– or –
Please login or register to participate.
.
 
+

duichesheoigheach Hello,
I have been researching Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas in Ireland under the Natura 2000 guidelines, namely the Maumturk Mountains SAC, Lough Corrib SAC, Lough Corrib SPA, Lough Mask SPA and Lough Carra/Mask Complex SAC.
I have been reading through the Natura 2000 Standard Data Forms for each area, that are available to the public through our National Parks and Wildlife Service.
In these forms I have noticed that under the section titled "Threats, Pressures and activities with impacts on the site" there are a number of activities listed by their code , their respective rank of threat (L/M/H) and where that activity takes place in relation to the areas (inside/out/both).
I have noticed that in each of these SACs/SPAs there is no noting for the threat posed by Ref: C- Mining, extraction of materials and energy production.
There is no listing of any threat posed by the following subsections of this specific section:
C01.04.01 Open cast mining
C01.04.02 Underground mining
C01.06 Geotechnical Survey
C01.07 Mining and Extraction activities not referred to above.

My questions would be whether the European Environment Agency or the Irish government create these lists of threats to the sites? and if the European Environmental Agency would class exploration works involved with mining (prospecting, geochemical surveys, drilling and trenching) to be of a threat to these SACs/SPAs. And if they might be omitted from the Threats, Pressures and activities section of the Natura 2000 Standard Data Forms because exploration works would not have been considered viable in such areas?

Rating
0
Last workflowed by duichesheoigheach
Aug 24, 2019 02:19 AM
+

seruet Hello,
I tried to work with the LCP-Database (
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/lcp-8) and I think the data for Germany in 2017 is not correct, as the MWth numbers and other fields differ very much from the prior years. Did anybody else notice this issue or is there an explanation for this?

Kind regards from Germany!

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Aug 13, 2019 09:40 AM
+

Moon Hi, I am searching for the average CO2 emission by large manufacturers in Europe (https://www.eea.europa.eu/d[…]-manufacturer-5#tab-chart_2). It seems like EEA does not provide 2018 figures yet...so I found a raw data which turned out to have around 15mn rows and, thus, cannot be analyzed using Excel.

When does EEA plan to provide average CO2 emission by large manufacturers in 2018? Or is there a way for me to know this information?

Rating
0
Last discussed by EEA
Jul 30, 2019 02:54 PM
+

ant Dear all,

I have some questions regarding the consistency of the data published in CO2_passengers_cars_v17_csv.zip (Monitoring of CO2 emissions from passenger cars,
https://www.eea.europa.eu/[…]/co2-cars-emission-16).
I know the data is marked as "provisional", but nonetheless I'd like to do some analysis with it. I apologize if there is any better place to ask these questions and I’d be thankful for any relating hints.

1) Several entries of the field Mh (Manufacturer name EU standard denomination) contain the word "Duplicate". Does this mean that the corresponding data row should be omitted in the analysis (e.g. when calculating average CO2 emissions)? If so, why are they published?
For example, see data row 6747 (ID 14555502). All entries are identical to the preceding row except for the fields Mh, Mp, VFN, Ewltp and Vf.

2) As in the previous example, emission data originating from apparently identical vehicle types may differ significantly. For example, the data in row 1749 and 1750 (ID 14560585/6) only differ in the NEDC and WLTP emission figures, i.e. 149 vs 160g/km and 173 vs 184g/km, respectively. What may cause this discrepancy?

Rating
0
Last discussed by ant
Jul 19, 2019 03:09 PM
 
Loading