 2
• Data provision/new data types
2
• Special interest Networks 1
• Automatisation to allow time for
Scientific Data Use 1
• Being at heart of EU 1
• Openness agenda 1
• Celebrating 1O years of activity 1
•
•
•
•
Insecure funding 10
Politics 5
Staff issues 5
Other initiatives as
competitors 3
Q6: What are the broader projects
you are involved in?
Q7: collaborations/interactions with
other GBIF Nodes?
NORDIC :
FI, NO, SW +
LifeWatch DK and SW
Around ALA
Collaborations
Encounter Bay
(documentation):
BE, FR,PT,SP
CoopBioPlat :ERANETLAC around ALA
implementation:
ES,FR,PT +Ar,BR,CR
ALA install in GE: FR,GE
Leverage Nodes
capacities
Update data : AN,ES
E-learning : ES, FR, PT
Advices on hosting : BE,IL
EUROPEANA : FR, GE
Q8: What can you offer to other
European Nodes?
Technical expertise
Data Mobilisation
Implementation
of ALA portal
What can you offer?
Standards and Tools
Harvesting
IAS risk assesment protocol
Annotation
BioCase
Statistics
Collection managment
Hosting
Helpdesk
Databases
GIS
Web development
Data validation
Label transcription
Support scientific use
Species checklists
Knowledge exchange
IAS
Citizen science
Science-Policy Interface
E-learning
Training
Image hostings and services
Q9: What do you expect and/or desire
from other European Nodes?
• Knowledge exchange and Best Practice sharing 8
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Especially on improving Data quality/validation 3
Common Digit/mobilization initiatives 3
Joint proposal (H2020…) 3
Communication between nodes 3
Thematic areas 3
Training/BDI/Teaching collaboration 2
ALA portal 2
• Others (1):Translations, MOOC, sharing WP, sharing
checklist, user-end, Moving towards actual delegation
of common responsibilities between EU nodes …
Q10: What should/could we achieve
together in Europe?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project proposal 4
(Joint) Data mobilization 5
EU policy relevant data 4
Supporting scientific uses/regional uses cases 4
Engage new countries/support to non gbif 3
Adoption of common tools/ALA dev 3
Data types/checklists/ link to other data 3
• Others : BDI curriculum and teaching collaboration,
multi-language portal of EU biodiversity
Q10: What should/could we achieve
together in Europe?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Project proposal 4
(Joint) Data mobilization 4
EU policy relevant data 4
Supporting scientific uses/regional uses cases 4
Engage new countries/support to non gbif 3
Adoption of common tools/ALA dev 3
Data types/checklists/ link to other data 3
• Others : BDI curriculum and teaching collaboration,
multi-language portal of EU biodiversity