Consultation of the Habitats Committee

Revision of the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form

Overview on the comments received on the format & proposed solutions

Room document, 1st March 2010

  1. Site identification

Comment(s) by MemberState(s) / Proposed solution / comments
Field 1.1 “Type”
IE provides separate forms for SACs and SPAs in all cases (also C-types) / It is reminded that putting C-types “twice” in the national database is against the general principle of providing one coherent national database
Field 1.4 / 1.5 "Compilation date" & "Update date"
What to do in case of enlargement – which field to change(BE) / In case of an enlargement of the site change the "update date", the compilation date is used for the first submission of the site
Field 1.6. "Respondent"
Should be "the competent administrative authority"(BE) / See explanatory notes, the idea is to have here the organisation which has compiled the information and can answer to technical questions
Field 1.7: “Site indication”
  1. Keep "Date confirmed as SCI" as used nationally (SE, GR,NL, PL, PT, BG)
  2. In case of extension of site, which date shall be taken in the "date confirmed as SCI"? (GR)
  3. "Date proposed as SCI": should be filled in by Commission (BE)
  4. Include also: national legal reference to SPA designation (BE)
  5. Add free text field so that information can be given on classification/designation dates of sites that are composed of originally separate SPAs and/or SCIs (NL)
/
  1. DG ENV will manage this date (adoption of relevant community list) in separate database, but the field could be kept as optional for MS to fill
  2. It should in principle be the date the site was listed the fist time in the community list (see explanatory notes), explanation of situation could be given in new free text filed (see 5.)
  3. no, two things seem to be mixed up here: the "proposal" of an SCI is done by the MS, it should therefore be the MS to document the date
  4. ok, to be added
  5. ok, to be added (optional field)

  1. Site location

Comment(s) by MemberState(s) / Proposed solution / comments
  1. General recommendation to delete any spatial attributes from this section and to calculate these values from the GIS data (IE)
  2. Include a "sensitive" marker for site location (RO)
/
  1. These data are used for visualisation (site-centre) and cross-checking (area)
  2. No, the location of a Nature 2000 site should in principle not be sensitive information. Specific issues can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Field 2.1 – «Site centre location»:
  1. Switch to UTM coordinates (ETRS89, European Terrestrial Reference System 1989) according to INSPIRE(DE)
  2. Explain better the example given here
/
  1. Coordinates in ETRS89 on the GRS80 ellipsoid (Latitude, Longitude) comply with INSPIRE requirements as well.Changing this would require all MS to change coordinates for all sites, which seems unnecessary work.
  2. ok

Field 2.2 – «Area»
  1. For caves the area of the projection of the cave at the surface should be used instead 0,01ha (RO)
/
  1. MS are encouraged to use projected surface area of caves if they have this information; If not the option is given to put 0.01ha. The option to put length (2.4) could be reintroduced in the explanatory notes

Field 2.3 – «Marine area»:
  1. proposed definition is “area below the spring low tide limit”but in France by law “below the highest tide limit”; IE: High Water Mark vector (FR, IE)
  2. In BE it is the mean low-low water tide line, one should refer to UNCLOS in explanatory note(BE)
  3. Include also freshwater (FI)
  4. Use km² instead percentage as no precise limits marine-terrestrial are available (RO)
/
  1. This issue is being handled different in different countries. If not possible to agree on a common way, the proposal is made that marine MS inform the Commission about their system, this information will then be compiled in a document and be stored in the reference portal. This way different systems could be taken into account when using these values for calculation.
  2. See 1)
  3. Why? The distinction between marine & terrestrial is a much needed for statistical purposes – this is why this information is crucial. For information on habitat classes field 4.1 can be queried.
  4. In absence of precise data please estimate

Field 2.6 – “Biogeographic regions”:
  1. Do not introduce marine regions for formal reasons (not foreseen in the directive)(DE, FI)
  2. Description & maps of biogeographic regions are missing (DE)
  3. Give possibility to fill in % of biogeographic region if a site is located in 2 regions (PL, RO)
/
  1. The introduction of the marine regions in the SDF is due to practical/technical reasons (basically concerning Spain and Sweden where one terrestrial biogeographic region is bordering two marine regions), data are then easier to use - a main reason to revise the SDF is to improve user-friendliness.
  2. Maps & other detailed technical information that might be subject to changes & updates is planned to be stored in a so-called "Natura 2000 reference portal"
  3. Such information is not necessary as it can be obtained from GIS

3. Ecological information

Comment(s) by MemberState(s) / Proposed solution/ comments
Field 3.1 – habitat types:
  1. Caves (8310, 8330) cannot be given in ha (FR, GR, BG, ES, HU)
  2. Ha-values with decimals should be possible (FR, BG)
  3. Make extra field for priority form (‘p’) (FR, NL, IE)
  4. Question on "% of cover" in MS (FR, PL)
  5. Standardise how to deal with overlapping Annex I habitat types – see example with estuaries – make complete list (DE)
  6. Overlapping habitats: better indicate the actual area of all (total sum would exceed 100%) (FI, IE)
  7. % cover of habitat type per site should be asked in addition to size in ha, size in ha should be optional (AT)
  8. Explanatory notes: "degree of conservation" – some additions to the new explanatory text; add sentence to global assessment explanation, repeat explanatory text-box under habitats(NL)
  9. "Data quality" field: define better the "good" rating (IE)
  10. change the naming of “degree of conservation of the functions” into “prospectson the conservation of the functions” & further suggestions for wording (BE)
/
  1. The option "number of caves" could be given in addition to ha(optional)
  2. Decimals will be foreseen
  3. OK
  4. % of cover in MS has been deleted (information to be calculated from cover and Art.17 information)
  5. The text in the explanatory notes is according to the proposal of the scientific working group (2002); detailed standardization not possible at the moment
  6. see 5.)
  7. Size can be estimated as explained, so the % is not necessary. Use the field “data-quality” to indicate rough estimations
  8. ok, but still to be checked in detail
  9. the examples given in brackets after ‘good’, ‘moderate’, etc. are meant as guidelines but not as precise definition.
  10. Proposals will be examined but the principle is that the content of the site assessment part should not be changed.

Field 3.2 – species: population size
  1. distinguish between resident species who reproduce in the site and species who do not (FR)
  2. Population units needs more detailed discussion, not only individuals(FR, CZ, FI, BG, ES, GR, SK, HU), special explanations for birds (BG)
  3. information on population size should be related to specific period or date(BE, PL)
  4. Give more explanation on “non-significant presence” (FR, NL, PT)
  5. Sensitive species – explanatory notes: Delete last sentence of paragraph (FI)
  6. Size: the character of the population should be further described in the field 4.2. and not 4.5 (same for 3.3) (FI)
  7. Recommendation to change some of the coding options in order to avoid confusion (IE)
/
  1. It will be examined how this distinction could be dealt with
  2. Individuals as preferred population unit are already asked in the current SDF.Where it is not possible to use individuals and follow the Art.17 guidelinesthe categories common, rare, very rare can be used.If there are cases where a MS is not able to follow this system, other units will be accepted as wellbased on an agreed reference list.
  3. Not necessary to put in for SDF, should be documented at national level (use field 4.5 "documentation" if needed)
  4. The "site assessment" part is not under discussion however a proposal for a definition will be made.
  5. Shorten last sentence “…through e.g. publications or online information…”
  6. ok
  7. will be examined

Field 3.3 – Other species:
  1. request for official reference list for Annex IV and V species (FR)
  2. Add: Annex II species that do not qualify for pSCI selection (BE)
  3. Figure 4: include sensitivity column in example
  4. Size specification should be the same as for 3.2
/
  1. Such reference lists will be produced by ETC in 2010, a first version will be ready in spring/summer 2010 for consultation with MS
  2. All Annex II species occurring in the site should in principle be listed in field 3.2 even if not significant; the debate of "conservation objectives" this comment probably refers to is a different one and currently held in the Natura 2000 management group.
  3. ok
  4. ok

4. Site description

Comment(s) by MemberState(s) / Proposed solution / comments
Field 4.1 – General Site Character:
  1. it is not clear what to use as data source (CZ)
  2. Corine Land Cover should be used as data source – a table correlating CLC with classes used in 4.1 should be developed (PT, GR)
  3. CLC classes should be used instead of habitat classes to better harmonize data across MS (RO)
  4. Could "other" also include marine? (BE)
/
  1. The best data source available within the country should be used. (ETC could provide a list showing which EUNIS units correspond to the broad habitat classes - this could be used as a general guideline - could be part of ‘reference portal’).
  2. CCL can be used by those MS who don't have other data-sources on habitat-classes (which are different from Corine). The establishment of a table as proposed might be considered.
  3. see 2.
  4. ok

Field 4.2 – Quality & Importance
  1. This field should be optional (CZ)
  2. Threats and pressures should be related to habitats and species for which the sites have been designated(BE)
/
  1. This field is important to 'understand' the site and its conservation objectives in specific case-work, LIFE-evaluations, etc.)
  2. 4.2 is related to the site as such, so threats and pressures have not explicitly to be related to specific species / habitats

Field 4.3 - Threats, pressures and activities:
  1. delete "both" – option; instead "i" and "o" could both be ticked (DE)
  2. include free text field to add information about activities (FR)
  3. make this field optional as objective assessment is difficult (NL, FI)
  4. the currently existing free text field “vulnerability” should stay obligatory (FI)
  5. Use only first two levels of code list (FI)
  6. Important information on conservation measures was filled in current 4.4 “site designation”, where has it gone?(FI)
  7. More guidance on ranking of threats and pressures would be needed (IE)
  8. Omit ranking within categories (GR)
/
  1. No, the form has a one character field, where you can enter one of the three codes
  2. The free text field documentation (4.5) can be used for this
  3. This is a core field for statistics & policy making, it's purpose is to roughly indicate potential ("may have an influence")impacts for the site in general.
  4. there was a clear move towards standardized reporting of this information, use free-text field in 4.2 if need be
  5. On the site level, level 3 is appropriate
  6. Field 6.3. should now be used for this purpose
  7. -
  8. Ranking within categories (e.g. within "high") is not required

Field 4.4 "Ownership"
  1. what is ‘any public’, state versus federal/national?(BE)
/
  1. Other public, public but does not fit in the other categories; State is like the ‘Länder’ in Germany, a category below national/federal

History - former 4.7
  1. If this is taken care by “versioning of datasets”, then the “history” item can be deleted (BE)
  2. Keep the “history” field to be able to explain changes (PL)
/
  1. Yes, the versioning takes care now for this, the field is deleted
  2. See 1.)

5. Site Protection Status

Comment(s) by MemberState(s) / Proposed solution / comments
Field 5.2 – Site protection status:
  1. add HELCOM to the list of international designation types (DE, FI)
/
  1. ok HELCOM will be added , Bucharest convention as well

Are MS requested to mention whether the site is also a Natura 2000 site? (BE) / No, MS are not requested to do so.

6. Site management

Comment(s) by MemberState(s) / Proposed solution / comments
Field 6.1 - Body responsible for the site management:
  1. Should be possible to add more than one body(FR, CZ, SK, NL, SK, BE)
  2. Define better "management body", use “the main responsible authority" (NL)
/
  1. ok
  2. Explanatory notes: "Enter the full reference … of the authority and/or individual responsible for the management of the site." This should cover most situations.

Field 6.2 – Management plans
  1. Add "Bewirtschaftungspläne"(DE)
  2. allow to mention several plans (DE)
  3. do not use URLs(DE)
  4. allow for the option to add INSPIRE IDs at a later stage, which link to geodata-services (DE)
  5. Management plans are often made for a specific period, this should be reflected in the SDF (BE)
  6. Recognize that management plans are not obligatory (FI)
  7. 2 categories are enough: “plan exist" and “plan not needed”(FI)
/
  1. management plan seems to cover this term
  2. ok
  3. the problem of up-to date URLs is acknowledged but no better option can be thought of at the moment
  4. ok, INSPIRE-IDs for area management will be added
  5. not considered necessary to put in SDF (rather to be documented on national level), but to be considered when updating the information
  6. Management plans are in fact not obligatory
  7. “in preparation” was included on request of some MS, it should remain, for the rest “yes” or “no” seems sufficient

Field 6.3 - Conservation measures
  1. Add free text field to section 6 (NL)
  2. Drop this field (BE)
/
  1. There is already a free-text field – namely 6.3
  2. The field is optional, it also could allow in future to give information on 'conservation objectives'

7. Map of the site

Comment(s) by MemberState(s) / Proposed solution
Field 7 – maps:
  1. ask for scale of 1:50:000 or finer (DE)
  2. INSPIRE ID needs more clarification (CZ, DE)
  3. The entry fields for the map number on which the digitalisation is based should be kept / included
  4. Does INSPIRE ID cover also marine?(BE)
/
  1. DG ENV proposal is scale 10.000 – 50:000. If other MS agree to 50:000 or finer, ok
  2. INSPIRE ID will be further explained in explanatory notes; the INSPIRE-ID will not be obligatory before implemented by MS
  3. ok, such field can be added as optional
  4. INSPIRE ID does cover protected areas, there is not restriction to terrestrial, but ETC will double check this.

1