1. WP4 Revision of the Natura 2000 Dataflow - Standard Data Form -
Expert Group on Reporting under the Nature Directives
Brussels, 22 March 2011
WP4 Revision of the Natura 2000 Dataflow - Standard Data Form -
WP4 Revision of the Dataflow - Standard Data Form -
Sabine Roscher

2. What happened so far? Reporting Group Meeting of 22 March 2011
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
Reporting Group Meeting of April 2010
Reporting Group Meeting of December 2010
Reporting Group Meeting of 22 March 2011
Consultation of Habitats Committee (cc Reporting Group)
1st consultation in February 2010
2nd consultation in July 2010
3rd consultation in January 2011 (21.1 – )
14 Member States have submitted comments: (AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, HU, IT, NL, PL, SK, UK)

3. Follow up of Habitats Committee - General discussion -
PROPOSED SOLUTION
EC explains again their position
…revised entries in the SDFs as such are not considered to have automatic legal effects
… all this information needs to be seen in context
COMMENT MS
MS express still concern about the unclear legal consequences of updating SDF

4. Follow up of Habitats Committee - General discussion -
PROPOSED SOLUTION
This is a legal question and should therefore be discussed in a more appropriate context, e.g.:
in the WG on Natura 2000 management
as a special issue in Hab. Comm. with a view to develop legal interpretation
COMMENT MS
Clarification is required from which date the Article 6 will be applied, e.g. if a new habitat type or Annex II species is added into the SDF

5. Follow up of Habitats Committee - General discussion -
PROPOSED SOLUTION
EC has given its position as regarding the need for updating of SDFs, (‘kept reasonably up-to-date’)
The legal basis is given in the draft legal text
COMMENT MS
The update of the SDF should not be obligatory
The legal basis needs to be clarified

6. Overview of last adoptions of SDF
Some corrections made (number of the Birds Directive, examples in figure 3, same headline in form and explanatory notes)
% area of a site in a marine regions can be entered (optional)

7. Overview of last adoptions of SDF
It is possible now (optional) to indicate ‘candidate habitat types’ with the value -1 in the field area (analogue to ‘candidate species’)
Coding for population types (p=permanent, r = reproducing) is now also mentioned in the explanatory notes

8. Overview of last adoptions of SDF
Clarification of formulation for Population units
“Recommended units are individuals (=i) or pairs (p) wherever possible, otherwise please use the most precise units available following the standardised list of population units and codes as developed under Article 12 and 17 reporting (see reference portal).”

9. Overview of last adoptions of SDF
Clarification of deletion (errors) / indication as Non-presence
“Non-presence (NP) (optional): In cases where a species for which the site was originally designated for (e.g. which was formerly present in the site) is no longer present in the site, it is strongly recommended to indicate this by entering ‘x’ in the column NP (alternative to the deletion of the information for this species from the SDF). Species which have not been present on the site since the Directive came into force as well as ‘historic occurrences’ should not be noted.”
(The handling of deletions from the SDF is dealt with by Habitats Document. Doc. Hab )

10. Overview of last adoptions of SDF
Coding for data quality very poor has been replaced by data deficient, to avoid confusion with other codings (DD instead of VP)
(wording changed but not the meaning)

11. Overview of last adoptions of SDF
Explanatory notes adopted: for Birds, Annex IV, V species the code as provided in the reference portal should be used

12. Comparison of species list for birds
List of bird species in the Natura2000 Reference Portal in comparison to list of preliminary list of birds for reporting Bird Directive received from BirdLife
from 604 entries for taxon names more than 70 % are common to both lists
74 taxon names which are only listed by BirdLife (mainly subspecies)
64 are only listed in the Natura2000 Reference Portal (this might be
explained by the consideration of rare migratory species)
=> In the Natura 2000 reference portal a comprehensive list of European Birds will be made available, with codes as used for Natura 2000 and the cross/linkage to the euring code used by BirdLife

13. Special point for discussion related to wide ranging aquatic species
Proposal made by the UK:
For aquatic species which range over wide areas only:
Introduction of a new field (Site significance) in 3.2.
Enter a figure for relative density in relation to average density within natural range within national territory.
A-C values should only be applied if both size and density of the population are above average for the national territory over several years.
Otherwise category D = non-(significant) qualifying population is applied.

14. Special point for discussion related to wide ranging aquatic species
Proposed solution as made in the last meeting
This issue raised by the UK seems to be related to the species Harbour Porpoise
It is proposed to solve this during the sufficiency discussions between the Commission and Member State (UK)

15. Reference Portal
Link to the map of the marine boundaries was made more explicit, in addition the shapefiles as used for the last Art.17 reporting have been added.

16. Results questionnaire on marine boundaries
Of the 27 EU Member States 22 have Marine Sites (BE, BG, CY, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GR, IE, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, UK) and 5 do not have Marine Sites (AT, CZ, HU, LU, SK)
Can apply the proposed definition (Mean High Water Mark):
yes: BG, FR, SE, SI yes, but : DE, UK
no: EE, IT
DE: ok for North Sea, but MWM for Baltic Sea (because of missing tide)
UK: ok for England, Northern Ireland, Wales, but MHWS in Scotland
IT: UNCLOS definition
EE: coastline due to national legislation

17. Timing for the introduction of the revised SDF
Two steps envisaged:
Transfer data from old to new format and upload the new version & filling gaps / update information that is available (e.g. SAC designation date & legal reference, marine %);
until end 2012
Filling gaps / update information that is not readily available (primarily information in the “Ecological information” section);
until end 2015 (proposal from Commission)

18. Timing for the introduction of the revised SDF
Template mdb
Natura2000 software ready*
xml schema
adoption of revised SDF
transition phase I
transition phase I
end of phase I
During the transition phase the upload of the
following formats to ReportNet will be possible:
recent versions of the MS Access Database (mdb)
and new versions of the mdb and / or XML
*The Natura 2000 software will support the
transfer of the existing data into the new
structure