Guidelines for recording species and habitat deletions from Standard
Data Forms
Introduction
Every year EU Member States submit new Natura 2000 databases with new sites.
However there are also sites deleted or modified (e.g., changes to site area) and changes
to the habitats and species noted as present for each site.
Upon request of the European Commission, European Topic Centre on Biological
Diversity (ETC/BD) runs two parallel processes: (1) updating of Community lists of Sites
of Conservation Interest (SCI) and (2) regular evaluations of the sufficiency of SCI
proposals based on case-by-case evaluations, i.e., habitat by Member State and by biogeographical region and species by Member State and by bio-geographical region.
Therefore two levels of deletions/modifications can be distinguished: (1) site and (2)
feature, i.e. – species and habitats.
It is possible that a deletion of a site or a feature within a site (species or habitat record)
may affect the previous decisions on sufficiency. Therefore, with the agreement of the
European Commission, ETC/BD will examine all deletions. To facilitate this process,
Member States are asked to always include explanatory notes with every new submission
of a Natura 2000 database if one or more species or habitat record has been deleted.
In these guidelines, ETC/BD proposes contents of such explanatory notes, given the most
common situations based on our experience of evaluating Natura 2000 databases.
1. Site deletion/modification
Site deletions or modifications should be either closely linked (explained) with changes
in feature presence/absence or values (see below) or can be explained typically by
corrections due to involving GIS methods. Nevertheless, the later could explain nonsignificant changes in the sites area, thus anything departing from >5% decrease should
be additionally explained.
Any other reasons for site deletion or change in area must be explained in detail. In case
of site reduction, the possible consequences to habitats and species present at site should
be explained, e.g., if the reduction in site area has resulted in a reduction of Annex I
habitat areas and/or Annex II species’ population estimates.
If former sites are merged or divided (or other combinations that occur occasionally) with
an aim to improve site management and/or coordination, this must be explained.
Explanatory notes should be submitted as a separate file attached to the new Natura 2000
database, preferably in tabular format. The following data fields (columns) are suggested:
ETC/BD September 2009
1
Site code
Action
Explanation including data fields affected (if appropriate)
with reference to features (see below)
Deleted
Added
Modified
2. Feature deletion/modification
2.1. Deletion due to new information (monitoring results)
The majority of deletions occur due to new information, often collected by Natura 2000
site monitoring programmes or due to the preparation of site management plans,
especially where initial records in the earlier SDF were based on old data.
In such cases please indicate the date of the last site visit (when absence of a species or a
habitat was noted) and the previous visit (when species or habitat was judged present).
Addition of references should be given where available. For species, discuss likelihood of
site re-colonisation and the state and availability of suitable habitat. For habitats, discuss
the possibilities of restoration.
2.2. Deletion due to previous error
Occasionally technical errors during data input occur. In this case, a clear note is
required.
2.3. Name corrections and re-coding of sites
If a MS was asked to correct a species name (in principle, species names should be as in
the annexes of the Habitats Directive) and this has been done, the records with the old
name will appear as deletions. In such cases it is assumed that the number of deletions
should be same as number of added records with corrected name.
A few MS have on occasion given a new site code to an existing site with the former site
and all its records with the old code appearing as deletions with new site codes as
additions. Again, the number of deletions should be the same as the number of added
records with corrected name. In such cases please give an additional table showing old
and new codes for any sites where the site code has changed.
ETC/BD September 2009
2
2.4. Sites merged
Sometimes MS merge two or more sites, using either one of the existing site codes or a
new site code. In such cases site codes and associated habitat/species records will appear
to have been deleted even though the area in question is still in the Natura 2000 network.
In such cases please indicate the changes.
2.5. Correction of mis-identifications
Occasionally, due to wrong interpretations, habitats (rarely misidentification of a species)
are being corrected to a different habitat type, for example a site may have previously
noted the beechwood 9110 but is now considered to have 9130. In such cases please
explain the rationale and possible changes in habitat cover and site assessment.
2.5. Feature modifications
By changing the area of a habitat within a site or population estimate of a species within a
site, ETC/BD can review previous assessments of sufficiency. Please provide a full
justification together with adequate scientific references on these changes.
2.6. Table to record changes
Explanatory notes should be submitted as a separate file attached to the new Natura 2000
database version, preferably in tabular format. Following data fields (columns) are
suggested:
Site code
Habitat/species code
ETC/BD September 2009
Action
Deleted
Added
Modified
Explanation
3