1. WP4 Revision of the Dataflow - Standard Data Form -
Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives
Brussels, 18 July 2009
WP4 Revision of the Dataflow - Standard Data Form -
Sabine Roscher

2. WP4 sub-group meeting meeting 26/27 March in Paris participants:
UK - Dave Chambers
BE - Marc Dufrêne
CZ - Michael Hosek
DE - Ulrike Raths
DG Env
ETC/BD
Written contributions NL, FR, DE, GR

3. Removed from SDF (1/2) • Relation with other described sites (1.5)
This field has been removed from the SDF, because the GIS data show the spatial relation of the site sufficiently.
• History (4.7)
The field was originally meant to log the stage by which a site record developed. It has been removed from the SDF, because today systems for versioning of the datasets are available.
• Site Protection Status and Relation with Corine Biotop Sites (5)
The relation with the Corine Biotop Sites is no longer relevant. The information on national designation will be available from the Common Database on Designated Areas (CDDA), which results from the well established EIONET Priority dataflow or by means of Inspire.

4. Removed from SDF (2/2) Altitude (2.4)
The data on the altitude of a site are no longer considered as relevant for the SDF.
Slides and other photographic material (8)
Also slides and other photographic materials is no longer considered as relevant for the SDF.

5. SDF / CDDA comparison of designation
Example DE:
73 % designation code and
percentage cover the same
17 % designation code the same result
but cover missing in the SDF
CDDA would be improvement
90 % same result my means of
GIS overlay with CDDA data
8 % discrepancy, either SDF or GIS
overlay correct
2 % designation in not in CDDA data

6. Revised / adapted Fields (1/4)
Site type (1.1)
The categories for the “site type” are reduced from 11 to 3. The remaining ones are A(=SPA), B(=SCI), C(=SCI+SPA)
Site centre location (2.1)
Explanatory notes improved, units changed to (decimal degrees).
Site surface area, site length (2.2, 2.3)
Also for small sites the area should be > 0, site length is optional now.
Administrative region code and name (2.5)
This field has been simplified to level 2 as a more detailed level is not considered as essential percentage of the administrative region removed as not considered as relevant.

7. Revised / adapted Fields (2/4)
Habitat types (Annex I) (3.1)
instead of percentage cover in the site the cover in hectare
instead of the classified value for the relative surface the percentage cover in the Member State
the field data quality is introduced to indicate whether the data quality is good, medium or poor.
Species (Article 4 BD, Annex II HD) (3.2)
simplified to one form, which can be used for all species groups.
entries for different “population types” (breeding, wintering, …) of a species possible now
structure of the form field for population size was substantially enhanced
the percentage cover in the Member State instead of the classified values introduced.

8. Data are not ‘fit for purpose’ example population size
Use case
Assess sufficiency of national N2K-Network for a particular species.
Basic flow
Obtain population size (min and max) for a specific species in all N2000 sites in a particular country in order to compare national population size reported by Art. 17.
Issues
A significant issue relates to the content of the search fields. The following situation could apply: It is not possible to extract data on population size from N2K database due to heterogeneity of entries.
=> Solution
Standardize entries (allow for min/max values only, put unit in separate field, put qualifier in separate field)

9. Examples for data heterogeneity here: entries for population size
2 kol.
i = 3
(200
>10000,6st
2-71i i
6413 ind(1998)
5 lok i
,000 RC - i ? P? +
1-2 fam.
Present X
(i)
ok. 70
Common
c.300 i
(I)
max. 31
Very rare
430+ i
<600 F
max. 64i
Importante
2.7-3 milj. I
p(29-39) W
desitky
20 os.
P/verstreut
>30rodzin
stovky
8 st
C(6-7)
i ~ 1800
50 pieds
ok. 100 os.
vis.
1174 en 1996
6 stations
4-5tys.
ksd

10. Proposed Standard for entries on population size
Species
Population on the site Gr
Code
Name
Type
Size
Un.
Quality
Min
Max B
A038
Cygnus cygnus
Breeding 15 P G
Winter
800
1000 I M
Staging
1500
1903
Liparis loeselii
Permanent 20 30 A
1166
Triturus cristatus 60
G = good (e.g. based on surveys), M = moderate (e.g. partial data with some extrapolation)
P = poor (e.g. rough estimation)

11. Proposed Standard for entries on Habitat types
Annex I Habitat types
% cover in the Member State
Site assessment
Code
Cover [ha]
Quality %
A | B | C
Rel. Surf.
Repr.
Con.
Glob.
7110
2212 G
12.4 B
3150
921
1.4 M C A
1110
1700 P
35.0
G = good (e.g. based on surveys), M = moderate (e.g. partial data with some extrapolation)
P = poor (e.g. rough estimation)

12. Revised / adapted Fields (3/4)
Other species (3.3)
The categories for motivation of the listing of a species in this optional field were supplemented with a new category for Annex IV or V species on comprehensible request of some Member States. The entries for population size are structured in the same way as for the Annex II species.
Ownership (4.5)
As the missing structure of the field does not allow using the data for statistical purposes, standardised categories were introduced.

13. Most important general impacts and activities with effect on the site
most relevant impacts and activities (negative and/or positive) with effects on the side as such
code list same as Article 17
level 3 categories,
Maximum of 5 for the highest rank
Maximum of 20 for the ranks
=> harmonization with Art. 17 for the existing field (6.1)
=> replacement of Vulnerability (4.3) (obligatory)

14. Most important general impacts and activities with effect on the site
Negative impacts
Rank
Threats and pressures
[ code ]
Pollution (optional)
In/ Outside
[ i | o] h
A (Agric. / grassland removal for arable land) i
C (Mines) o
H (Water pollution, industrial and military effluents)
toxic inorganic chemicals

15. Revised / adapted Fields (4/4)
Site management (6.2)
better linkage to documentation on management plans and/or other relevant information on national level, rather than collecting too many details on site management within the Natura2000 database.
Maps
Digital boundaries obligatory
ISO : Document Management - Electronic document file format for long term preservation instead of paper maps

16. Newly added to the SDF Percentage of marine area in the site
This information is needed very often for statistical purposes but it is not available yet. In order to close this substantially gap in the data a new field was introduced to the SDF.

17. Summary and Outlook
Streamlined version, focus set on most important data
Fields deleted which are no longer considered as relevant or where information is redundant, more importance attached to GIS data
Focus on data quality (‘data fit for purpose’)
Improvement of data structure, standard, guidelines, quality assurance
Evaluation data comparable to the former version
Introduction of new version possible with acceptable effort

18. Summary and Outlook Comments from Member States (within 8 weeks)
Adoption of data structure, transfer of data into new structure, XML for upload, improvement of qa/qc
Discussion of timeline for transition phase

19. Thank you
for your attention