[Gbif-europe] 7th European Nodes Meeting - structuring the meeting
a.heughebaert at biodiversity.be
Thu Apr 9 09:49:42 CEST 2015
Dear Steve, all,
I completely agree with Steve suggestion to make our meeting more active
than the previous ones.
After discussion with Anne-Sophie, I suggest to organize our meeting as
* Tuesday Afternoon : Plenary session
o Update from the Secretariat
o Presentations of Collaborations and New Opportunities
* Wednesday: we will split into thematic working groups
Practically speaking we are limited to 3 groups in the morning and 3
in the afternoon.
* Thursday Morning : Plenary session
o Elections results
o European Nodes Workplan 2015-2016
Therefore, I hereby invite you to suggest thematic working groups in
this shared document
Those working groups shall have:
* a *name*, preferably short
* a *theme*: an paragraph describing the subject, as described by Steve
* an *outcome*: what do we expect from the working group?
(Don't be over-optimistic on the results of 2-3 hours of discussion,
* a *chair*: the person in charge of the working group discussion
The chair should prepare a short presentation/introduction message
to kick-off the discussion.
Since we only have 6 slots of working groups, we will run a poll to
determine the most popular ones. Only the top 6 will effectively take place.
Regarding the exchange of information before the meeting,
The *preparatory survey* gives all the nodes the opportunity the
describe their current status.(see attachment)
This information will be circulated ahead of the meeting and will
briefly be presented at the beginning of our meeting.
So please fill-in this free-text questionnaire even if you are not
attending the meeting and return it to me. _Deadline is April 15th_!
Le 08/04/15 11:07, Steve.Wilkinson at jncc.gov.uk a écrit :
> Hi all,
> This is a resend of something I sent to Anne-Sophie originally re. the
> agenda of the meeting and a proposal for trying to get the most out of it:
> -In the past these meetings have been long presentations of what is
> happening in each of these funding initiatives and not enough time (in
> my opinion) on deciding what we are going to do / how much shared
> interested we have and what we can actually do. Maybe that is how it
> will always be – but I am just wondering whether we could try and push
> that a bit.
> -Would it be possible ahead of the meeting to be creating a more
> defined set of potential areas? So, on my list I would have:
> oALA roll-out in Europe looks like it will happen (though not clear on
> the extent). But what generic enhancements are people looking at? So,
> from the UK perspective I would really like to be thinking about
> on-line data capture and management. Ideally I would like to be
> pulling together a meeting including a range of partners from the UK
> and at least Artportalen to see what can be learned from what has been
> done already and sound out who would contribute to something more generic.
> oEU wide modelling – I am fairly sure that some of our (UK) species
> models would be more powerful if we ran them over much wider areas. To
> do this I dont need any of the work benches (we have our own) but what
> I am interested in data. So, is anyone interested in pulling together
> (and maintaining) a set of generic physical layers that we could feed
> into species modelling. Additionally under this there is the tricky
> issue of consistent taxonomy too.
> oRole of citizen scientists (/technicians) – one area that we are
> exploring here is with our Environment Agency. Specifically can we
> make more use of citizen scientists to observe particular suits of
> species that will give an indication of water quality. E.g.
> dragonflies or other invertebrates. This might help to target where
> you monitor (i.e. where the risk is highest). The challenge is whether
> this could be adopted more generally as an approach under the Water
> Framework Directive.
> oCome back to the seabird modelling – there was an idea at the last
> meeting around seabird modelling (e.g. in relation to windfarms). I
> have lost track of where we got to with the application build around
> this – but there has definitely been some work on modelling that would
> be interesting to scale up to broader scales (e.g. North sea).
> Just a thought. I also wonder whether we couldn’t have more
> communication before the meeting. So rather than telling each other
> things at the meeting could we have some updates ahead – written?
> Sorry – I am just worrying about spending another couple of days
> listening where I do get useful “nuggets” of information but is not
> that efficient use of time.
> Thoughts/challenges welcome.
> Best wishes
> This email and any attachments, is intended for the named recipient(s)
> only. If you are not the named recipient then any copying,
> distribution, storage or other use of the information contained in
> them is strictly prohibited. In this case, please inform the sender
> straight away then destroy the email and any linked files.
> JNCC may have to make this message, and any reply to it, public if
> asked to under the Freedom of Information Act, Data Protection Act or
> for litigation. If you have a Freedom of Information/Environmental
> Information request please refer to our website page.
> This message has been checked for all known viruses by JNCC through
> the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre however we can accept no
> responsibility once it has left our systems. The recipient should
> check any attachment before opening it.
> JNCC Support Co. registered in England and Wales, Company No.
> 05380206. Registered Office: Monkstone House, City Road, Peterborough,
> Cambridgeshire PE1 1JY. http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/
> Gbif-europe mailing list
> Gbif-europe at biodiversity.be
Ir Andre Heughebaert
Belgian Biodiversity Platform <http://www.biodiversity.be>
Av. Louise 231 Louizalaan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 7375 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gbif-europe