Biodiversity data from agrienvironmental scheme monitoring was made available to other purposes such as EU biodiversity indicators and Habitat directive reporti
EU funds many projects and policies to improve environment and biodiversity in MS, including Agrienvironmental Schemes (AES). To demonstrate the value of its AES, the non-for profit association Natagriwal implemented monitoring actions. Beyond the initial purpose, data from monitoring may be used for other objectives, e.g. research projects, evaluation of N2000 habitat conservation status, and implementation of EU biodiversity indicators. This however implies that monitoring data can easily be transferred from one database (DB) to another.

Natagriwal’s data used to be saved in the structured on-line DB BIOGEOnet ( From 2015, we contacted other DB managers with related purposes in order to share data and valorise it at its best. The main challenge was to establish the correspondence in the metadata between the donor DB (here BIOGEOnet) and the different receiving DB. Data extraction was then constructed in order that data can directly be imported in the receiving DB.

Currently, Natagriwal’s data is sharing data in such a structured way with:
• The Public Service. General Directorate of Agriculture, natural resources and Environment (DGO3). Purpose: General monitoring of the Walloon biodiversity status, including Habitat directive “Article 17” reporting
• Butterfly Conservation Europe. Purpose: Implementation of the “Grassland Butterfly Index”, research projects.
• The GBIF project. Purpose : Make data available for decision makers a

Resources needed

This practice needs that a trained DB manager is designate in the team. We estimate that ca. 25% of a full-time job should be allocated to biological data management

Evidence of success

To this day, 34 064 species occurrence data were transferred to the GBIF project ( and to DGO3. Data contributed to the European Butterfly Indicator for Grassland species: 1990-2015 (DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.31912.37127). It will be including in the next Habitat directive “Article 17” reporting, especially concerning grassland habitats and the Annex II species Bromus grossus.

Difficulties encountered

The main challenge was to establish the correspondence between metadata of the different database.

Potential for learning or transfer

This practice emphasized two main issues:
• Biodiversity data are generally collected for a single purpose but can potentially be used for multiple ones
• Biodiversity data owners should save their data in a well-structured database, excluding excell files and other local saving format. This will help to any possible data transfer in the future.
Large data owners, such as administrations or national research centres, should promote such practices in smaller structures.
Main institution
Prov. Antwerpen, Belgium (Belgique-België)
Start Date
June 2015
End Date


Please login to contact the author.