Results Questionnaire Sabine Roscher| Expert group reporting| 17.10.2017 | Brussels Results Questionnaire on the quality of the Natura 2000 data in the Standard Data Forms (SDF)

Results questionnaire on data quality of SDF Completed questionnaire received from the following 20 countries: AT,BG,CZ,DE,DK,EE,ES,FI,FR,HR, HU,IE,IT,LV,PL,RO,SE,SI,SK,PT apologies sent by UK

(Q-1) Procedure of review/update SDFs Depends very much on the situation within each MS Flexibility of update SDF in some MS limited due to procedures established by ministries Partly revision of SDF data was done due to introduction of revised SDF Priority is given to add data for new sites Update of SDF subsequent the Art12&17 reporting related to process of management planning, new projects, new surveys/mapping of spec./hab. fields corrected if site changed or error identified procedures established where e.g. site managers can apply for change in SDF

(Q-2) How often SDF reviewed

(Q-3) Updates partially or as a whole

(Q-4) Coherence between Art 17/12 & SDF

(Q-5) Add a time-stamp to the SDF?

(Q-6) Is a smiley useful for communication If smiley useful then at least must be differentiated for specific parts of the SDF

(Q-7) Suggestions f. improving SDF data quality Overview on suggestions made by MS Monitoring system at national level limited due to lack of resources Improvement of qa/qc reports, error messages of SDF tool and exportMDB log file Set up a system that extracts problematic records Highlight inconsistencies e.g.: if a record of a species in SCI falls outside the distribution Detailed conclusions on the representativity quicker transmitted to MS SDF should be understandable also for layman (e.g. not only scientific names) Some guidance on legal consequences of updating SDF since SAC was designated and how to do it

(Q-7) Suggestions f. improving SDF data quality Continue overview on suggestions made by MS SDF further explanations e.g. for field NP Population units, add field for method (not obligatory) If site belongs to more than one region: ecological information should be specific in SDF for each of the region In SDF degree of conservation currently mean value of site, would be better to specify per ABC value (e.g habitat 9130: A-50 ha; B-200 ha; C-800 ha) => sum of area per ABC value used for stats Introduction of a code for a habitat to be restored