European Commission logo
INSPIRE Community Forum

EA CDDA confomity with PS, step 1

EA CDDA confomity with PS, step 1
By Brian MACSHARRY Comments (2)

The CDDA is an established Eionet priority data flow. By its purpose and content, it is related to the INSPIRE Protected sites (INSPIRE PS) spatial data theme. The main objective of the European Environment Agency (EEA) is to demonstrate how to provide the CDDA European data sets in conformity with the INSPIRE Protected sites data specification and Implementing Rules.
In order to accomplish the goal, six steps with several tasks have been defined in the present project:
 Step-1: Initial study and evaluation of the process;
 Step-2: Evaluate conformity of the CDDA data sets with INSPIRE PS Simple application schema;
 Step-3: Transform the CDDA data sets based on the matching tables into Geographic Markup Language (GML);
 Step-4: Run and document the compliance tests;
 Step-5: Evaluate conformity of the CDDA data sets with INSPIRE PS Full application schema;
 Step-6: Document the complete process.
This report is the outcome of the work related with the “Step-1: Initial study and evaluation of the process” that includes the following three sub-tasks:
 Analysis of data sets, specifications and requirements:
- Analysis of the relevant reference material;
- Analysis of the current CDDA data flow and data sets (European database) and available data model (create appropriate data model (UML) for the CDDA, if necessary);
- Analysis of the INSPIRE Protected sites Simple application schema requirements and recommendations and influences on the CDDA data sets

  • Iurie MAXIM
    Iurie MAXIM

    I would say that EEA chosed a wrong aproach.

    For example this image from the document creates duplication of data as most national sites in all member states are classified based on IUCN  categories. In Romania for example all protected areas established at national level have a corresponding IUCN category, therefore all are duplicated. From here on the entire aproach is wrong and not according to INSPIRE.


    For example if a MS have a new designation schema it can be added in the designationSchemeValue codelist by extending the list. In any case such so called "designations" like "A", "B" or "C" cant be considered as designations. Designations are those that are found in the field ODESIGNATE from the table Designations (i.e.: "Réserve naturelle domaniale" in Belgium)

    Therefore all documents started from wrong assumptions and denotes a scarce understanding of INSPIRE TG for PS andx of INSPIRE in general as well.

    If necessary I can provide much more comments to understand that the hundreds of pages that were writen are wrong.

    It should be understood as well that the CDDA model must be changed in order to accomodate the INSPIRE principles and the PS scheme.

    This is the first step that need to be made when transformimg the data according to a scheme.

    As Romania has all protected areas desiognated at national level classified according to the IUCN categories, there is no need to extend the DesignationSchemeValue codelist and the service provided trough WFS according to ps:ProtectedSites is covering all the data that is necessary for the EEA database regarding the protected areas from Romania. Similarly I assume that all MS can deliver all important data that is delivered in CDDA trough PS application schema. Of course some fields such as for example the area of the site will not be delivered, some aggregated data as well wil not be delivered and some not so relevant data will not be delivered as well.

    The most important would be to have in place the mechanism for MS to extend the DesignatedScheme codelist that is managed in the EC Registry, This will allow MS to provide all designated areas reported in CDDA. For example Romania is not able to provide in INSPIRE the internal zoning that is reported in CDDA because it needs to extend the DesignatedScheme codelist with the value "intenalZoning" and then to add the internal zoning categories as designations.

    Of course some fields such as for example "to_be_deleted" must be transformed. According to INSPIRE TGs, LifeCycle need to be used and the information can be stored in the endLifespanVersion element as dateTime and not as yes/no as it is curently in the  "to_be_deleted" field.

    Unfortunately currently the PS application schema has no LifeCycle and I would say that this is the onlhy information that is missing and that can be easly added to the simple application schema.


  • Christian ANSORGE
    Christian ANSORGE

    Dear Iurie,


    Thank you very much for your comments.

    We would like to reflect on some of the issues you flagged up.


    IUCN Category

    From a content point of view, it isn't correct to have the IUCN in the PS:DesignationSchemeValue set of code lists. IUCN category is not a designation type but a management type. IUCN categories aren’t related to legal designations and the codelist “IUCNDesignationValue” is therefore conceptually wrong. IUCN is used additionally to the designation type to inform about the site’s management level. IUCN, which is supposed to complement the designation information is handled differently across Europe. Some countries disagree with the IUCN categories, other countries don’t assign them (for various reasons) while others use them more intensively (like maybe RO).

    Following the explanation given above it becomes clear that IUCN isn’t sufficient in the light of CDDA reporting. The approach developed for INSPIRE CDDA reporting enables countries to provide their data conformant to INSPIRE despite they haven’t yet assigned IUCN categories. For those countries an extension of the DesignationSchemeValue and DesignationValue code-lists would be necessary.


    INSPIRE Protected Sites in the light of CDDA reporting

    The data required for CDDA cannot be covered by the INSPIRE Data Specification on Protected Sites, which was actually the reason to explore possibilities for extending it. We therefore disagree with your statement that INSPIRE Protected Sites is sufficient for CDDA reporting as it only covers a subset of the reporting information. Below we added a picture of the current CDDA data model for you to have a look. 

    Regarding your conclusions and statements please make sure you refer to the latest version of the CDDA data model ( It looks like you are using an earlier stage of the INSPIRE CDDA extension, which might contributed to some misunderstandings.


    Best regards

    Christian Ansorge & Mette Lund

    European Environment Agency

Biodiversity & Area Management

Biodiversity & Area Management

If themes like Protected Sites, Area Management/Restriction/Regulation Zones and Reporting Units, Habitats and Biotopes, Species Distribution, Bio-geographical Regions matters to you, join these groups!