1. Point 5 Revising the Natura 2000 Standard Data Form
Habitats Committee
1st March 2010

2. Purpose of the Natura 2000 database
Co-ordinate measures to create a coherent NATURA 2000 network & evaluate the effectiveness of the network for species and habitats
To provide information which will assist the Commission in other decision making capacities to ensure that the NATURA 2000 network is fully considered in other policy areas and sectors of the Commission's activities
To assist the Commission and the relevant committees in choosing actions for funding under LIFE and other financial instruments
To provide a useful forum for the exchange and sharing of information on habitats and species of Community interest (new: Natura 2000 public viewer)

3. Why a revision of the Standard Data Form?
SDFs document the Natura 2000 network. Up-to-date site-specific information is needed – for many purposes
The original form dates from 1997 and is in need of adaptation to nowadays technical standards
Objective of the revision is to
improve data-handling
make SDF format simpler (delete fields not needed)
improve quality of information & make it better usable (national and EU), standardisation
allow improved tracking of changes
make full use of digital spatial data

4. What happened so far? Draft revised SDF was discussed in a
Sub-group meeting in March 2009
Reporting Group Meeting of June 2009
Reporting Group Meeting of November 2009
February 2010: 1st Consultation of Habitats Committee (cc Reporting Group)
17 Member States have submitted comments: FR, CZ, SE, DE, NL, FI, PT, PL, IE, BG, RO, AT, BE, GR, SK, ES

5. General
The revision is an exercise targeting at the adaptation of the form but is not a major remake, e.g. the “site assessment” part for habitats and species was not changed in content
Proposed changes are summarised in the “overview” document
Idea to replace annexes by an online “reference portal” will allow up-to-date references lists, codes, etc.

6. General comments received
Timing & technicalities of the transfer from the old to the new SDF
To be discussed in Reporting Group of April, first ideas at the end of presentation
Updating SDFs in general
Fears are expressed as to the adaptation of that data in the SDF to reality in cases species/habitats disappeared from sites (potential impact on Art.6 assessments, etc.)
BE proposal: include these habitats and species in the SDF, but encoded as note present at the site.
Tracking changes is already possible today and will become easier with the new SDF; Justifications for changes will be needed – original data on sites will not be lost

7. Comments on the format (section 1-7)
Many useful comments received from 17 MS
All comments were listed in a room document (see also CIRCA) together with a proposed solution / comment
Only some, which were of concern to several MS or would influence all shall be briefly mentioned here.

8. Field 1.7 - “Site indication”
COMMENTS MS
Keep "Date confirmed as SCI" as used nationally (SE, GR, NL, PL, PT, BG)
Include also: national legal reference to SPA designation (BE)
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)
PROPOSED SOLUTION
DG ENV will manage this date (adoption of relevant community list) in separate database
Re-introduce “Date confirmed as SCI” as optional
Add legal reference to SPA designation
Add free text field (optional field)

9. Field 2.3 – « Marine area » COMMENTS MS
Currently proposed definition is “area below the spring low tide limit”
France: by law “below the highest tide limit”
Ireland: “High Water Mark vector””
Belgium: “mean low-low water tide line”
PROPOSED SOLUTION
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 and stored in the reference portal.
This way different systems could be taken into account when using these values for calculation.

10. Field 2.6 – “Biogeographic regions”
COMMENTS MS
Do not introduce marine regions (not foreseen in the directive, severe impact on national implementation) (DE, FI)
Description & maps of biogeographic regions are missing (DE)
COMMENT DG ENV
The introduction of the marine regions 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.
DG ENV sees no « legal » implications, no direct impact on biogeographical seminars
Biogeographic regions and maps planned to be stored in online "Natura 2000 reference portal"

12. Field 3.1 – habitat types – Cover (ha)
COMMENT MS
Caves (8310, 8330) cannot be given in ha (FR, GR, BG, ES, HU)
Ha-values with decimals should be possible (FR, BG)
PROPOSED SOLUTION
The option "number of caves" could be given in addition to ha (optional)
Decimals will be foreseen

13. Field 3.2 – species: population size
COMMENTS MS
Population units needs more detailed discussion, not only individuals (FR, CZ, FI, BG, ES, GR, SK, HU), special explanations for birds (BG)
PROPOSED SOLUTION
Individuals as preferred population unit are already asked in the current SDF.
Proposal: strong recommendation to use individuals and follow the Art.17 guidelines (under preparation) and where this is not possible use the categories common, rare, very rare
If there are cases where a MS is not able to follow this system, other units will be accepted as well based on an agreed reference list.

14. Field 7 – maps COMMENTS MS: ask for scale of 1:50:000 or finer (DE)
DG ENV current proposal is scale – 50:000.
In view of future technical developments, which will allow to deal with larger amounts of data, 50:000 or finer can be accepted

15. Outlook - Timing
Time-planning for SDF-revision to be discussed (Reporting Group)
Two steps envisaged:
Transfer data old to new format and upload the new version & filling gaps / update information that is available (e.g. SAC designation date & legal reference, marine %); proposal: 1 year from adoption of new SDF
Filling gaps / update information that is not readily available (primarily information in the “Ecological information” section); proposal: 2015
Step 1:
Adoption of data structure, transfer of data into new structure, XML for upload
Support for MS (provision of scripts) to transfer data from existing tables into a new table structure (EEA/ETC), but no software planned

16. Outlook – further procedure
Are further comments to be expected in this round?
2nd consultation of Habitats Committee
Revised version of format and explanatory notes
Draft legal text of decision
Further debate in Reporting Group on timing
Vote of the Committee (possibly written procedure)
Commission decision procedure