SDI Convergence - Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association

Figure 3: Detailed text-to-map retrieval with response based on IMRO codification.
5. CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND THE USE CASE INSPIRE IN FLEVOLAND
For the real life trial we used the example of INSPIRE annex III layers 11 and 18: areas
with legal constraints, regulated areas and Habitat/Natura2000 areas. The Lake Markermeer
requires numerous ecological measurements to protect the area from further
determination. The water management suffers from sediment that creates uninhabitable
murky waters. The ecological balance of the region is even more threatened by
the obligation to host another 60 000 houses with accompanying recreational and
transport infrastructure.
Calling the region ‘locked under Natura2000’ as indicated by the standard map layering
is a simplification that would bring people into the courtroom needlessly and too early.
The groups involved in protection of birds and those involved in building the infrastructure
have been in court for the last 20 years. The chairman of the bird protection stated
that the courtroom does not help ‘his’ food chain to develop in a natural way. Pressure
groups require more insight in each other’s negotiation space. Another reason to have
dynamic maps fuelled by dynamic constraint analyses is the fact that no protected area
is fixed in the way some maps tend to indicate. For example, the ministerial website
shows on a map small contoured areas which represent protected breeding areas for a
certain type of duck. In reality these regions may shift a few miles in each direction, depending
on the best trade-off in view of the NGOs involved. A more dynamic design of
the relation between the map and the constraint it represents, would support the legal
case much better.
Inspire (INSPIRE, 2008) has an explicit limitation to its scope as support mechanism
for transparency. It states in article 13.1(h):
67