Sabine Roscher Expert group reporting 17 10 2017
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, 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 Art 12&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 export. MDB 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
- Slides: 10