Active dissemination of environmental information in relation...

September 2014 1

Active dissemination of

environmental information in

relation to the Birds and

Habitats Directive:

Final Report

ENV.D.4/ETU/2013/0063r

In collaboration with:

Active dissemination of Natura 2000 information – Final report

September 2014 2


September 2014 3

Active dissemination of environmental

information in relation to the Birds and Habitats

Directive:

Final report on improving data availability for conservation of wild birds,

natural habitats and flora and fauna conservation

Authors: Richard Peters, Mark Snethlage, Hans van Gossum, Glenn Vancauwenberghe, Danny Vandenbroucke, Veronika Mikos, Amor Torre-Marín,

Linde Vertriest & Johan Lammerant.

ARCADIS Belgium nv/sa

Maatschappelijke zetel Koningsstraat 80

B-1000 Brussel

Reference: Peters, R.L., Snethlage, M., Van Gossum, H., Vancauwenberghe, G., Vandenbroucke, Veronika Mikos, Amor Torre-Marín, D., Vertriest, L., &

Lammerant, J. (2014) Active dissemination of environmental information in relation to the Birds and Habitats Directive. Final report on improving data availability for conservation of wild birds, natural habitats and flora and fauna

conservation. Assignment commissioned by the European Commission, ENV.D.4/ETU/2013/0063r.

Keywords: Natura 2000, Public Access to Information, INSPIRE, Dissemination, Stakeholder analysis.

Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this

[report/study/article/publication…] are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily

reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the

accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person

acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be

made of the information contained therein.


September 2014 5

Table of Contents

1 Abstract/Résumé ......................................................................................... 9 2 Executive publishable summary ....................................................................11 3 Résumé analytique publiable ........................................................................17 4 Introduction of the context and aims of the study ...........................................25 5 Description of the overall methodological approach and involved stakeholders ....27

5.1 Member state selection ..............................................................27 5.1.1 Criteria establishment ...............................................................27

5.1.2 Selected member states ............................................................28

5.2 Theoretical framework ...............................................................29 5.2.1 General approach ......................................................................29

5.2.2 Open data definition ..................................................................29

5.2.3 Structure of online information ...................................................29

5.2.4 Definitions on information components ........................................30

5.3 Portal survey ............................................................................32 5.3.1 Portal search ............................................................................32

5.3.2 Methodology for the portal analysis .............................................32

5.4 Page review .............................................................................38 5.4.1 Page search .............................................................................38

5.4.2 Page methodology ....................................................................43

5.5 INSPIRE analysis ......................................................................46 5.6 Stakeholder survey ...................................................................47

5.6.1 Stakeholder selection ................................................................47

5.6.2 Feedback and research questionnaire ..........................................51

6 Survey findings ...........................................................................................55 6.1 Portal survey ............................................................................55

6.1.1 Global results ...........................................................................55

6.1.2 Ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness ..............60

6.1.3 Structure .................................................................................62

6.1.4 Searchability and geo-referencing ...............................................65

6.1.5 Coverage and coherence ............................................................68

6.2 Page review .............................................................................69 6.2.1 Global results ...........................................................................69

6.2.2 Legal documents underpinning the Birds and Habitats Directives ....75

6.2.3 Information on conservation objectives, measures and management plans 76

6.2.4 Information on financing Natura 2000 .........................................82

6.2.5 Information on impact assessments and compensation related to Natura 2000 85

6.2.6 Scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to Natura

2000 86

6.2.7 Legal information on strict protection, court rulings and derogations 88


September 2014 6

6.2.8 Public information and participation .............................................91

6.3 INSPIRE analysis ......................................................................94 6.3.1 Screening of portals and websites ...............................................94

6.3.2 INSPIRE Monitoring sheets 2013 .................................................97

6.3.3 Selection of databases ............................................................. 101

6.3.4 Assessing the spatial datasets .................................................. 101

6.3.5 View and download services ..................................................... 104

6.3.6 Conclusion ............................................................................. 104

7 Outcomes of feedback ............................................................................... 107 7.1 Stakeholder survey ................................................................. 107

7.1.1 Respondent profile .................................................................. 107

7.1.2 Stakeholder perspective of our portal survey .............................. 108

7.1.3 Stakeholder perspective of our page/content survey ................... 109

7.1.4 Stakeholder needs and expectations on online information ........... 111

7.1.5 Stakeholders expectations for the workshop ............................... 112

7.1.6 Stakeholders perspective on IT possibilities and room for interaction

113

7.1.7 A national competent authorities’ perspective ............................. 114

7.1.8 Additional remarks .................................................................. 115

8 Outcomes of the workshop ......................................................................... 117 8.1 Workshop programme ............................................................. 117 8.2 Workshop report ..................................................................... 119

9 Final list of recommendations ..................................................................... 129 9.1 What information should be made actively available and why? ..... 129

9.1.1 Recommendation 9.1.1 ............................................................ 130

9.1.2 Recommendation 9.1.2 ............................................................ 132

9.1.3 Recommendation 9.1.3 ............................................................ 133

9.1.4 Recommendation 9.1.4 ............................................................ 135

9.1.5 Recommendation 9.1.5 ............................................................ 137

9.1.6 Recommendation 9.1.6 ............................................................ 138

9.1.7 Recommendation 9.1.7 ............................................................ 139

9.2 Where and how is the information made available? ..................... 141 9.2.1 Recommendation 9.2.1 ............................................................ 143

9.2.2 Recommendation 9.2.2 ............................................................ 144

9.2.3 Recommendation 9.2.3 ............................................................ 146

9.2.4 Recommendation 9.2.4 ............................................................ 147

9.2.5 Recommendation 9.2.5 ............................................................ 148

9.2.6 Recommendation 9.2.6 ............................................................ 149

9.2.7 Recommendation 9.2.7 ............................................................ 151

9.2.8 Recommendation 9.2.8 ............................................................ 152

9.2.9 Recommendation 9.2.9 ............................................................ 154

9.2.10 Recommendation 9.2.10 .......................................................... 156


September 2014 7

9.2.11 Recommendation 9.2.11 .......................................................... 157

9.3 How can the management and use of spatial information be

improved? 158 9.3.1 Recommendation 9.3.1 ............................................................ 159

9.3.2 Recommendation 9.3.2 ............................................................ 162

9.3.3 Recommendation 9.3.3 ............................................................ 164

9.3.4 Recommendation 9.3.4 ............................................................ 166

9.4 Improving online information: a possible SIIF? ........................... 168 10 References ............................................................................. 171


September 2014 9

1 Abstract/Résumé

The results and outcomes of this report fit into the process to discuss the better,

smarter and more efficient dissemination of the data and information relating to the

Birds and Habitats Directives. Based on a desktop survey it was explored which Natura

2000 information is available online in European Member States and where and how it

is disclosed. Further, it was evaluated to what extent spatial data are compliant with

the INSPIRE Directive, that aims to have spatial data infrastructures of the Member

States compatible and usable in a Community and cross-border context. Based on the

desktop survey, a stakeholder consultation and a workshop, recommendations were

prepared on possible ways in which national information systems might be improved.

Considering that there are requirements on information disclosure, for every key

obligation in the Birds and Habitats Directives, it could be defined how the relevant

compliance and implementation information can be organized and presented online by

Member States. Such descriptions have been referred to as SIIFs - "Structured

Implementation and Information Frameworks". Therefore, one possible further step

could be to consider the recommendations made in this study and to use them as

possible ingredients in creating a SIIF for the nature directives.

Les résultats de ce rapport rentrent dans le processus de discussion pour une

meilleure, plus intelligente et plus efficace diffusion des données et informations

relatives aux Directives Oiseaux et Habitats. Basé sur une étude de bureau, il a été

examiné quelle information Natura 2000 des Etats membres est disponible en ligne et

où et comment elle est publié. De plus il a été évalué quelles données spatiales sont

conformes à la directive INSPIRE, qui vise à avoir des infrastructures de données

spatiale des Etats membres compatibles et utilisables dans une communauté et un

contexte transfrontalier. Basé sur un sondage de bureau, une consultation des parties

concernées et un workshop, des recommandations ont été ébauchées sur les possibles

manières d’améliorer les systèmes d’information nationaux. Considérant qu’il y a des

exigences sur la publication des données, pour chaque obligation clé dans les

directives, il peut être défini comment une conformité pertinente et l’implémentation

des informations peuvent être organisées et présentées en ligne par les Etats

membres. Telles descriptions sont référé à un ISCI – « Implémentation Structurée et

Cadres d’Information». Par conséquent, une prochaine étape pourrait être de

considérer les recommandations faites dans cette étude et de les utiliser en tant que

composants possibles pour la création d’un ISCI pour les directives

environnementales.


September 2014 11

2 Executive publishable summary

Disclaimer: The information and views set out in this

[report/study/article/publication…] are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily

reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the

accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person

acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be

made of the information contained therein.

Outline of the work

The results and outcomes of this report fit into the process to discuss the better,

smarter and more efficient dissemination of the data and information resulting from

and relating to the Birds Directive, 2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC,

further referred to as BHD. In this context it is needed to provide information on how,

in relation to BHD, Member States organize environmental information with a view to

its active and systematic dissemination to the public and to ensure that environmental

information progressively becomes available in electronic databases which are easily

accessible to the public through the web.

The broader framework of this work concerns the developments in information

technology and making information better available to the public. In a nutshell it

comes down to using modern information technology to facilitate administrative work

and enforcement related to the implementation of nature policy and legislation.

Therefore, the disclosure of this information should be seen in the context of the

Access to Information and Inspire Directives. Specifically, it is needed to identify any

gaps and challenges that exist in applying the provisions of Article 7 of the Access to

Information Directive and the provisions of INSPIRE to information relevant to the

implementation of the BHD.

Further, the project also explores the potential contribution to the further development

of SIIF’s (Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks) for all key EU

environmental laws. SIIF’s don’t imply new obligations. Their purpose is rather to

produce guidance for Member States on what information should be made available to

the public – and, by extension and where appropriate, lead to effective information

systems. A SIIF initiative is currently underway for the Urban Waste Water Treatment

Directive. The current work on the nature directives and its outcomes could provide a

basis for the next steps related to the nature legislation SIIF, including a guidance

document.

Finally, the work that has been conducted contributes to the ongoing fitness check of

the EU nature legislation (which assesses whether the regulatory framework for a

policy sector is fit for purpose). In this context criteria such as effectiveness,

efficiency, relevance, coherence, etc. are important to consider also in the field of

information dissemination.


September 2014 12

Objectives and general approach

To address the various objectives, first, a desktop survey was carried out to evaluate

the extent and quality of online information relevant to the BHD available. Parallel, the

current and future organisation of national information systems was evaluated,

touching on the related aspects of re-use of data and online interaction with the public

on nature issues. This resulted in an overview of information systems currently in use,

with a view to identifying opportunities to streamline data and improve accessibility.

In the context of the desktop exercise, before performing the research, ten

representative Member States were selected such that geographic spread and

representation of pre- and post-2004 membership, was fulfilled. In addition selection

was also based on Member State population size, Natura 2000 coverage,

administrative and governmental structure and the degree of INSPIRE

implementation. This resulted in Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Netherlands,

Poland, Romania, Sweden, United Kingdom and Ireland being selected for further

desktop survey work.

Second, key competent authorities and stakeholders were consulted to provide

feedback on the desktop results. To guarantee a uniform way of requesting and

collecting feedback from stakeholders a questionnaire was developed with drop-down

menus and in a way that replies can be handled in an efficient and structured manner.

For authorities managing the Natura 2000 websites an additional specific set of

questions was included. In a subsequent workshop open to all Member States (not

only the ten selected Member States) intermediate outcomes of the study were

discussed and consultation was held on best-practices and on outlining

recommendations on how national information systems might be improved.

In what follows reflection is provided based on the inputs from the desktop survey,

the stakeholder consultation and the workshop. The aimed for final output was to list

recommendations on possible ways in which national information systems might be

improved. Recommendations are largely based on the following five perspectives: (1)

streamlining and minimising administrative burden and maximising cost effectiveness,

(2) making the systems as useful as possible to environmental practitioners, nature

conservation stakeholders and the general public (including through data reuse and

interaction), (3) targeting EU assistance, (4) facilitating fulfilment of EU reporting

requirements and (5) ensuring coherence and inter-operability with EU information

systems.

What information should be made actively available and why?

To answer the question what information should be made actively available and why,

it is necessary to compare the general requirements of the Access to Information

Directive and INSPIRE Directive with the actual kinds of information required to be

generated by implementation of the BHD. Allowing for possible different legal

interpretations, it can be argued that the Access to Information Directive and INSPIRE

Directive presuppose that many different kinds of information generated by the BHD

should be available online. A webpage evaluation was made to determine whether and

how much of the requested information relevant to the implementation of the BHD is

provided online within each of the 10 selected Member States.

The starting point for this work was a survey questionnaire that was based on the

individual articles of the BHD. To answer consistently across Member States whether

information was available on these questions, a structured survey approach was

developed. In doing so, several challenges were encountered leading to several

adjustments that needed to be made to the survey approach. In optimizing the survey


September 2014 13

approach, original questions were interpreted and merged with similar questions into

simpler questions. Also, a hierarchical structure was constructed which dissects the

questions into specific categories. With this approach we were able to generate

aggregated questions that are relevant for searching websites of various Member

States for information. Specifically, we clustered questions into seven main themes:

(1) legal documents underpinning the BHD, (2) information on conservation

objectives, measures and management plan, (3) information on financing Natura

2000, (4) information on impact assessments and compensation related to Natura

2000, (5) scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to Natura 2000, (6)

public information and participation, and (7) legal information on strict protection,

court rulings and derogations. By taking this approach we were able to screen for

information, but also we could answer for each of the original questions whether

information was online available.

With respect to the results, in general, legal information on strict protection, court

rulings and derogations, as well as information on impact assessments was rarely

found within the different Member States. On the other hand legal documents

underpinning the Birds and Habitats Directives, and information regarding scientific

research, monitoring and surveillance related to Natura 2000 is largely present within

all of the ten reviewed Member States. Finally the following categories seemed to vary

substantially between Member States: public information and participation,

information on financing Natura 2000 and information on conservation objectives,

measures and management plans.

How is information be made available?

Nature conservation authorities typically operate web portals to communicate

information to the public. Clearly, if constructed appropriately such portals can

positively contribute to distributing relevant information to the public. The question

then becomes where to disclose information and how to make information accessible

such that end-users can locate what they search for in a straightforward and easy

way. Thus, the link has to be made between the “what” and “why” of information with

the “where” and “how”. In this context, strengths and weaknesses of national Natura

2000 portals in terms of responding to user needs were explored. For each of the 10

selected Member States the main Natura 2000 portal was evaluated and scored based

on: (1) the ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness, (2) the

structure, (3) the searchability and geo-referencing, (4) the accuracy, objectivity and

historical depth, and (5) the coverage and coherence.

It must be emphasized that results of the survey need to be interpreted with care.

First of all, some bias may have been introduced given that the scoring was done by

various experts. However, this possible bias has been reduced as much as possible by

making use of a harmonized methodology. Secondly, Member State scores were based

on the assessment of one single portal per Member State, while clearly in some cases

different types of information are presented on different websites. In addition the

contributions of each criterion to the final score were not weighted whereas it is clear

that some criteria are far more important to determine the effectiveness and

usefulness of a portal than others. Finally, no evaluation was made on how well

different portals that include information on Natura 2000 are interlinked. Despite these

shortcomings we are confident to provide valuable insights into how Natura 2000

information is disclosed through portals and which elements can be addressed in order

to further improve effective disclosure. For example, throughout the report several

Member State good practices are indicated as to how information most successfully

can be disclosed.


September 2014 14

How can the management and use of spatial information be improved?

With the INSPIRE analysis, the aim was to assess to what extent Member States have

taken actions to make their data regarding the BHD INSPIRE compliant. The INSPIRE

Directive aims to provide better access to spatial data through the establishment of an

infrastructure for spatial information in Europe. It could be said that if information is

the water, than INSPIRE is the system that brings water where it is needed and can

bring water together to serve needs. INSPIRE is not a goal but the road. To ensure

that the spatial data infrastructures of the Member States are compatible and usable

in a Community and cross-border context, the Directive requires Member States to

take actions in five specific areas: metadata, data specifications, network services,

data and service sharing, and monitoring and reporting. Throughout the screening of

portals and websites related to the BHD, all webpages offering spatial data and

information (to view, to download, etc.) were selected and further explored, with the

aim of identifying the datasets that were used and/or made available. In addition to

these datasets, also other datasets were selected, to obtain a sufficiently large

sample. The assessment of the selected datasets explored whether datasets were

discoverable, whether INSPIRE compliant metadata were available, and whether view

services and download services were available and compliant.

To summarize the results of this assessment, strictly speaking, it can be argued that

at this stage none of the assessed datasets is fully compliant with INSPIRE. The five

major remarks are that (1) many datasets were not reported under INSPIRE, (2)

several datasets are not available on INSPIRE geoportal, (3) many datasets do not

have compliant metadata, (4) few of the datasets are compliant with the data

specifications, and (5) very few of the datasets have view and download services that

are fully compliant. It is however important to mention that according to the INSPIRE

implementation roadmap countries still have several years to implement INSPIRE,

especially for datasets under themes of Annex II and Annex III. While the deadline for

providing metadata, discovery services, view services and download services for these

datasets was 3/12/2013, all spatial datasets under themes of Annex II and Annex III

only need to be conform with the data specifications by 21/10/2020.

Recommendations on improving online information

With respect to information that should be available online, Member States do present

information in line with the requirements for environmental information disclosure

generated by the implementation of the BHD. However, not all required aspects of

information are publicly available. A major concern is that legal information on strict

protection, court rulings and derogations, as well as information on impact

assessments were rarely found within the different Member States. Therefore, Member

States could further improve information disclosure by performing a thorough

examination of the requirements included in the BHD. Also it should be considered

that for specialists much information may be accessible, but that does not guarantee

that it is also available to the general public. Indeed, much of the available

information cannot be understood by the layman. Also, for less experienced computer-

users some information may not be accessible because of technical challenges.

Finally, it could be argued that BHD information needs to be part of a wider picture on

nature state and pressures with detailed spatial information.

In the report for each of the seven themes recommendation is provided on

improvements that can be made: (1) Concerning legal documents competent

authorities can indicate legal instruments that apply to each of the sites, habitats and

species concerned by the BHD and make sure that a clear link is established between

each individual entry for species, habitats and sites on the one hand and a

comprehensive database of legal documents and instruments at the other hand. (2)

With respect to information on conservation objectives, measures and management


September 2014 15

plans competent authorities could disclose all mentioned sources of information to

allow full and informed participation of stakeholder groups in the process of agreeing

on conservation objectives and management measures. (3) For information on

financing Natura 2000 the various possibilities for financing should be more

transparent and could be organized in a tailor-made approach to cater specific target

groups (farmers, etc.) or different regions if regional differences apply. (4) For

Information on impact assessments and compensation related to Natura 2000 it may

help to compile a detailed inventory of the type of information required for preparing

an Appropriate Assessment, to Inform competent authorities about these specific user

requirements and to Invest efforts in making available online the EIA and AA reports

and supporting documents through a centralized indexed search facility (by site, by

habitat, by type of impact etc.). (5) For scientific research, monitoring and

surveillance an inventory of the activities in the Member State could be made and

disclosed to the different user groups. (6) With respect to legal information on strict

protection, court rulings and derogations it is useful to have up-to-date the

information on relevant case law in relation to Natura 2000 at the EC level and to

establish structured and indexed links between the species, habitats and sites (as

presented in the national biodiversity databases) and the relevant court rulings,

derogations, and instruments of strict protection that refer to them. (7) Concerning

public information and participation recommendation is to make available as much as

possible relevant information and services through the centralized national or regional

databases of sites, species and habitats. This can also include deep links directing the

user to the relevant other repositories, as in the case of court rulings.

Concerning how and where to disclose information four general principles can provide

general recommendation: (1) Knowing which end-users may need Natura 2000-

related information and understanding the online paths they may choose to reach that

information can aid in providing the required information on the places where they are

likely to be looking for it. (2) As with all different themes available online, challenge

lays with the end-user to find the proverbial “needle in the haystack”. Therefore it is

crucial to provide end-users with all available tools and tricks to rapidly find the

information that matches what they are looking for. (3) Provide users with clear

indication on most recent updates and possibly on upcoming updates and maintain a

multi-annual database to allow for users to have insight in any history. (4) As many

different bodies collect and manage information about the same sites, habitats

species, interventions etc., there is a danger of redundancy, which can lead to

contradicting or outdated information. Therefore, it is recommended to review the

data and information structures across platforms and organisations and analyse where

normalisation can lead to simpler data structures. On an additional note, it could be

argued to be better for a government to provide less but correct and reliable

information, rather than more, but vague or even incorrect, data and information.

To further improve the management and use of spatial information it is recommended

to make existing data as soon as possible visible within the INSPIRE infrastructure,

through the creation of a national INSPIRE discovery service defined as INSPIRE

endpoint to the European INSPIRE portal, and harvesting or uploading existing

metadata in the central metadata catalogue. Also it is suggested to complete and

revise metadata for all INSPIRE data and services. On the short term, it would be an

advancement to prepare a view service for each of the INSPIRE spatial data sets

based on the minimum INSPIRE portrayal requirements and to make data

downloadable via simple ATOM feeds. Further down the road it may be defined which

more advanced viewing services and more complex download mechanisms should be

developed, taking into account the needs of different user communities. To succeed in

spatial data harmonization all data providers should analyse their existing spatial data

sets and compare them with the INSPIRE data specifications. Based on this first


September 2014 16

analysis, data providers should define a detailed plan for future transformation, in

cooperation with technical experts. In this context pilot projects should be considered

as a good instrument to bring different data providers together, in order to

collaboratively explore the data transformation process and stimulate the exchange of

knowledge and experiences. Concerning access and use conditions it is suggested that

view services providing public access to nature data and the nature data themselves

are offered free of charge since they are collected as part of environmental reporting

obligations. Most other view services are preferably free as well, while access to

services should only be limited under well-specified conditions. Finally, one should not

forget to cater for capacity building and training, this to bridge the thematic and

technological communities.

When Member States have reporting obligations to the European Commission,

description is provided as to how information can be organized and presented to reach

compliance. Similarly, where there are requirements on information disclosure, for

every key obligation in a Directive, it could be defined how the relevant compliance

and implementation information can be organized and presented online by Member

States. Such descriptions have been referred to as SIIFs - "Structured Implementation

and Information Frameworks". Therefore, one possible further step could be to

consider the recommendations made in this study and to use them as possible

ingredients in creating a SIIF for the nature directives.


September 2014 17

3 Résumé analytique publiable

Clause de non-responsabilité: Les informations et positions énoncées dans le

présent [Rapport / étude / article / publication ... ] sont celles de l'auteur (s ) et ne

reflètent pas nécessairement la position officielle de la Commission. La Commission ne

garantit pas l'exactitude des données incluses dans cette étude . Ni la Commission ni

aucune personne agissant pour le compte de la Commission peuvent être tenus

responsables de l' usage qui pourrait être fait des informations qui y sont contenues.

Aperçu du travail

Les résultats de ce rapport rentrent dans le processus de discussion pour une

meilleure, plus intelligente et plus efficace diffusion des données et informations

relatives aux Directives Oiseaux, 2009/147/EC et Habitats, 92/43/EEC, plus loin

nommées en tant que DOH. Dans ce contexte, il est nécessaire de fournir des

informations sur la façon dont, par rapport aux DOH, les États membres organisent

l'information environnementale en vue de sa diffusion active et systématique auprès

du public et de s’assurer que les informations environnementales deviennent

progressivement disponibles dans des bases de données électroniques qui sont

facilement accessibles en ligne au public.

Le cadre plus large de ce travail porte sur l'évolution des technologies de l'information

et l’accessibilité plus aisée de l'information au public. En résumé il s’agit d'utiliser la

technologie moderne de l'information pour faciliter les tâches administratives et

l'application liée à la mise en œuvre de la politique et législation environnementales.

Par conséquent, la publication de cette information doit être considérée dans le

contexte des Directives de l'Accès à l'Information et INSPIRE. Plus précisément, il est

nécessaire d'identifier les lacunes et les défis qui existent dans l'application des

dispositions de l'article 7 de la directive Accès à l'Information et les dispositions

d’INSPIRE pour l'information pertinente pour la mise en œuvre des DOH.

En outre, le projet explore également la contribution potentielle à la poursuite du

développement d’ISCI (Implémentation Structurée et Cadres d’Information) pour

toutes les lois environnementales clés de l'UE. L’ISCI n’implique pas de nouvelles

obligations. Leurs buts sont plutôt de fournir des orientations aux États membres sur

les informations qui doivent être mises à la disposition du public - et, par extension, le

cas échéant, conduire à des systèmes d'information efficaces. Une initiative d’ISCI est

actuellement en cours pour la directive relative au traitement des eaux urbaines

résiduaires. Les travaux en cours sur les directives concernant la nature et ses

résultats pourraient fournir une base pour les prochaines étapes liées à la législation

environnementale, y compris un document d'orientation.

Enfin, le travail qui a été menée contribue aux tests en cours de conformité de la

législation environnementale l'UE (qui évalue si le cadre réglementaire pour un secteur

de politique est apte à l'usage). Dans ce contexte de critères tels que l’efficacité,

l’efficience, la pertinence, la cohérence, etc. sont importants à considérer aussi dans le

domaine de la diffusion de l’information.


September 2014 18

Objectifs et approche générale

Pour répondre aux différents objectifs, d'abord une enquête de bureau a été réalisée

pour évaluer l'étendue et la qualité de l'information pertinente disponible en ligne pour

les DOH. Parallèlement, l'organisation actuelle et future des systèmes nationaux

d'information a été évaluée, en abordant les aspects connexes de la réutilisation des

données et l'interaction en ligne avec le public sur les questions environnementales.

Cela a résulté en un aperçu sur les systèmes d'information actuellement utilisés, avec

une vue d'identification des opportunités de rationaliser les données et d'améliorer

l'accessibilité. Dans le cadre de cet exercice, avant d'effectuer les recherches, dix États

membres représentatifs ont été sélectionnés de telle sorte que la répartition

géographique et la représentation des membres avant et après 2004, ont été

remplies. En outre la sélection était également fondée sur la taille de la population des

États membre, la couverture Natura 2000, la structure administrative et

gouvernementale et le degré de mise en œuvre d'INSPIRE. L’Allemagne, l’Espagne, la

France, la Hongrie, les Pays-Bas, la Pologne, la Roumanie, la Suède, le Royaume-Uni

et l'Irlande ont été sélectionnés pour la poursuite des travaux de l'enquête de bureau.

Deuxièmement, les autorités compétentes et les parties concernées clés ont été

consultés pour fournir un feedback sur les résultats de l’étude de bureau. Pour

garantir une manière uniforme pour demander et recueillir les commentaires des

intervenants un questionnaire a été élaboré avec des menus déroulants et de sorte

que les réponses puissent être manipulées d'une manière efficace et structurée. Pour

les autorités qui gèrent les sites Web Natura 2000 un ensemble spécifique

supplémentaire de questions a été inclus. Lors d'un workshop ouvert à tous les États

membres (non seulement aux dix Etats membres sélectionnés) les résultats

intermédiaires de l'étude ont été discutés et la consultation portait sur les meilleures

pratiques et l'ébauche de recommandations sur la façon dont les systèmes

d’information nationaux pourraient être améliorés.

Dans ce qui suit une réflexion est basée sur les réponses de l'enquête de bureau, la

consultation des parties concernées et le workshop. Le but final était de lister des

recommandations sur les façons possibles dont les systèmes d'information nationaux

pourraient être améliorés. Les recommandations ont été largement prises en fonction

des cinq perspectives suivantes: (1) la rationalisation et la réduction du fardeau

administratif et l'optimisation de l'efficacité des coûts, (2) de rendre les systèmes le

plus utile possible aux spécialistes de l'environnement, acteurs de la conservation de

la nature et au grand public (y compris grâce à la réutilisation et interaction des

données), (3) ciblage de l'aide de l'UE, (4) de faciliter les exigences de déclaration à

l'UE et (5) d’assurer la cohérence et l'interopérabilité avec les systèmes d'information

de l'UE.

Quelles informations doivent être faites activement disponibles et pourquoi?

Pour répondre à la question quelles informations doivent activement être faites

disponibles et pourquoi, il est nécessaire de comparer les exigences générales de la

directive sur l'accès à l'information et de la directive INSPIRE avec les types actuels

des renseignements requis qui doivent être générés par la mise en œuvre des DOH.

En permettant d'éventuelles différentes interprétations juridiques, il peut être soutenu

que la directive de l'accès à l'information et la directive INSPIRE présupposent que de

nombreux types d'informations générées par les DOH devraient être disponibles en

ligne. Une évaluation de pages internet a été effectuée pour déterminer si, et dans

quelle quantité, l’information pertinente à la mise en œuvre des DOH est fournie en

ligne dans chacun des 10 États membres sélectionnés.


September 2014 19

Le point de départ de ce travail était un questionnaire d'enquête basé sur les articles

individuels des DOH. Pour répondre systématiquement dans tous les États membres si

l'information était disponible pour ces articles, une approche structurée a été

développée. Ce faisant, plusieurs défis ont été rencontrés conduisant à plusieurs

ajustements qui devaient être apportées à la méthode d'enquête. En optimisant

l'approche de l'enquête, les questions originales étaient interprétées et fusionnées

avec d’autres questions similaires en questions plus simples. En outre, une structure

hiérarchique a été construite, qui regroupait les questions dans des catégories

spécifiques. Avec cette approche, nous avons pu générer des questions globales

pertinentes pour la recherche d’information sur les sites Web des États membres. Plus

précisément, nous avons regroupé les questions en sept thèmes principaux: (1) les

documents juridiques qui sous-tendent les DOH, (2) les informations sur les objectifs

de conservation, les mesures et les plans de gestion, (3) les informations sur le

financement de Natura 2000, (4) les informations sur les évaluations d'impact et les

compensation liées à Natura 2000, (5) la recherche scientifique, le monitoring et la

surveillance liés à Natura 2000, (6) l'information et la participation du public, et (7) les

informations juridiques sur la protection stricte, les décisions de justice et les

dérogations. En adoptant cette approche, nous étions en mesure de repérer

l'information, et nous pouvions aussi répondre pour chacune des questions si

l'information était disponible en ligne

En ce qui concerne les résultats, en général, l'information juridique sur la protection

stricte, les décisions judiciaires et des dérogations, ainsi que des informations sur les

évaluations d'impact ont été rarement trouvés pour les différents États membres.

D'autre part les documents juridiques qui sous-tendent les directives Oiseaux et

Habitats, et des informations concernant la recherche scientifique, le monitoring et la

surveillance liés à Natura 2000 sont largement présents dans l'ensemble des dix États

membres examinés. Enfin, les catégories suivantes semblaient variées

considérablement entre les États membres: l'information du public et la participation,

l'information sur le financement de Natura 2000 et les informations sur les objectifs de

conservation, les mesures et les plans de gestion.

Comment l’information est-elle rendue accessible?

Les autorités de conservation de la nature utilisent généralement des portails Web Les

autorités de conservation de la nature utilisent généralement des portails Web pour

communiquer les informations au public. De toute évidence, s’ils sont construits de

façon appropriée ces portails peuvent contribuer positivement à la diffusion

d'informations pertinentes au public. La question devient alors où publier l’information

et comment la rendre accessible de telle sorte que les utilisateurs finaux peuvent

trouver ce qu'ils cherchent d'une manière simple et facile. Ainsi, le lien doit être fait

entre le «quoi» et «pourquoi» de l'information avec le «où» et «comment». Dans ce

contexte, les atouts et les faiblesses des portails web Natura 2000 en termes de

réponse aux besoins des utilisateurs ont été analysées. Pour chacun des 10 États

membres sélectionnés le portail web Natura 2000 principal a été évalué et noté en

fonction de: (1) la facilité de la navigation, l'interopérabilité et la convivialité, (2) la

structure, (3) la possibilité de recherche et géo-référencement , (4) l'exactitude,

l'objectivité et la profondeur historique, et (5) la couverture et la cohérence.

Il est nécessaire de souligner que les résultats de l'enquête doivent être interprétés

avec prudence. Tout d'abord, un certain biais peut avoir été introduit étant donné que

la notation a été faite par différents experts. Cependant, ce biais possible a été réduit


September 2014 20

autant que possible par l'utilisation d'une méthodologie harmonisée. Deuxièmement,

les résultats des États membres ont été basés sur l'évaluation d'un portail unique par

État membre, bien que clairement dans certains cas, différents types d'informations

sont présentées sur différents sites Web. En outre, les contributions de chaque critère

pour le score final n’étaient pas pondérées alors qu’il est clair que certains critères

sont beaucoup plus importants pour déterminer l'efficacité et l'utilité d'un portail que

d'autres. Enfin, aucune évaluation n'a été faite sur la manière dont différents portails

qui contiennent des informations sur Natura 2000 sont liés. Malgré ces lacunes, nous

sommes confiants de fournir des indications précieuses sur la façon dont l'information

Natura 2000 est publiée à travers des portails web et quels éléments peuvent être pris

en considération afin d'améliorer encore une publication efficace. Par exemple, tout au

long du rapport, plusieurs bonnes pratiques d’États membres sont reprises sur la

manière dont les informations peuvent être publiées avec le plus de succès.

Comment la gestion et l'utilisation de l'information spatiale peuvent être

améliorées?

Avec l'analyse INSPIRE, l’objectif était d'évaluer dans quelle mesure les États

membres ont pris des mesures pour rendre leurs données concernant les DOH

conforme à INSPIRE. La directive INSPIRE vise à fournir un meilleur accès aux

données spatiales grâce à la création d'une infrastructure d'information spatiale en

Europe. On pourrait dire que si l'information est l'eau, INSPIRE est le système qui

apporte l'eau où elle est nécessaire et peut apporter l'eau pour répondre aux besoins.

INSPIRE ne est pas un but, mais la route. Pour assurer que les infrastructures de

données spatiales des États membres sont compatibles et utilisables dans un contexte

communautaire et transfrontalier, la directive impose aux États membres de prendre

des mesures dans cinq domaines spécifiques: les métadonnées, les spécifications des

données, les services de réseau, le partage des données et des services, et le suivi et

rapportage. Tout au long du screening des portails et de sites Web liés aux DOH,

toutes les pages Web offrant informations et données spatiales (pour afficher,

télécharger, etc.) ont été sélectionnées et explorées davantage, dans le but d'identifier

les ensembles de données qui ont été utilisés et/ou mis à disposition. En plus de ces

ensembles de données, d'autres ensembles ont aussi été sélectionnés, pour obtenir un

échantillon suffisamment grand. L'évaluation des ensembles sélectionnés analysait si

les ensembles de données étaient trouvables, si les métadonnées disponibles étaient

conformes à INSPIRE, et si les services de consultation et de téléchargement étaient

disponibles et conformes.

Pour résumer les résultats de cette évaluation, à proprement parler, il peut être

soutenu que, à ce stade, aucun des ensembles de données est entièrement compatible

avec INSPIRE. Les cinq principales remarques sont que (1) de nombreux jeux de

données n’ont pas été rapporté dans INSPIRE, (2) plusieurs ensembles ne sont pas

disponibles sur le géoportail INSPIRE, (3) de nombreux ensembles n’ont pas de

métadonnées conformes, (4) quelques-uns des jeux de données sont conformes aux

spécifications, et (5) très peu d'ensembles ont des services de consultation et de

téléchargement qui sont entièrement conformes. Il est toutefois important de

mentionner que, selon de la feuille de route de mise en œuvre d'INSPIRE, les pays ont


September 2014 21

encore plusieurs années pour mettre en œuvre INSPIRE, notamment pour les

ensembles de données reprises sous les thèmes de l'annexe II et à l'annexe III. Alors

que la date limite pour fournir les métadonnées, services de découverte, services de

consultation et services de téléchargement de ces jeux de données était 12/03/2013,

tous les ensembles de données spatiales sous les thèmes de l'annexe II et à l'annexe

III doivent être conformes aux spécifications pour le 21/10/2020.

Recommandation pour l’amélioration de l’information en ligne

En ce qui concerne les informations qui devraient être disponibles en ligne, les États

membres présentent l’information conforme aux exigences en matière de publication

d'informations environnementales générées par la mise en œuvre des DOH.

Cependant, tous les aspects nécessaires de l’information ne sont pas accessibles au

public. Une préoccupation majeure est que l'information juridique sur la protection

stricte, les décisions judiciaires et des dérogations, ainsi que des informations sur les

évaluations d'impact ont rarement été trouvées pour les différents États membres. Par

conséquent, les États membres pourraient encore améliorer la publication de

l'information en effectuant un examen approfondi des exigences incluses dans les

DOH. De plus, il faut considérer que pour les spécialistes beaucoup plus d'informations

devraient être accessibles, mais cela ne garantit pas que ce soit aussi à la disposition

du grand public. En effet, une grande partie de l'information disponible ne peut être

comprise sans connaissance. De plus pour les utilisateurs peu expérimenté en

l’informatique certaines informations ne peuvent être accessible raison de difficultés

techniques. Enfin, on pourrait faire valoir que l'information des DOH doit faire partie

d'une image plus large avec des informations spatiales détaillées sur l'état de la

nature et des pressions sur celle-ci.

Dans le rapport, des recommandations sont disponibles pour des améliorations qui

peuvent être faites pour chacun des sept thèmes: (1) concernant les documents

juridiques, les autorités compétentes peuvent indiquer les instruments juridiques qui

s’appliquent à chacun des sites, des habitats et des espèces concernées par les DOH

et s’assurer d'une part qu’un lien clair est établi entre chaque entrée pour les espèces,

habitats et sites, et d’autre part une base de données complète de documents et

instruments juridiques. (2) En ce qui concerne l'information sur les objectifs de

conservation, des mesures et des plans de gestion, les autorités compétentes

pourraient publier toutes les sources d'information mentionnées pour permettre la

participation entière des groupes concernés dans le processus d’entende sur les

objectifs de conservation et des mesures de gestion. (3) Pour plus d'informations sur

le financement de Natura 2000, les diverses possibilités de financement devraient être

plus transparentes et pourraient être organisées dans une approche sur mesure pour

pourvoir aux besoins de groupes spécifiques (agriculteurs, etc.) ou différentes régions

si des différences régionales s’appliquent. (4) Pour les informations sur les études

d'impact et les compensation liées à Natura 2000, il peut être utile de compiler un

inventaire détaillé de la nature des informations requises pour la préparation d'une

évaluation appropriée, d'informer les autorités compétentes des besoins spécifiques

des utilisateurs et d'investir dans la mise à disposition en ligne d’EIE et d’évaluations

appropriées et documents justificatifs à travers un outil centralisé de recherche

indexée (par site, par l'habitat, par type d'impact, etc.).(5) Pour la recherche

scientifique, le suivi et la surveillance d'un inventaire des activités dans l'État membre

pourraient être effectuées et communiquées aux différents groupes d'utilisateurs. (6)

En ce qui concerne l'information juridique sur la protection stricte, les décisions de

justice et les dérogations, il est utile d'avoir des informations mises à jour sur la

jurisprudence pertinente par rapport à Natura 2000 au niveau de la CE et d'établir des

liens structurés et indexés entre les espèces, les habitats et les sites (tel que présenté


September 2014 22

dans les bases de données de biodiversité nationales) et les décisions judiciaires

pertinentes, des dérogations, et les instruments de protection stricte qui s’y réfèrent.

(7) En ce qui concerne l'information du public et la participation, la recommandation

est de mettre à disposition autant que possible des informations et des services

pertinents à l’aide des bases de données centralisées nationales ou régionales des

sites, des espèces et des habitats. Cela peut également inclure des liens dirigeant

l'utilisateur vers d’autres référentiels pertinents, comme dans le cas de décisions de

justice.

Quant à savoir comment et où publier les renseignements quatre principes généraux

peuvent fournir des recommandations générales: (1) Sachant quel utilisateurs finaux

peuvent avoir besoin d’information liées à Natura 2000 et comprenant les chemins

qu’ils peuvent choisir pour l’atteindre, cela peut aider à fournir les informations

requises aux endroits où ils sont susceptibles de la rechercher. (2) Comme avec tous

les différents thèmes disponibles en ligne, le défi pour l’utilisateur final est de trouver

"une aiguille dans une botte de foin". Il est donc crucial de fournir aux utilisateurs

finaux tous les outils et astuces disponibles pour trouver rapidement les informations

qui correspondent à ce qu'ils recherchent. (3) Fournir aux utilisateurs une indication

claire sur la plupart des mises à jour récentes et éventuellement sur les mises à jour

futures et de maintenir une base de données multi-annuel pour permettre aux

utilisateurs d'avoir un aperçu de l'historique. (4) Comme de nombreux organismes

différents collectent et gèrent des informations sur les mêmes sites, espèces, habitats,

interventions, etc., il y a un risque de redondance, qui peut conduire à des

contradictions ou à des informations périmées. Par conséquent, il est recommandé

d'examiner les données et les structures d'information à travers les plates-formes et

les organisations et d’analyser où la normalisation peut conduire à des structures plus

simple. Sur une note complémentaire, on pourrait faire valoir qu’il vaut mieux pour un

gouvernement fournir moins de données, mais des informations plus correctes et

fiables, plutôt que trop de données ou informations vagues ou même incorrectes.

Pour améliorer encore la gestion et l'utilisation de l'information spatiale, il est

recommandé de rendre les données existantes autant que possible visible au sein de

l'infrastructure INSPIRE, à travers la création d'un service national de découverte

INSPIRE défini comme point final INSPIRE au portail européen INSPIRE, et de récolter

ou télécharger les métadonnées existantes dans le catalogue central de métadonnées.

En outre, il est suggéré de compléter et réviser les métadonnées pour toutes les

données et services INSPIRE. Sur le court terme, il serait avantageux de préparer un

service de consultation pour chacun des ensembles de données spatiales INSPIRE

basé sur les prescriptions minimales INSPIRE et de rendre téléchargeable les données

via un simple flux ATOM. A plus long terme, il peut être défini quels services

d'affichage et de téléchargement plus complexes devraient être développés, en tenant

compte des besoins des différentes communautés d'utilisateurs. Pour réussir dans

l'harmonisation des données spatiales tous les fournisseurs de données devraient

analyser leurs ensembles de données spatiales existantes et les comparer avec les

spécifications INSPIRE. Sur la base de cette première analyse, les fournisseurs de

données devraient définir un plan détaillé pour la transformation future, en

coopération avec des experts techniques. Dans ce contexte, des projets pilotes

devraient être considérées comme un bon instrument pour mettre différents

fournisseurs de données ensemble, afin d'analyser en collaboration le processus de

transformation de données et de stimuler l'échange de connaissances et

d'expériences. En ce qui concerne les conditions d'accès et d'utilisation, il est suggéré

que tant les services de consultation offrant un accès public aux données

environnementales et que tant les données soient offerts gratuitement, car ils sont

recueillies dans le cadre obligatoire de rapportage environnemental. La plupart des

autres services de consultation sont de préférence aussi gratuits, l'accès aux services


September 2014 23

doit être limité dans des conditions bien précises. Enfin, il ne faut pas oublier de

pourvoir aux renforcements des capacités et des formations, afin de couvrir les

communautés thématiques et technologiques.

Lorsque les États membres ont des obligations de rapportage à la Commission

européenne, la description est donnée quant à la façon dont l'information peut être

organisée et présentée de façon à la rendre conforme. De même, là où il y a des

exigences en matière de publication d'informations, pour chaque obligation essentielle

dans une directive, il pourrait être défini comment une conformité pertinente et

l’implémentation des informations peuvent être organisées et présentées en ligne par

les Etats membres. Ces descriptions ont été dénommée ISCI – « Implémentation

Structurée et Cadres d’Information ». Par conséquent, une prochaine étape pourrait

être de considérer les recommandations faites dans cette étude et de les utiliser en

tant que composants possibles pour la création d’un ISCI pour les directives

environnementales.


September 2014 25

4 Introduction of the context and aims of the study

The project focuses on the Birds Directive, 2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive,

92/43/EEC and is being carried out in support of streamlining the efforts to provide

environmental information and to develop/maintain information systems that currently

exist at the European and national levels, and to improve interoperability between the

national systems and those at the European level.

Therefore, the objectives of the project are to provide:

information on how, in relation to the Birds and Habitats Directives, Member

States organize environmental information with a view to its active and

systematic dissemination to the public and to ensure that environmental

information progressively becomes available in electronic databases which are

easily accessible to the public through the web.

information on how, in relation to individual articles of the Birds and Habitats

Directives, relevant provisions of Article 7(2) of the Access to Information

Directive, 2003/4/EC and relevant provisions of the INSPIRE Directive,

2007/2/EC are implemented, with particular attention being paid to a number of

key articles of the Birds and Habitats Directive.

an identification of any gaps and challenges that exist in applying the provisions

of Article 7 of the Access to Information Directive and the provisions of INSPIRE

to information relevant to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats

Directives.

based on the foregoing, an identification of the main issues that need to be

addressed in order to ensure that there are, within Member States, effective and

coherent online information systems for key aspects of the Birds and Habitats

Directives and that these information systems are inter-operable with the

information systems for the Birds and Habitats Directives that have already been

created at EU level. As a complement, the work is also aimed at touching on the

capacity and potential for both inter-action with the public and re-use of public-

sector data-sets related to these directives.

The project also explores the potential contribution to the further development of

SIIF’s (Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks) for all key EU

environmental laws. The SIIF concept has been announced in the Communication of 7

March 2012 on improving the delivery of benefits from EU environment measures.

SIIF’s don’t imply new obligations. Their purpose is rather to produce guidance for

Member States on what information should be made available to the public – and, by

extension and where appropriate, lead to effective information systems. A SIIF

initiative is currently underway for the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. The

project outcomes could provide a basis for the next steps related to the nature

legislation SIIF, including a guidance document.

Finally the project also contributes to the ongoing fitness check of the EU nature

legislation (which assesses whether the regulatory framework for a policy sector is fit

for purpose). In this context criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, relevance,

coherence, etc. are important to consider also in the field of information

dissemination.


September 2014 27

5 Description of the overall methodological approach and involved stakeholders

5.1 Member state selection

Before performing the survey, ten representative Member States were selected based

on the criteria mentioned in the Terms of Reference. These criteria stipulated that

selected Member States should be geographically representative as well as

representative for pre- and post-2004 membership, federal and centralised structures

and large, medium and small populations. In consultation with the Commission it was

agreed that they should also enable the identification of a broad spectrum of best

practices in active dissemination.

5.1.1 Criteria establishment

We defined six different criteria to select representative Member States. The first

criterion covers the geographical spread, where we used the UN Statistical Office

data (United Nations 2013) to determine the cardinal direction of the country (north,

east, south or west from the centre of Europe). As a second criterion we used the

accession data of the EU Member States. The year of accession was acquired from

the Europa database (European Union 2014). The third criterion addressed the

administrative and governmental structure of the country. This information was

taken from Wikipedia (Wikipedia 2014a). From this list, “unitary” and “federal” MS

were given the category “centralised” and “federal” and “devolved” were assigned with

the label “federal”. The population size was taken into account as the fourth

criterion. The population size of Member States was obtained and Member States were

grouped into three population size categories: large, medium and small populations

(Wikipedia 2014b). Values have arbitrarily been set as follows: SMALL: < 5 000 000

inhabitants ; MEDIUM; LARGE > 30 000 000 inhabitants. The fifth criterion accounted

for the Natura 2000 coverage. Natura 2000 coverage (in %) was included to reflect

the difference in pressure of the Natura 2000 network on other sectors and activities,

which would correlate with the number of environmental impact assessments and

appropriate assessments requiring adequate data and information (European

Commission 2014d). Values for the Natura 2000 coverage were arbitrarily set as

follows: SMALL: < 15%; MEDIUM; LARGE > 25%. The final criterion covers the

advance which the Member State has made with regards to INSPIRE. In order to

reflect the level (or maturity) of INSPIRE implementation in the Member States the

INSPIRE State of Play study was used: i.e. 'One or more components of the SDI have

reached a significant level of operationality', with the number of building blocks for

which there has been significant developments indicated (from 1 to 6). This indicator

provides a good idea on the efforts made by the Member States to implement the

INSPIRE organizational, legal and funding components, in addition to the development

of the technological parts such as the spatial data sets, the access mechanisms to

discover, view and download the data, and the available metadata. Also the degree to

which the country is working in a standardized way is reflected in this indicator. Based

on this indicator we reclassified all the Member States: countries that have 5 or 6

building blocks that were developed well are classified as 'Advanced', countries scoring

good on 3 or 4 building blocks were classified as 'Medium', while the other countries

were scored as 'Basic'.


September 2014 28

5.1.2 Selected member states

The following Member States – representing a balanced geographical distribution

across the EU (see

Figure 1) – were selected: Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland,

Romania, Sweden, United Kingdom and Ireland. All relevant data for the Member

State selection process are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 : Data used for the selection of Member State to be included in the survey.

Figure 1. Selected Member States for the information survey.

SELECTMEMBER STATE GEOGRAPHY ACCESSION GOVERNMENT POPULATION N2K COVER INSPIRE RESULT OF SELECTION

Austria WEST PRE FEDERAL MEDIUM SMALL MEDIUM

Belgium WEST PRE FEDERAL MEDIUM SMALL MEDIUM GEO DISTRIBUTION

Bulgaria EAST POST CENTRALISED MEDIUM LARGE BASIC NORTH 3

Cyprus SOUTH POST CENTRALISED SMALL LARGE BASIC EAST 3

Czech Republic EAST POST CENTRALISED MEDIUM SMALL ADVANCED SOUTH 1

x Germany WEST PRE FEDERAL LARGE MEDIUM VERY ADVANCED WEST 3

Denmark NORTH PRE CENTRALISED MEDIUM SMALL VERY ADVANCED ACCESSION

Estonia NORTH POST CENTRALISED SMALL MEDIUM ADVANCED PRE 7

x Spain SOUTH PRE FEDERAL LARGE LARGE VERY ADVANCED POST 3

Finland NORTH PRE CENTRALISED MEDIUM SMALL ADVANCED GOVERNMENT

x France WEST PRE CENTRALISED LARGE SMALL ADVANCED CENTRALISED 7

Greece SOUTH PRE CENTRALISED MEDIUM LARGE BASIC FEDERAL 3

Croatia SOUTH POST CENTRALISED SMALL LARGE MEDIUM SIZE

x Hungary EAST POST CENTRALISED MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM LARGE 5

x Republic of Ireland NORTH PRE CENTRALISED SMALL SMALL MEDIUM MEDIUM 4

Italy SOUTH PRE FEDERAL LARGE MEDIUM ADVANCED SMALL 1

Lithuania NORTH POST CENTRALISED SMALL SMALL ADVANCED N2K COVER

Luxembourg WEST PRE CENTRALISED SMALL MEDIUM MEDIUM LARGE 1

Latvia NORTH POST CENTRALISED SMALL SMALL BASIC MEDIUM 4

Malta SOUTH POST CENTRALISED SMALL SMALL BASIC SMALL 5

x Netherlands WEST PRE CENTRALISED MEDIUM SMALL VERY ADVANCED INSPIRE MATURITY

x Poland EAST POST CENTRALISED LARGE MEDIUM MEDIUM BASIC 0

Portugal SOUTH PRE CENTRALISED MEDIUM MEDIUM ADVANCED MEDIUM 4

x Romania EAST POST CENTRALISED MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM ADVANCED 3

x Sweden NORTH PRE CENTRALISED MEDIUM SMALL ADVANCED VERY ADVANCED 3

Slovenia SOUTH POST CENTRALISED SMALL LARGE ADVANCED

Slovakia EAST POST CENTRALISED MEDIUM LARGE MEDIUM

x United Kingdom NORTH PRE FEDERAL LARGE SMALL ADVANCED TOTAL 10


September 2014 29

5.2 Theoretical framework

5.2.1 General approach

Detailed survey instructions, a workflow and a survey tool were developed. These

guided the experts of the consortium carrying out the survey through the various

steps of the survey. Information was captured in semi-quantitative categories in order

to ensure the highest possible level of consistency between assessments from

different experts. The benefits of a structured survey approach are:

Increased consistency between the surveys carried out by different experts;

Structured review of each assessed portal or website, minimizing the likelihood

of oversights;

Assessment based on a combination of predefined choices (either “yes / no” or

multiple choices through drop down lists) and open text to describe the

assessment results;

Use of predefined answer categories increases transparency and consistency and

options for semi-quantified analysis;

The results can be presented in a wide range of ways: from summary tables to

full reports.

5.2.2 Open data definition

Before addressing the theoretical framework of this study, it is important to define

online information, also referred to within this study as open data. Open data,

according to Auer et al. (2007), is the concept that information should be freely

available for everyone who is interested. Freely in this sense also refers to the

absence of restrictions from patents, copyrights or other control mechanisms. This

concept is embraced by the European Commission and increasingly used on the World

Wide Web (see: http://publicdata.eu/). In this study we are focussing on information

that is made available for users interested in the implementation of the Birds and

Habitats Directives (hence referred to as BHD). Restricted or protected information will

not be included in the survey.

5.2.3 Structure of online information

The World Wide Web has a great diversity of ways to transfer information, both in

terms of website structure and classification of particular information components. The

structure refers to the physical structuring of information based on the relation

between different components of information (Kantor et al. 2003). The structure in

which information is presented determines the ease of finding the requested

information. In general four types of so called organizational structures can be

distinguished (Vu et al. 2012; Figure 2):

a. A hierarchical structure consists of a high-level, or global, category and can have

multiple branches into subcategories underneath it;

b. A networked structure allows the user to move around the information architect by

clicking on hyperlinks, which does not have to be adjacent to their starting point;

c. A linear structure places information serially and does not allow for branching of

information. Linear structures can be embedded into a larger hierarchical structure;

d. Finally, a database structure relies heavily on search features that allow users to

retrieve the information.

http://publicdata.eu/


September 2014 30

For the establishment of the survey tool and its theoretical framework we mainly use

the hierarchical structure as a benchmark, which we then adopt to fit the other types

of information structures. It should however be kept in mind that for some websites

this approach is less suitable due to the structural differences.

Figure 2. Different website structures; (a) Hierarchical, (b) Networked, (c) Linear and

(d) database structure.

5.2.4 Definitions on information components

Within the hierarchical structure several basic online information components are

commonly encountered. These components include; news/information dissemination,

a portal function, social networking/community establishment and searching

information (cf. Vu et al. 2012). Each of these types is designed by specific purposes

or goals and has characteristics unique to achieving those goals. In relation to BHD

information dissemination, we assume that the main types of website components we

will encounter are information dissemination pages and portals. To a smaller extent

social networking/communication platform are expected, although these are not

specifically analysed within this research. In relation to the further analysis of the

available online information, it is crucial to specifically define these website component

types because these will be addressed with a different analysis. Portals are defined by

the following specifications (Vu et al. 2012; see Figure 3):

Goal: provide links to other websites or resources;

Characteristics: mostly uniform resource locator (URL) links, with minor

descriptions of the linked resources; generally organized alphabetically or by a

keyword or theme;

Example: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/


September 2014 31

Figure 3. Overview of components that are distinguished within our analysis.

The analysis started with generating an inventory of existing portals for every selected

Member State. Afterwards the links within these portals were investigated and

additional search was performed to increase the amount of portals. When analysing

the portals the focus was on their ease in use (Figure 3). This was analysed by

addressing their complexity with the methodology described below.

After achieving a representative overview of the Natura 2000/BHD information portals

the information dissemination pages were addressed. Information dissemination pages

are defined by the following specifications (Vu et al. 2012):

Goal: provide users with information;

Characteristics: predominantly text based, with minor graphics; simple and

consistent navigation;

Example: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1374

Pages can have a complex structures and it is not always clear which page contains

the requested information. For our research we therefore made a distinction between

index pages and actual information pages (Figure 3). Here we define an index page as

a page which links you to pages containing the actual requested information. These

index pages are not further analysed in our study. However, when an index page links

to more than two webpages addressing the same kind of information (e.g. annual

reports on conservation measures), than this index page is considered as the actual

information page (Figure 3).

Searching for specific information pages to answer the questions started from the

portals identified in the portal search. Only when the portals did not provide the

answer to the question the search was widened through a Google search. The extent

to which information is available within the different Member States is the focus of this

page survey. Both the portals and the (information) pages were analysed with a

specific methodology as described below. The review was performed by using an

Access survey tool with which a database was generated.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1374


September 2014 32

5.3 Portal survey

5.3.1 Portal search

The search for BHD portals started from the list of national portals presented on the

web pages of the European Commission

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/db_gis/ index_en.htm#sites).

This list of primary national BHD information sources was extended through a Google

search, in which specific keywords were used (including: Natura 2000, Habitats

Directive, Birds Directive, etc.). To focus the portal survey to a specific Member State

the search was narrowed by adding the ‘site:[country]’ line in the search bar (e.g.

Natura 2000 site:uk). For every Member State between five and ten portals were

included in the preliminary phase of the survey. The difference in the institutional

structure affected the amount of portals found for a specific Member State. There

could for instance be relevant portals on regional (e.g. province) or even local (e.g.

county) level, instead of a national level in federal institutional systems (substantially

increasing the amount of portals). Because of this issue we focused the search to

national and regional levels. For the regional level we further limited the number of

portals by only including a few (± two) representative regions, instead of searching for

information on all the different regions. We aimed to explore all national-level

information sources (portals). These were typically organised in the portals of national

nature conservation authorities and – in particular, with regard to spatial information –

in portals of national geographic institutes. Also other portals at national level might

provide information (e.g. portals of competent authorities in the field of permitting

processes, such as, EIA, spatial planning, etc.) and were investigated. General

government data and information portals were also included in the survey, and for

some specific survey questions portals dealing with legal matters. In some Member

States, NGOs might also provide relevant Natura 2000 information.

5.3.2 Methodology for the portal analysis

The portal analysis was divided into two main stages. This was done to separate the

search for useful portals from the actual analysis. This first “general” part was

performed with an Access Survey tool which facilitates storing the information in a

uniform matter. This general analysis was based on capturing information for

predefined categories and on specific observations by reviewers who went through the

information portals. Table 2 gives an overview of the components included in the

general portal survey.

Table 2 : Overview of the components included in the general portal assessment.

Component Description

ID Self-generated ID of the dataset.

Portal Key Unique coding for the specific portal.

Country Assessed country.

Subject Indicate if the portal includes information on the

HD, the BD, both (Natura 2000), or only general

information about nature conservation, without

special reference to the BHD and Natura 2000.

Private/Public Indicate whether the owner of the website /

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/db_gis/


September 2014 33


portal is a public or private (e.g. NGO or

company) entity.

Level Indicate whether the information provided on

the portal applies to the local, regional, national

or European level.

Portal Name Original The portal’s official name in the country’s

language.

Portal Name English Translation of the portal’s name into English.

URL Website link.

Description Short but clear and comprehensive description

of the purpose and contents of the portal.

Contact Name Name of the contact person.

Email Email address of the specific contact person.

Organisation Owner of the portal (and the information

thereon).

Sitemap Establish whether the website contains a

sitemap.

Notes Memo field to record some notes on the

assessment of the Portal.

Determining the organisation and contact of a specific portal is important for the

future stakeholder selection process.

After successfully having described five to ten different portals per country, the portal

assessment is performed. The assessment was performed on the one overarching

national portal. This national portal was determined according to the following criteria:

The portal should provide information on the widest possible range of questions

relating to nature conservation, including the Birds and Habitats Directives, i.e. not

focus exclusively on Natura 2000

The portal should cover information on a national level;

The portal should link to most of the other established portals (see Figure 3).

Once the main national portal was selected, the portal assessment was performed.

The assessment focused on five overall performance dimensions:

Ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness;

Structure;

Searchability and geo-referencing;

Accuracy, objectivity and historical depth;


September 2014 34

Coverage and coherence.

The value or score of each dimension is calculated by evaluating specific criteria that

were answered in a questionnaire for all the main portals by the reviewing expert. For

every criterion, the expert determined whether the criterion applied to the portal

(YES/NO). Additionally, a motivation was provided for the choice made with regard to

every question.

The details of the main portal assessment for each of the Member States included in

this survey are presented in the annexes of this report. In Table 3 the detailed results

for the UK are presented as illustration. In Chapter 6 we report the aggregated scores

– results to show the effectiveness of a portal in complying with specific elements.

This score is the percentage of questions answered with YES compared to all the

questions described for the specific dimension. Additionally we added a

“conclusion/final verdict”. For the ‘coverage and coherence’ dimension we asked the

reviewer to determine how much information analysed in the page review (see Page

review) is directly covered by the portal. Additionally the review gives an expert

judgement verdict on the coverage and the linkages to other portals. The

conclusion/final verdict element is added to grasp general information on the portal,

which is used in comparing different countries and detecting good practice examples.

Within this element the final score of a specific portal is calculated in addition to an

expert judgement score (ranging from 1-10). Here the reviewer is also asked to

describe the general strengths and weaknesses of the portal.

Table 3 : Portal survey questionnaire with findings for the UK main portal.

Element Criteria question Example main portal:

UK; http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/

Ease of

navigation,

inter-

operability

and user

friendliness

SCORE:

75%

Is a simple sitemap

available?

YES: The sitemap of the JNCC is simple

and intuitive.

Do main entries of the

sitemap link to more

detail?

YES: The sitemap allows the user to

both look at only two levels within the

website structure, or expand the depth

to all levels. This helps the user to keep

an overview while also providing the

opportunity to go in depth on specific

information.

Are there dropdown

menus?

YES: When moving the curser to

specific icon you will get a dropdown

box with information on the content of

the link. Additionally on the left hand

side you will attain a site navigator

when pressing a link.

Does the website maintain

breadcrumb trail?

YES: The JNCC website gives you the

opportunity to click on an icon to move

back on step in your visitation.

Does the website provide

intuitive picture/icon with

their links?

NO: Although the homepage provides

some pictures with specific links the

second level pages do not provide


September 2014 35



intuitive pictures to explain the content.

Does the website provide

fixed items that ease the

navigation?

YES: The top bar of the JNCC portal is

always fixed easing the navigation

through the website.

Does the website contain

an interactive or moving

homepage?

YES: Within the center of the website

there is an interactive panel that

changes photos every few minutes.

Additionally this “rotating” screen

provides information on interesting

recent features.

Does the homepage

contain information about

the website structure?

NO: The homepage of the JNCC does

not provide an easy to understand

overview of the website.

Structure

SCORE:

67%

Is the first level subdivision

of the website intuitive and

logical?

NO: The major JNCC structure is

subdivided in About JNCC, UK,

European, International, Marine and

Evidence. Both Marine and Evidence in

this perspective could fall under either

UK, European or International.

Does the homepage

provide links to the most

recent information or

news?

YES: The homepage does provide direct

links to the most recent information.

Does the structure of the

portal distinguish between

habitats, sites and species?

YES: From the sitemap it is clear that

the structure makes a clear distinction

between information on habitats and

species.

Does the structure of the

portal enable you to

distinguish between reports

published in different

years?


you can easily select reports produced

in different years. They even provided

Committee meeting reports on an

annual basis.

Does the portal give an

easy link to other relevant

national/regional portals?

NO: The JNCC portal does not give a

direct link to portals like Natural

England or Scottish Natural Heritage.


easy links to European

portals?

YES: The JNCC portal does give a direct

link to both international and European

websites that are linked to nature

conservation.

Searchability

and geo-

referencing

Is there a simple search

box available on the home

page?

YES: On the homepage there is a direct

search function that is linked to a

Google search engine that helps you to


September 2014 36



SCORE:

60%

find information.

Is there an advanced

search option for more

detailed search actions?

NO: The JNCC website does not provide

the user with an advanced search

option.

Is the information

presented with an

interactive map?

YES: The JNCC portal gives you the

opportunity to look for information via

a BING map application. Here SAC and

SPA delineation can for instance be

detected.

Is search option accessible

from every location on the

website?

YES: The search bar stay constant in

the fixed bar at the top of the website.

Does the search engine

provide you with categories

of search results?

NO: The search engine of the JNCC

website only provides the results

without distinguishing between

categories.

Accuracy,

objectivity

and

historical

depth

SCORE:

88%

Is the portal up to date? YES: The last post on the JNCC website

was performed on 21/03/14. This

indicates that the website is kept up to

date regularly.

Are all the links

functioning?

YES: No non-functioning links were

found on this portal.

Are there links provided to

evidence/research results?

YES: There is a direct link to a research

webpage that contain all kinds of

relevant data and links to research

information.

Is there a multi-annual

database present?

NO: There is no concrete database

present that provides information on a

multi-annual basis.

Is annual information

presented on the website?


there are publications that cover

multiple years. From 2004 until 2014

there is information available.

Are there individual links to

various SACs and SPAs?

YES: There are specific links to SACs

and SPAs. Additionally links are

provided to information on general

habitats types and the conservation

measures undertaken.

Are there individual links to

various protected species?

YES: There is a specific link to

protected species. Additionally a

subdivision is made between al


September 2014 37



different kinds of species groups.

Does it provide data in a

standardized format or

manner?

YES: The description of information is

always guided with an introduction text

and then followed by the specifications.

Additionally the data on for instance

sites is presented in a general format.

Coverage

and

coherence

SCORE:

42%

What is the percentage of

Birds Directive questions

covered by the portal?

46% (in total the JNCC website covers

fully and partially 13 out of 28

questions of the Annex 9 questionnaire

applicable to the BD).


Habitats Directive

questions covered by the

portal?



questions of the Annex 9 questionnaire

applicable to the HD).


total questions covered by

the portal?



questions of the Annex 9

questionnaire).


overall coverage of

relevant information?

NO: The portal especially lacks

information on management plans and

conservation measures. Additionally

information on legal decisions with

regards to Natura 2000 is lacking.

Does the portal contain

many references to other

websites?

YES: Under the European and

International index page, various links

are provided to European data portals

or relevant pages.

Conclusions/

final verdict

SCORE: NA

Strength It is a highly structured website that

shows a high coverage of information.

Additionally the digestion of information

is highly effective.

Weaknesses It does not easily provide links to other

relevant portals. Additionally it

sometimes lacks the more specific

information on sites.

Highlights / good practice The specific information on the website

is very efficiently digestible. What is

meant by this is that the general

information is not provided by PDF or

other documents, but rather explained

in short on the page itself (before

presenting the official document).

Additionally the interactive dropdown


September 2014 38



menu’s and sitemap provide a very

user-friendly environment.

Overall impression (1-10) 7: The webpage is regarded as good

because it is user-friendly, easy to use

and has a more or less logical

structure. However the data content is

not always sufficient and the search

options could be improved.

Final score (average of

all percentages)

57

5.4 Page review

5.4.1 Page search

After the portal survey is finalized, the page review is carried out. The main target of

the page review is to determine whether the requested information from Appendix A

(Annex 9 of the Terms of Reference - Survey questionnaire for Task 1 on the extent

and quality of online information in Member States concerning implementation of the

Birds and Habitats Directives) is provided online within a specific Member State. The

questions presented in Appendix A are however not directly compatible for an internet

search. Due to the legal nature of these questions (e.g. sorted on Birds and Habitats

Directive articles) it is necessary to convert the questions to information-relevant

search terms and questions. To guide this process we first analysed the questions by

structuring them according to information relevant layers and elements.

The original questions of the survey questionnaire were carefully analysed and the

essence of each question was summarised in a short sentence. For example (page 49

of the Tender Specifications):

“Does the Member State publish online the measures (other than legislative ones)

used to implement article 10 of the Habitats Directive – see article 7(2) (b) of

Directive 2003/4/EC which refers to dissemination of policies plans and programmes?

If so, state how it does this, providing a URL to indicate whether it is easy to identify

measures intended to serve as Article 10 measures, e.g. via specific links that refer to

Article 10”, was summarized into:

- “Q22 - HD Art 10 - MEASURES to implement LANDSCAPE FEATURES”

These summary questions were introduced into the survey tool.

For the purpose of performing the internet survey, some questions as formulated in

the Annex 9 of the Tender Specifications needed to be split into a number of sub-

questions.

For example (page 47 of the Tender Specifications):

“Does the Member State publish online the statutory, administrative and contractual

measures referred to in Article 6(1) of the Habitats Directive or does it publish

aggregated information where it does not publish individual contractual measures (see

article 7(2) (f) which covers the dissemination of environmental agreements (which

may include agri-environmental measures). If so, state how it does this, providing a

URL”, was summarized and split into:

- “Q4 - HD Art 6.1 - Statutory, administrative and contractual MEASURES”


September 2014 39

- “Q5 - HD Art 6.1 - AGGREGATED INFORMATION on statutory, administrative and

contractual (e.g. Agri-environmental) MEASURES”

On the other hand, some questions were exactly repeated in the survey questionnaire

for the Birds and for the Habitats Directive:

The text of the directive in the national language

The text of the national implementation legislation

The texts of international treaties, conventions and agreements in the field of

nature (notably Ramsar, Berne, Bonn and Biodiversity Conventions)

Any related implementation guides or links to such guides (including Commission

guides) including a correlation table showing the correspondence between the

provisions of the directive and the provisions of the national legislation

Contact details for the competent authorities.

These questions related to the specific portal for the Birds and Habitats Directive,

which was not found in any country included in the survey.

The exercise of summarizing and splitting original questions resulted in a total of 79

questions per Member State, of which:

28 unique questions for the Birds Directive

51 unique questions for the Habitats Directive

The survey tool with the 79 questions was tested in the UK and The Netherlands. It

became clear that a search based on specific articles of the BHD did not result in very

useful results. This was due to the fact that the legal provisions from the BHD have

been transposed into national law before being implemented at national, regional and

local levels. Only the specific reporting obligations (Habitat Articles 16 and 17; Birds

Directive Articles 9 and 12) and Natura 2000 as an implementation instrument are

specifically referred to at the national level. Most other provisions (and their BHD

article numbers) are “lost” during the transposition to national law.

Trying to identify evidence to answer each individual question in detail therefore led to

a very cumbersome, repetitive and time consuming exercise, whose final benefits

were not very apparent.

It was decided therefore to review our interpretation of each original question and

merge questions with a very similar content into simpler questions, thereby also

reducing the danger of difference in interpretation between the different surveyors. To

further increase the understanding of the questions, a hierarchical structure was

constructed which dissects the questions into specific categories, herein referred to as

elements. These elements were structured into specific layers which help in narrowing

the amount of questions in relation to the online information. This “element-structure”

is by no means a rigid analytical framework. It was rather used as a guideline to set

the scope for the online search terms. The layers within the element structure are the

focus, measures, mechanisms and specifications (see Error! Reference source not

found.). The focus addresses whether the information focusses on the Habitats or

Birds Directive. The measures describe whether the information addressed legal,

financial, practical, research or general measures for conservation. Mechanisms and

specifications further refine the topic of the online information and relate it to a

specific question. With this structure of the questions we were able to generate

aggregated questions that are relevant for searching websites for information.


September 2014 40

Figure 4: Example of the element structure for questions related to the Habitats

directive

Reviewing the original questions, and the results obtained for The Netherlands and the

United Kingdom, we found that the information provided could be clustered into

seven main themes (see Table 4):

Legal documents underpinning the Birds and Habitats Directives

Information on conservation objectives, measures and management plans

Information on financing Natura 2000

Information on impact assessments and compensation related to Natura 2000

Scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to Natura 2000

Public information and participation

Legal information on strict protection, court rulings and derogations

Indeed some articles contain provisions regarding legal, practical and financial

measures, and this type of information is unlikely to be found in the same section of a

website (or even on the same website).

All original questions were therefore translated into simpler aggregated versions

(sometimes covering one or more original questions). The result was a series of 39

simplified aggregated questions derived from the original 79 questions. In the

guidance for the surveyors, clarifications about the link between the simple

aggregated and original questions were given so that answers to the original questions

could still be provided after the survey was performed.

For each theme generalized search-terms were developed to further unify the

searches between different countries (see Table 4). These search-terms were

translated in all the relevant languages. However, for every country a critical

assessment was made on whether the search-terms were sufficient.

Measures Subject Mechanism Specification Question Focus


September 2014 41

Table 4 : Aggregated questions clustered by theme

Legal documents underpinning the Birds and

Habitats Directives

Search terms

- Legal instruments - BD text

- Legal instruments - HD text

- Legal instruments - BD national law

- Legal instruments - HD national law

- Legal instruments - International conventions

- Legal instruments - BD SPA designation (+map)

- Legal instruments - HD SAC designation (+map)

Natura 2000;

Habitats

Directive; Birds

Directive; Natura

2000; Legal;

Law;

Designation;

Act; Treaty;

Convention;

Transposition;

Correlation;

National;

International

Information on conservation objectives, measures and

management plans

Search terms

- Conservation measures - HD Objectives

(+map+rpt)

- Conservation measures - HD Management plans

(+map+rpt)

- Conservation measures - Sites, protected areas

(+map)

- Conservation measures - Habitat conservation,

restoration measures (+map+rpt)

- Conservation measures - Species, biodiversity

action, protection plans (+map+rpt)

- Conservation measures - Spatial planning,

administrative measures

(+map+rpt)

- Conservation measures - Ecological coherence

(+map+rpt)

Natura 2000;

Habitats

Directive;

Special area of

conservation;

SAC; Birds

Directive;

Special

Protection Area;

SPA;

Restoration;

Conservation;

Measure; Plan

Information on financing Natura 2000

- Financing - Prioritized action frameworks

- Financing - Environmental agreements

(+map+rpt)

Natura 2000;

Habitats

Directive; Birds

Directive;


September 2014 42

- Financing - LIFE & other EU Prioritized Action

Framework;

PAF; EU co

funding; LIFE;

INTERREG;

LEADER; Agri

environmental

agreement;

Direct payment;

Subsidy;

Conservation

Information on impact assessments and compensation

related to Natura 2000

- Plans and projects - Appropriate assessment

(+map+rpt)

- Plans and projects - Compensation (+map+rpt)

Natura 2000;

Habitats

Directive;

Special area of

conservation;

SAC;

Appropriate

assessment; AA;

Compensatory

measure; Nature

compensation;

Mitigation

Scientific research, monitoring and surveillance

related to Natura 2000

- Research and monitoring - Science

- Research and monitoring - Citizen science and

crowd sourcing

- Research and monitoring - Data from

surveillance (+map+rpt)

- Research and monitoring - Assessment of

(re)introductions

- Research and monitoring - Exceptions to public

access

- Research and monitoring - BD Report Art 12

- Research and monitoring - HD Report Art 17

Natura 2000;

Habitats

Directive; Article

17 Report; Birds

Directive; Article

12 Report; Sites;

Habitats;

Species;

Research;

Monitoring;

Assessment;

Surveillance


September 2014 43

Legal information on strict protection, court rulings

and derogations

- Legal - Strict protection measures

- Legal - HD Enforcement of strict protection

- Legal - Prohibitions

- Legal - HD Monitoring Incidental capture

(+map+rpt)

- Legal - BD Hunting related measures

- Legal - National court decisions

- Legal - BD Derogations (+map+rpt)

- Legal - HD Derogations (+map+rpt)

Natura 2000;

Habitats

Directive; Birds

Directive;

Wildlife; Flora;

Fauna;

Disturbance;

Destruction;

Enforcement;

Court decision;

Prosecution;

Derogation;

Prohibition;

Strict protection;

Crime; License;

Permit


- Public information and participation - Guidance

- Public information and participation - (Media)

communication

- Public information and participation -

Consultations on N2K

- Public information and participation - Re-use of

information

- Public information and participation - Contact

details of competent authorities

Natura 2000;

Habitats

Directive;

Education;

Information;

Communication;

Awareness

raising;

Consultation;

Involvement;

Participation

Details of the conversion table between original questions of the Tender Specification

Annex 9 and the derived aggregated questions from the survey tool are presented in

the Appendix B. These 39 questions were introduced into the second version of the

survey tool which was used to perform the surveys of the remaining 8 countries.

The answers to the 39 questions (as presented in detail in Appendix D) were used to

provide a “yes / no” answer to the original 79 questions. The results of this

assessment are presented in Chapter 6.

5.4.2 Page methodology

For the information page analysis a survey Access tool was developed in the form of a

relational database. The database tool allowed all experts involved in the data

gathering and assessment to work in a consistent and structured way. The use of the


September 2014 44

page part of the survey tool minimized the likelihood of data gaps or omissions to

arise in the assessment.

Within the main component of the page review tool various fields were addressed

(Table 5). However, the main target of this part of the tool is to analyse whether the

online information could answer one or more of questions in relation to articles of the

Birds and Habitats Directive (see the aggregated question search). To link the specific

aggregated question and clarification to a specific question of Annex 9 we generated a

linkage table in Excel (

Figure 5). With this table we were able to translate the aggregated question and

clarification to the specific Appendix A questions of Annex 9. We then reported on

every individual country by using a general reporting format. The detailed survey

results for the ten Member States are presented in Appendix D. For purposes of

clarity, the results section of this report presents a table with the aggregated results

only on the availability of information. Additionally for every individual aggregated

question “good practices” encountered during the survey are discussed.

Table 5 : Overview of the components included in the general page assessment.


ID Self-generated ID of the dataset.

Page Key Unique code given to the specific page.

Type Page distinction between an index page,

data info page and an online document.

Country Assessed country.

Data Specific data of the review.

Title Original The title of the page in the original

(country) language.

Title English Name of the page in English.

Page URL Website link.

Description Short but clear and comprehensive

description of the purpose and contents of

the page.

Level Indicate whether the information provided

on the page applies to the local, regional,

national or European level.

Private/Public Indicate whether the owner of the website

/ portal is a public or private (e.g. NGO or

company) entity.

Contact Specify the name of potential contact

persons in relation to the information on

the page.


September 2014 45


Email Email address of the responsible person or

organisation for the information.

Organisation Organisation name providing the

information.

Mechanism/Mechanism Specification Mechanisms and specifications further

refine the topic of the online information

and related it to a specific question.

BHD reference Indicate whether the Birds or Habitats

Directive is specifically mentioned.

Answers question? Indicate whether the information directly

or partially answers the question.

Specific question (aggregated) The reformulated questions that covered

all Bird and Habitat questions in an

aggregated way, i.e. removing

duplications and overlaps present in the

original questions of the ToR.

BD Question The Birds Directive question specified by

Appendix A. This question was used

during the testing and benchmarking but

was replaced together with the BD

question by the specific question

(aggregated).

HD Question The Habitats Directive question specified

by Appendix A. This question was used

during the testing and benchmarking but

was replaced together with the HD

question by the specific question

(aggregated).

Figure 5. A print-screen of the linkage table between the aggregated questions,

clarification and the original questions from Appendix A.


September 2014 46

5.5 INSPIRE analysis

The ‘INSPIRE compliance assessment’ is based on three main sources of information:

Identified webpages offering spatial data and information: as part of the

screening of portals and websites related to BD and HB, all webpages offering

spatial data and information (to view, to download, etc.) were identified;

INSPIRE Monitoring sheets 2013: the results of the INSPIRE monitoring of the

implementation and use of their infrastructures for spatial information, as

delivered by the Member States in May 2013, includes a list of spatial data sets

and services belonging to those infrastructures. The monitoring sheets also

provide information on the compliancy of spatial data sets and services with

INSPIRE;

INSPIRE geoportal (http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/): allows to search for

spatial data sets and spatial data services, and to view spatial data sets from the

EU Member States within the framework of the INSPIRE Directive. The geoportal

also allows to test the compliancy of INSPIRE metadata with the INSPIRE

Metadata Regulation.

The assessment was conducted in five steps:

1. A screening of the portals and websites related to BD and HB offering spatial data

and information was undertaken to identify spatial datasets that were used for

providing the information on the website as well as spatial datasets that were

accessible on the website. The result of this exercise was a list of relevant spatial

datasets for each country which was the basis for the selection of the datasets

that were evaluated;

2. An explorative analysis was made of the datasets reported in the INSPIRE

Monitoring sheets 2013, for datasets under 4 themes related to BD and HB:

Protected Sites (I.9), Bio-geographical regions (III.17), Habitats and biotopes

(III.18) and Species distribution (III.19). Based on the information as reported by

the Member States, the monitoring sheets show the number of datasets in each

country under these four themes and the extent to which these datasets are

compliant with INSPIRE;

3. A selection was made of datasets for further evaluation. The selection mainly

included spatial datasets that were detected through the screening of portals and

websites related to BD and HB. However, in countries for which only a limited

number of datasets were reported under the four themes (<40 datasets in total),

all report datasets were taken into account for further evaluation, except data sets

under the theme ‘Protected sites’ that were not related to BD and HB. This was

the case for six of the countries in our analysis: the Netherlands, Poland,

Romania, Sweden, Hungary and Ireland. In the remaining four countries (UK,

France, Spain and Germany), the number of datasets reported under the four

themes was much higher, and only a selection of datasets was evaluated. While

the primary criterion for selecting a dataset was its availability on the

portals/websites, also other criteria were taken into account such as the inclusion

of different data providers and a balanced distribution over the four relevant data

themes;


September 2014 47

4. The actual evaluation of the selected datasets started with assessing whether the

datasets could be found in the INSPIRE geoportal. If the dataset was not

documented with metadata in the INSPIRE geoportal, no additional evaluation

steps were undertaken;

5. For datasets that could be found back in the INSPIRE geoportal, several other

aspects were checked: if the metadata was complete, if the metadata included a

reference to a view service, if this view service was compliant with INSPIRE, if the

metadata included a reference to a download service and if this download service

was compliant with INSPIRE.

The final outcome of the evaluation exercises is a list of spatial data sets related to BD

and HB for each country, including an evaluation whether each spatial dataset

complies to a series of standard INSPIRE criteria:

Existence of metadata;

Compliance of metadata;

Accessibility of metadata through discovery services;

Compliance of discovery services;

Existence of view services for spatial data sets;

Compliance of view services;

Existence of download services for spatial data sets;

Compliance of the download services;

Compliance of the spatial data set.

5.6 Stakeholder survey

5.6.1 Stakeholder selection

In order to set up a first list of potential stakeholders to include in the consultation as

part of the project, the criteria presented in the terms of reference and further

discussed during the kick off meeting and the inception report were applied to the vast

Natura 2000 contacts database of the consortium partners. This contacts database

draws from the Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process and other earlier Natura 2000

related projects, as well as general professional contacts of the participating

organisations. Some contacts identified during the survey of this project were also

included in this database. Experts and practitioners in this database were designated

out of the following stakeholder categories:

Administration / policy;

Agriculture;

Conservation;

Consultancy;

Data and information;

Forestry;

Planning;

Research;

Water, Energy, Transport and Infrastructure.

The list of potential stakeholders to include in the consultation phase was narrowed

down step wise, during a four stage iterative process (see Table 6). The results of


September 2014 48

each selection phase were systematically reflected in a matrix to monitor the

distribution and ensure a well-balanced representation of stakeholders and countries.

Table 6: List of potential stakeholders for consultation phase - list to be further

reduced

Organisation Stakeholder group Country

European Landowners

Organisation

Agriculture EU

European Environmental

Bureau

Administration /

policy

EU

European Sea Ports

Organisation

Water, Energy,

Transport and

Infrastructure

EU

Europarc Federation Conservation EU

COPA GOGECA Agriculture EU

France University of Bordeaux Research France

National Forestry Agency Forestry France

MEDDE/DGALN/DEB/SDEN Data and

information

France

BIOTOPE – Agence PACA Consultancy France

Naturalia Environnement Consultancy France

Médiation, conseil en

concertation territoriale

Consultancy France

Tour du Valat - A research

centre for the conservation of

Mediterranean wetlands

Research France

Atelier technique des espaces

naturels

Conservation France

GRTgaz Centre d’Ingénierie Water, Energy,

Transport and

Infrastructure

France

PAN ecological consultants Consultancy Germany

Alfred Toepfer Akademie für

Naturschutz (NNA)

Research Germany

German Federal Agency for

Nature Conservation

Research Germany

Federal Agency for Nature

Conservation

Research Germany

Leibniz Institute of Ecological

Urban and Regional

Development

Research Germany

Bavarian Forest Administration Forestry Germany

Institute of Ecology and

Botany, Centre for Ecological

Research, Hungarian Academy

of Sciences

Research Hungary

Institute of Ecology and

Botany, Centre for Ecological

Research, Hungarian Academy

of Sciences

Research Hungary

CEE Web Administration / Hungary


September 2014 49


policy

Scott Cawley Consultancy Ireland

Netherlands Ministry of

Economic Affairs

Data and

information

Netherlands

Tilburg City Council Administration /

policy

Netherlands

Dienst Landelijk Gebied Planning Netherlands

Ministerie van Economische

Zaken, DG Natuur & Regio,

Programmadirectie Natura

2000

Data and

information

Netherlands

Netherlands Union of Forest

Groups

Forestry Netherlands

EUCC - Coastal Union Consultancy Netherlands

Havenschap Moerdijk Water, Energy,

Transport and

Infrastructure

Netherlands

Netherlands Government

Service for Land and Water

Management (DLG)

Planning Netherlands

Antea Group Consultancy Netherlands

Ministerie van Economische

Zaken

Data and

information

Netherlands

Amsterdam City Council Planning Netherlands

Kampinos National Park Conservation Poland

Port of Szczecin Water, Energy,

Transport and

Infrastructure

Poland

Insitute of Nature Conservation Research Poland

OTOP (BirdLife in Poland) Conservation Poland

Romania Regional Water

Administration Prut Barlad

Water, Energy,

Transport and

Infrastructure

Romania

Romania “Milvus Group” Bird

and Nature Protection

Association

Conservation Romania

ATECMA Consultancy Spain

Barcelona Province Council Planning Spain

Tecnoma Consultancy Spain

Government of Catalonia Planning Spain

Sweden Species Information

Centre

Data and

information

Sweden

Sweden Federation of Farmers Agriculture Sweden

Naturvardsverket Data and

information

Sweden

Sweden Forest Agency Forestry Sweden

Västra Götaland Administration /

policy

Sweden

JNCC Administration / UK


September 2014 50


policy

UK Aspen International Consultancy UK

UK Fleming Ecology Consultancy UK

Town and Country Planning

Association

Planning UK

Groundwork London Water, Energy,

Transport and

Infrastructure

UK

UK National Farmers' Union

(NFU)

Agriculture UK


September 2014 51

Table 7: Balanced representation of stakeholders for consultation phase, based on

composition of stakeholders as presented in Table 6

5.6.2 Feedback and research questionnaire

To guarantee a uniform way of requesting and collecting feedback from stakeholders a

‘feedback and further research questionnaire’ will be applied. Feedback will be asked

on each of the survey findings. Also questions related to potential further research will

be included.

The questionnaire will be developed in excel, which allows working with drop-down

menus and in a way that replies can be handled in a more efficient manner.

The questionnaire will start with identifying personal details and the field of work in

relation to the Birds and Habitats Directives / Natura 2000, by using the following

drop-down menu:

Research – policy

Research – survey and monitoring (species)

Research – conservation biology, restoration ecology

Data management

Data management - GIS

Spatial planning - Land use local

Spatial planning – regional planning

Conservation / restoration planning

Housing, Industry, Infrastructure development – local

Housing, Industry, Infrastructure development - regional

Legal enforcement


September 2014 52

Environmental Impact Assessment

Appropriate Assessment (for Natura 2000)

The questionnaire continues with the following question:

In my (professional) activities related to the implementation of the Birds

and Habitats Directive (Natura 2000):

o I am interested in / involved with the following categories of Natura 2000

related information (dropdown menu):

Legal documents underpinning the Birds and Habitats

Directives

Conservation objectives, measures and management plans

Financing Natura 2000

Impact assessments and compensation related to Natura

2000

Scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to

Natura 2000


Legal aspects of strict protection, court rulings and

derogations

o I make use of the following online information sources :

The Natura 2000 Viewer

Other international websites (with request to specify)

National websites/portals (with request to specify)

Regional and/or local websites

Based on your experience, do you agree with the survey findings for the

country you are familiar with?

o Which findings you support the most?

o Which findings you support the least? Why?

o Are there any issues we missed in our analysis, both in positive terms

(where your country is performing well) as in negative terms (where your

country might improve substantially)?

Are you aware of any market applications based on re-use of Natura 2000

datasets (e.g. services based on user-friendly visualisation of data)? (with

request to provide examples)

Do you think there is potential for data-driven innovation and

development of a market for services based on such re-use? Please

explain.

Do you think there is room for more inter-action with the public, e.g.

engaging the public to use on-line tools?

Which issues you want to be addressed in the workshop?


September 2014 53

Specific additional questions for national competent authorities will focus on

the background factors that influence the online availability of information such

as:

Is there an official information policy in place?

Are there future plans and strategies for online information?

Do you consider the IT resources your competent authority has available

as sufficient in order to cope with the current obligations regarding

dissemination of Natura 2000 information (including INSPIRE)?

What is your opinion on administrative burden and cost-effectiveness of

information systems? (with request to provide data if available)

Which are the relevant obstacles and constraints to expanding online

information provision?

What is your opinion on the usefulness of EU financial and other

assistance to reinforce capacities to deliver online information?


September 2014 55

6 Survey findings

6.1 Portal survey

6.1.1 Global results

Table 8Error! Reference source not found. shows the digested results for the 10

portal assessments through the percentage of criteria answered “yes” for each of the

portal assessment dimensions. The final score is based on the un-weighted average of

the five dimension scores. Short descriptions of the highlights for each Member State

main portal are given in the following paragraphs.

The French main portal provides a short and clear URL, www.natura2000.fr, which

redirects to the dedicated pages of the ministry (the portal discussed here), so

avoiding duplication of information. There is also a useful interactive map to guide the

user to regions, sites, habitats and species. The portal is regarded as very good

(expert judgement score 8 out of 10) because it is clear, well organised and

structured, attractive, illustrated, intuitive, comprehensive and up-to-date. The

website of the Ministry for Environment, Sustainable Development and Energy

(http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Eau-et-Biodiversite,5772-.html) in

France is well-structured and organised, visually attractive, comprehensive (for a

portal), up-to-date, easy to navigate. The general web layout is similar for all central

government departments and their representative bodies at regional (DREAL) and

department level. This makes moving around from one website to the other related

ones much easier. It provides deep linking to the relevant pages and information

sources on other websites.

The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN, http://www.bfn.de/) in

Germany has a highly advanced search function. Additionally the databases that are

provided are well structured an easy to use. The information contained on the website

is also fast and effective. The search database shows many options, which are highly

relevant when looking for specific information. Additionally the databases provided on

this website are highly functional. Finally, the fixed box with relevant information

sources, with regards to the specific location on the website is highly relevant. In

summary, it is a highly useful website with a lot of information and a clear search path

to the information.

The structure of the Nature Conservation website of the Ministry of Rural

Affairs (http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/) in Hungary is well designed including a

detailed site map which is very useful. The Hungarian version of the website contains

all relevant information to Natura 2000 (legal, conservation measures, management

plans, financing, scientific, legal and public participation) in a very comprehensive

way. Easy-to-navigate and find information quickly, thanks to the good structure.

Several useful links are provided to other relevant portals. In short, a well organised

and structured website. Highly useful to find relevant information in relation to Natura

2000. User-friendly, clear, nice.

The National Parks and Wildlife Service (http://www.npws.ie/) in Ireland shows a

clear structure and has multiple interactive maps that facilitate data gathering.

Additionally the links to other relevant portals are provided in an effective manner.

The way this website provides maps and data is highly effective. It gives the user the

opportunity to select between different mapping tools or databases. Additionally the

option to request information is efficient. Although the portal shows great potential in

http://www.natura2000.fr/

http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Eau-et-Biodiversite,5772-.html

http://www.bfn.de/

http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/

http://www.npws.ie/


September 2014 56

distributing data and providing a logical structure, it could still be improved with

regard to information on protected species and formatting. For the Irish portal, the

way this website provides maps and data is remarkable. It gives the user the

opportunity to select between different mapping tools or databases. Additionally the

option to request information is efficient.

The State Government website (www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/natuur-en-

biodiversiteit) in The Netherlands is the place to look for a general portal to nature

and biodiversity information including Natura 2000. It is well structured, presents a

clear overview of relevant subjects to the BHD. Easy navigation, through upper

horizontal (static) and right vertical (dynamic) navigation panes. Clear explanation of

the Habitats and Birds directives and their role and inclusion in national policy. Direct

links to external sources of information that change according to the subject. The

vertical and horizontal navigation panes are very user friendly. The fact that the

subject is presented on the general government website does not link it too tightly to

one ministry or department and makes the linking to the relevant pages of the

ministries concerned easier. In summary, a clear, well organised and structured,

business like web portal.

The General Directorate for Nature Protection website

(http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/) in Poland has a highly effective search function;

additionally the links for public involvement are clear and informative. The digestion of

information into page text is highly effective. The website is highly effective in

generating public participation. It has a dedicated part on the websites where the

public can join in all kinds of activities and view pictures of different events. Although

the page does contain a useful search function and provides a good example for public

involvement, the structure and content is not highly developed.

The NGO Coalition for Natura 2000 website (http://www.natura2000.ro/) in

Romania is highly effective in linking to other portals. It also provides a lot of

information on management plans, which is unique for such a portal. The links to

other relevant portals are very effective and could be highly beneficial for other

portals.

The main nature and biodiversity portal in Spain is located on the Ministry of

Agriculture, Food and Environment website

(http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/default.aspx), is

comprehensive, clear and easy to navigate and has a deep and wide coverage of

themes and subjects related to biodiversity (and the Birds and Habitats Directives)

present on the portal itself. It offers a logical, intuitive disclosure of information.

Various navigation methods and clear guidance about the structure can be found on

the website. The presentation is illustrated with relevant pictures and icons such as

illustrated sub-theme boxes within every subsection of the biodiversity area.

The Environmental Assessment Agency’s website

(http://naturvardsverket.se/sv/Amnen/Biologisk-mangfald/) portal in Sweden is

unique in the sense that there are many search options available to the visitor: simple

search, two menu's, an alphabetical index. There are dynamic panes that show related

information for each page or subject, pointing either at information on the site itself or

to external websites. The two menu structures: one per theme, the other per process

/ activity make the website useful to a wide audience of stakeholders. The website

has a pleasant open lay-out, easy navigation, and is complete and comprehensive.

The Joint Nature Conservation Committee’s website (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/) in

the United Kingdom provides an efficient digestion of specific information. What is

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/natuur-en-biodiversiteit

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/natuur-en-biodiversiteit

http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/

http://www.natura2000.ro/

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/default.aspx

http://naturvardsverket.se/sv/Amnen/Biologisk-mangfald/

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/


September 2014 57

meant by this is that the general information is not provided by PDF’s or other

documents, but rather by a short explanation on the page itself (before presenting the

official document). Additionally, the interactive dropdown menu’s and sitemap provide

a user-friendly environment. The webpage is regarded as good because it is user-

friendly, easy to use and has a logical structure. However, the data content is not

always sufficient and the search options could be improved.

Table 8 : Summary overview of the results from the portal survey questionnaire. The

rows present the dimensions addressed. The rows indicate the main categories for

which we determined a score. The columns represent the ten selected Member States

and the main national portal analyses. The original questionnaires are presented in the

appendix.

FR DE

H

U IE NL PL

R

O ES SE UK

Ease of navigation, inter-

operability and user friendliness 88 75 88 63 63 38 63

10

0

10

0 75

Structure 83 83

10

0 67 67 33 50 83 83 67

Searchability and geo-

referencing

10

0

10

0 80 60 80 80 60 60 60 60

Accuracy, objectivity and

historical depth 50 75 63 63 63 50 25 75 88 88

Coverage and coherence 85 50 19 71 66 9 36 48 86 42

Final score 81 77 70 65 68 37 47 73 84 67

Overall impression 80 80 70 60 70 50 60 80 80 70

Table 9 provides a more detailed an overview of the findings for each of the questions

provided on the answered questions within the questionnaire. For every dimension of

the portal assessment dimension, a short discussion is provided in the next sub-

chapters. Here The aim is to provide a clear description of best practices for each per

assessment dimension. It should however be mentioned that the semi-quantitative

results of the assessment should be interpreted with care. A first reason is that only

one portal is reviewed per Member State, giving a limited overview on the means of

information dissemination per Member State. Secondly, multiple expert judgement

decisions are included in the questionnaire, potentially introducing a bias where the

opinion of the expert could influence the results in spite of the harmonized

methodology. Finally, no quantitative analysis on the structure and linkages (e.g. true

or false child pages) has been performed, decreasing the evidence base for our

conclusions. Despite these limitations, we do feel that our approach provides clear and

descriptive results for attaining a first insight into valuating portals and presenting

examples of good practice.


l

Table 9. Overview of the results from the main portal survey. For every

question within the questionnaire there is an indication on whether the

portal complies to the question (Y) or could not give a clear answer (N).

The questions are grouped into five dimensions described in Table 6. For

the elements on Coverage and coherence and the Conclusions,

percentages are presented. The original questionnaires are provided in

the appendix. The X symbol indicates that the results have not yet been

finalized.

Selected Member States Portals

FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK

MED

DE

Bu

nd

esam

t fü

r N

atu

rsch

utz

Th

e N

ati

on

al P

arks a

nd

Wild

life

serv

ice

Dep

uty

Sta

te S

ecre

taria

t fo

r

Natu

re C

on

servati

on

an

d

En

vir

on

men

t P

rote

cti

on

RIJK

SO

VE

RH

EID

Ko

nsu

ltacje

sp

ole

czn

e z

mia

n

gran

ic o

bszarow

Natu

ra 2

00

0

Co

ali

tia O

NG

NA

TU

RA

20

00

Ro

man

ia

MA

GR

AM

A

Natu

rvård

sverket

JN

CC

Ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness

Is a simple sitemap available? N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

Do main entries of the sitemap link to more detail? Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y

Are there dropdown menus? Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y

Does the website maintain breadcrumb trail? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Does the website provide intuitive picture/icon with their links? Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N

Does the website provide fixed items that ease the navigation? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Does the website contain an interactive or moving homepage? Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y

Does the homepage contain information about the website structure? Y N N Y Y N N Y Y N

Structure

Is the first level subdivision of the website intuitive and logical? N N Y Y Y N N Y Y N

Does the homepage provide links to the most recent information or

news? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Does the structure of the portal distinguish between habitats, sites and

species? Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y

Does the structure of the portal enable you to distinguish between

reports published in different years? Y Y N Y N N N N N Y


September 2014 59

Does the portal give an easy link to other relevant national/regional

portals? Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N

Does the portal give an easy links to European portals? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Searchability and georeferencing

Is there a simple search box available on the home page? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Is there an advanced search option for more detailed search actions? Y Y N Y Y N N Y N N

Is the information presented with an interactive map? Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y

Is search option accessible from every location on the website? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Does the search engine provide you with categories of search results? Y Y N N Y Y N N Y N

Accuracy, objectivity and historical depth

Is the portal up to date? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Are all the links functioning? Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y

Are there links provided to evidence/research results? Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y

Is there a multi-annual database present? N Y Y Y N Y N N Y N

Is annual information presented on the website? N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y

Are there individual links present to various SACs and SPAs? N Y Y N N N N Y Y Y

Are there individual links present to various protected species? N N N N N N N Y N Y

Does it provide data in a standardized format or manner? Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Coverage and coherence

What is the percentage of Birds Directive questions covered by the

portal? 71 71 54 46 25 21 29 50 79 46

What is the percentage of Habitats Directive questions covered by the

portal? 70 59 37 35 38 18 20 45 71 29

What is the percentage of total questions covered by the portal? 70 63 43 39 33 19 23 47 73 35

Does the portal give an overall coverage of relevant information? Y Y Y X Y N N Y Y N

Does the portal contain many references to other websites? Y Y Y X Y N Y N Y Y

Conclusions

Final score 81 83 65 70 68 37 47 73 84 67

Overall impression 8 8 6 7 7 5 6 8 8 7


l

6.1.2 Ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness

Ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness are linked and highly

important for the effective dissemination of information. Even if a portal contains a lot

of information, the manner of presenting the information determines whether the

users will ever find the correct Natura 2000 data.

An element that can greatly increase the ease of navigation is the presence of a

sitemap, providing information on the structure and content of the portal. In total

seven out of the ten Member State portals provide a sitemap. Good examples of site

maps are provided by the Hungarian portal and the UK portal, showing clear classes

and presenting the sitemap on a logical location on the website (Figure 6). What also

makes these sitemaps highly effective is that they give the user the opportunity to

either view a simple or a more detailed categorisation of the elements present on the

portal (Figure 6). Surprisingly a large number of portals provide either a simple (e.g.

NL and PL) or a very complex sitemap (e.g. FR and DE).

Simplify the website to make it more inter-operable and increase user friendliness is

highly important. The structure is for instance simplified by including menus that show

dropdown attributes once they are selected. Fortunately, many of the surveyed portals

show this option (eight out of ten). Many good examples are provided by for instance

the UK portal, but also the Swedish portal with clear categories and images (Figure 7).

To improve the navigation through the portal, presenting the users location through a

so-called breadcrumb trail, is highly effective. All surveyed portals show this option

and give you the opportunity to click on an icon to move back one step in your visit.

Visual properties of the portal are highly supportive in making the portal more user

friendly and attractive to use. Both the provision of intuitive pictures and an

interactive homepage can aid the user in understanding the content of a specific page

or part of the portal. Only half of the portals surveyed appeared to have these intuitive

pictures. Spain for instance has illustrative pictures present for different headers that

are relevant for Natura 2000 (

Figure 8). Surprisingly, most portals (nine out of ten) contain an interactive or moving

homepage, showing new publications, press releases or content of the portal.

For navigation purposes it is often convenient to have fixed items or an explanation on

the structure of the portal on the homepage. All surveyed portals contain fixed

headers, navigation panels and bottom banners. However, only half of the surveyed

websites appears to provide information on the structure of the website on the

homepage. France provides a good example in which the standard horizontal

navigation pane is clearly present. On the right hand side there is a more dynamic link

navigation pane, and at the bottom there are links to dedicated (sub) sites, clearly

providing information on the portal structure (

Figure 9).


September 2014 61

Figure 6. Examples of an effective sitemap with the opportunity to extent the sitemap

(Left: http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/index.php?pg=sitemap_hu, Right:

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-31).

Figure 7. Swedish example on an effective and attractive dropdown menu (see:

http://naturvardsverket.se/sv/Amnen/Biologisk-mangfald/).

http://www.termeszetvedelem.hu/index.php?pg=sitemap_hu


September 2014 62

Figure 8. Spanish example of intuitive pictures easing the navigation and

understanding of information (see:

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/)

Figure 9. French example on presenting a clear website structure on the homepage of

the portal (http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/-Eau-et-Biodiversite,5772-

.html).

With regard to ease of navigation, inter-operability and user friendliness, both Spain

and Sweden appear to provide the overall best examples. All the questions are

covered on these portals and therefore could be of great use as best practice

examples.

6.1.3 Structure

A clear and logical structure of a website supports the effective dissemination of

information. If the structure is not logical or comprehensive, this will have a direct

impact on the user search effectiveness.

To measure the effectiveness of the structure we analysed whether our experts

considered the first level of subdivision to be intuitive and logical. From this survey


September 2014 63

only half of the portals were considered to have a logical first level structure. A lot of

the portals are not successful because they contained a number of strange repetitions,

showed too broad classes or presented classes that are actually not relevant from a

conservation perspective. Successful portals, as the Irish portal, appeared to contain

simple overarching classes that are easy to understand, like protected site, maps and

data or licences (

Figure 10). In most successful portals around ten classes are provided.

Figure 10. Irish example on an effective first level sub-division (see:

http://www.npws.ie/).

For the structure of the website it is also important to get quick access to either new

information items or to other relevant Natura 2000 portals. All surveyed portals

provide a direct link from the home page to most recent information or news. Some

pages even provide a direct link to “press rooms” providing news items and searchable

press releases. The surveyed portals also appear to be highly effective in providing

links to other relevant national or regional portals (eight out of ten portals). However,

it is striking that in many other cases links to regional portals are less presented

although often the specific information of interest to the visitor can only be found at

the regional level. Additionally links to local portals are often absent. The most

effective manner on providing links is by presenting these on a dedicated page. The

German portal for instance shows to be highly effective in both providing information

on national and regional portals (

Figure 11). Besides national and regional portals, every survey portal appeared to

provide clear links to important European portals. Often direct links are provided to

either the website of DG Environment or the major portal on international

conventions. Additionally multiple links are provided to European databases like

Eionet.


September 2014 64

Figure 11. German example on the effective presentation of relevant links to regional

portals (see: http://www.bfn.de/0507_links+M52087573ab0.html).

In relation to the Birds and Habitats Directives and Natura 2000 the structure of the

website should preferably distinguish between habitats, sites and species.

Surprisingly, only six out of the ten surveyed portals made a clear distinction between

these highly relevant classes. On some portals the information was structured by more

policy-related categories (national policies and designations, international

commitments, EU policies) than focussing on sites, species and habitats. Other portals

only distinguish between different domains (forestry, agriculture, hunting, etc.). The

best practise example found on distinguishing between site, habitats and species is

the UK portal (Figure 12). Besides the distinction between sites, species and habitat,

the structure should also aid the user in distinguishing between reports published in

different years. Most of the portals however do not provide an annual distinction in the

structure (four out of ten portals). Only the French, German, Hungarian and UK

portals appear to present this distinction.

Figure 12. UK example on the effective structuring of the relevant categories;

habitats, species and sites (see: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-6297).


September 2014 65

With regard to the structure, Hungary appears to provide the overall best example. All

the questions are covered on this portal and therefore could be of great use as best

practice example.

6.1.4 Searchability and geo-referencing

For finding relevant information with regard to Natura 2000, the search functions on a

portal are of great importance. If the search bar is not easily located or the search

engine is not sufficient, then this could significantly hamper the visitors in achieving

the relevant information.

The presence of a simple search box on the home page is important for the user to

perform a quick search for relevant information. All surveyed portals show a simple

search box most often in the top right corner of the website. Additionally on every

portal the search box is easily accessible from every location on the website. This

search box is often fixed to the top banner that stays constant throughout the

website.

The further content and properties of the search engine are also important. When the

quick search results are for instance not sufficient, then the potential for an advanced

search could greatly increase the chance for finding the desired information. However,

only half of the survey portals provide the option for an advanced search. Two types of

advanced search options were detected; either filters that isolate specific information

sources or an actual advanced search option is provided where the search terms can

be extended (like on the Spanish portal; Figure 13). Besides the advanced search

option, the results could also be presented in categories. This helps the user in

distinguishing between different types of information of his search. Again half of the

portals provide this categorisation. In a lot of cases a filter column pops up next to the

search results allowing to filter results by: last changed, document type, language,

subject, etc. (

Figure 14).

Figure 13. Spanish example on an advanced search option (see:

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/buscador/resultados-

busqueda.aspx?tipo=avanzado&idioma=es)


September 2014 66

Figure 14. Dutch example on the results that are categorised (see:

http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/zoeken?keyword=dieren&search-submit=Zoek).

Besides specifically searching for information, the portal could also present information

via an interactive map. Many portals provide this interactive map where information is

provided on protected sites, habitats or species (seven out of ten portals). Further

discussion on the spatial information provided on these interactive maps will be

discussed in the section on INSPIRE analysis results.

With regard to the searchability and geo-referencing, France and Germany appear to

provide the overall best examples. All the questions are covered on these portals and

therefore they could be of great use as best practice examples.

1.2.1 Accuracy, objectivity and historical depth

One of the main purposes of a Natura 2000 portal is to provide accurate, objective and

historical information. Providing inaccurate information or erroneous links could

hamper users to find the relevant information.

For an accurate portal it is first of all important to be regularly updated. From the

portal survey it is clear that all the included portals are up to date (e.g. last update

performed in 2014). However, when considering erroneous links it is clear that not all

portals have a completely functioning website. In total for three portals non-

functioning links were found, in which in some cases the portal directs to non-existing

pages or empty pages.

Objectivity is often supported with scientific information. It is therefore important to

observe whether the portal provides links or information to evidence or research

based results. Many portals did provide information on evidence based or research

information (eight out of ten portals). Within the German portal there is a first level

header which provides a direct link to the International Academy page where

information is provided on research outputs and portals. In the Netherlands the page


September 2014 67

on Natura 2000 links directly to the main nature conservation evidence portal

"Synbiosys" through to links that guide the user directly to the corresponding

evidence. The Swedish portal shows the category “facts and statistics” which provides

a wealth of scientific data in support of the policy and management issues discussed

on the site. Moreover, there is a dynamic horizontal pane above the fixed bottom

horizontal pane that gives direct links to related information and a vertical pane on the

right of the site as well with the same function (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Swedish example on the effective distribution of evidence based

information (see: http://naturvardsverket.se/sv/Sa-mar-miljon/Vaxter-och-

djur/Rovdjur/Fakta-om-lo/).

The historical depth is important for tracing back progress on conservation actions.

Only half of the portals reviewed appeared to contain a multi-annual database where

similar information could be gathered for different years. The Swedish portal in

particular showed to have a database that is historically quite extensive and contains a

search function for various years. Annual reports on conservation activities or progress

http://naturvardsverket.se/sv/Sa-mar-miljon/Vaxter-och-djur/Rovdjur/Fakta-om-lo/

http://naturvardsverket.se/sv/Sa-mar-miljon/Vaxter-och-djur/Rovdjur/Fakta-om-lo/


September 2014 68

are also rarely presented on the portals (five out of ten portals). The UK portal

however, does provide links for annual reports in specific years.

For the objectivity and accuracy it is also important to provide information that covers

various protected sites that are present within the Member State. Additionally

information on protected species is important. Surprisingly, only few portals provide

individual links to the relevant SACs and SPAs (five out of ten portals). The UK portal

shows a best practice, as links to SACs and SPAs are both provided through a list as

through an interactive map. Additionally links are provided to information on general

habitats types and the conservation measures undertaken (Figure 16).

Figure 16. UK example on the individual links to SACs (see:

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1458).

Even less portals provided individual links and information on protected species. Only

Spain and the UK provide this option. On the Spanish portal a link is provided to the

Inventario Español del Patrimonio Natural y la Biodiversidad, which is the online

biodiversity database with links to species descriptions. On the UK portal specific links

to protected species factsheets are provided. Additionally a subdivision is made

between different species groups.

For accuracy purposes it is important to provide the information in a standardized

manner. Almost all portals provide their information within a specific standardized

structure (nine out of ten portals).

With regard to the accuracy, objectivity and historical depth, Spain and the UK appear

to provide the overall best examples. All the questions are covered on these portals

and therefore could be of great use as best practice examples.

6.1.5 Coverage and coherence

To link the portal survey to the page review the percentage of information provided on

the portal is relevant. This percentage provides an indication on the coverage and

coherence of the relevant content made available by the portal. We assume that the

higher this percentage, the more relevant information could be found on the portal,

making it more effective in disseminating information with regards to the Birds and

Habitats Directives. With regards to providing information on the Birds and Habitat


September 2014 69

directive especially France and Spain appear to provide the best examples (above

70% of the Birds Directive questions are directly addressed by the portal). When

taking into account the expert judgement on the overall coverage of relevant

information, it is clear that only the UK, Poland and Romania appear to be less

effective in covering all the relevant information asked within the page review.

Additionally when considering the references that the portal provides to other national

or regional portals then again Poland and surprisingly Spain appear to be less

effective. This verdict for Spain is provided because, although there are links to other

websites, most of the information is located on the main ministry website, which hosts

databases normally managed by other institutions in other Member States. The other

portals often provide relevant links to other portals that can provide the requested

information. More detailed discussions on the information content per Member State

are addressed in the page review.

6.2 Page review

6.2.1 Global results

Within this study, a complex analysis has been performed on the available information

related to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. To structure and

interpret the results we have calculated percentages of total questions answered that

fall within a specific aggregated category. The detailed factsheets per reviewed

Member State are provided in Appendix C of this report. From Table 10 it is clear that

the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK are the three best performing Member States in

providing relevant Natura 2000 information. Over 70% of all requested information on

the Birds and Habitats Directive is provided by these Member States. When

considering the type of information that is provided by the Member States legal

information on strict protection, court rulings and derogations, as well as information

on impact assessments were rarely found within the different Member States. On the

other hand legal documents underpinning the Birds and Habitats Directive, and

information regarding scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to

Natura 2000 is largely present within the reviewed Member States. Finally the

following categories seemed to vary substantially between Member States: public

information and participation, information on financing Natura 2000 and information

on conservation objectives, measures and management plans.


l

Table 10. Overview of the results from the page review. Here the percentages of correctly answered questions that fall within a

specific aggregated category are presented for every reviewed Member Stated. To ease interpretation the data in this table have

been reordered according to decreasing values for the overall information categories scores and the Member State overall scores.

The X symbol indicates that the results are not available yet.

Completeness of BHD information provision per category and country FR DE HU IE NL PL RO ES SE UK

Legal documents underpinning the Birds and Habitats Directives 80 80 100 75 80 80 80 80 90 95

Scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to Natura 2000 80 96 90 70 85 50 60 70 90 80

Public information and participation 77 69 54 46 65 77 73 62 85 81

Information on financing Natura 2000 61 61 33 78 67 78 44 78 67 78

Information on conservation objectives, measures and management plans 77 96 38 58 81 27 38 50 73 62

Legal information on strict protection, court rulings and derogations 41 53 59 29 71 53 29 29 71 74

Information on impact assessments and compensation related to Natura 2000 64 45 0 29 86 36 36 50 29 36

Total 67 73 56 53 75 57 51 57 74 73


September 2014 71

Table 11. Extensive overview of the Annex A question related to the aggregated categories and Selected Member States.

The data in this table shows whether a Member States provides the online information on the question (Y), partially

addresses the question (P) or that the information to answer the question was not found within this study (N). The X

symbols within the table represent data that is still being gathered. The X symbol indicates that the results have not yet

been finalized.


Selected Member States

FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK

Q2 - HD Art 6.1 - MANAGEMENT PLANS Y Y Y P Y P Y Y Y Y

Q3 - HD Art 6.1 - Details of CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES for habitats and species Y Y Y Y Y P P P Y Y

Q4 - HD Art 6.1 - statutory, administrative and contractual MEASURES Y Y Y P P N N Y Y N

Q5 - HD Art 6.1 - AGGREGATED INFORMATION on statutory, administrative and contractual

(e.g. Agri-environmental) MEASURES N Y Y N P N N N N Y

Q7 - HD Art 6.1 - PROGRESS REPORTS on the IMPLEMENTATION of MANAGEMENT PLANS Y Y N N Y N P N P Y

Q8 - HD Art 6.2 - PROGRESS REPORTS on IMPLEMENTATION of measures to AVOID

DETERIORATION of habitats and species Y Y P N P P P N Y Y

Q22 - HD Art 10 - MEASURES to implement LANDSCAPE FEATURES Y Y P N P P N Y Y P

Q23 - HD Art 10 - PROGRESS REPORTS on implementation of the MEASURES FOR

LANDSCAPE FEATURES Y P N N Y N N N N N

Q1 - BD Art 3 - MEASURES to SAFEGUARD (non-Annex 1 and migratory) BIRDS Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q2 - BD Art 3 - PROGRESS REPORTS on implementing MEASURES to SAFEGUARD (non-

Annex 1 and migratory) BIRDS N Y N N Y N N N Y P

Q6 - BD Art 4.1 - special CONSERVATION MEASURES for Annex 1 and migratory BIRDS Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N

Q8 - BD Art 4.4 - MEASURES to AVOID HABITAT DETERIORATION OUTSIDE of SPAs Y Y P Y Y P P Y Y P

Q9 - BD Art 4.4 - PROGRESS REPORTS on implementation of MEASURES to AVOID HABITAT

DETERIORATION OUTSIDE of SPAs N Y N N P N N N N P

Information on financing Natura 2000 FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK

Q6 - HD Art 6.1 - Systematic INDICATION of EU SUPPORT as under LIFE Y P Y Y P Y Y Y Y Y

Q9 - HD Art 6.2 - ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS to avoid deterioration of habitats and

species P Y N N P N N Y Y Y

Q10 - HD Art 6.2 - AGGREGATED information on ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS to avoid

deterioration of habitats and species P Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y

Q21 - HD Art 8 - Estimates related to CO/FINANCING of MANAGEMENT PLANS P N Y Y N Y N Y N N

Q24 - HD Art 10 - ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS for MEASURES FOR LANDSCAPE P N Y N P Y N N Y N


September 2014 72



FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK FEATURES

Q3 - BD Art 3 - ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS to SAFEGUARD (non-Annex 1 and

migratory) BIRDS P Y N N Y N N Y Y Y

Q4 - BD Art 3 - AGGREGATED INFORMATION in relation to ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS

to SAFEGUARD (non-Annex 1 and migratory) BIRDS P Y Y N P Y Y N N Y

Q7 - BD Art 4.1 - MEASURES supported by LIFE or other EU instruments Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q10 - BD Art 4.4 - ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS for targeted measures for DISPERSED

SPECIES P N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y

Information on impact assessments and compensation related to Natura

2000 FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK Q11 - HD Art 6.3 - PROPOSED plans and projects REQUIRING SCREENING for purposes of

AA P Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y

Q12 - HD Art 6.3 - Plans and projects DEEMED TO REQUIRE an AA while at the proposal

stage P N Y N Y Y Y N P Y

Q13 - HD Art 6.3 - ADOPTED plans and projects SUBMITTED to AA P N N N Y N N Y N N

Q14 - HD Art 6.3 - AAs for plans and projects PENDING AUTHORISATION P N N N Y N N Y P N

Q15 - HD Art 6.3 - AAs for AUTHORISED plans and projects P P N N Y N N Y N N

Q19 - HD Art 6.4 - Details of COMPENSATORY MEASURES Y Y N N P P P P Y P

Q20 - HD Art 6.4 - UPDATES OF PROGRESS in implementing COMPENSATORY MEASURES Y P N N P N N N N N

Legal information on strict protection, court rulings and derogations FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK Q26 - HD Art 12.1 - Measures making up the systems of BINDING RULES for STRICT

PROTECTION Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Y

Q27 - HD Art 12.1 - Measures making up the systems of PLANS and PROGRAMMES for

STRICT PROTECTION N

Y Y N Y Y Y P Y Y

Q28 - HD Art 12 - Action to ENFORCE the PROHIBITIONS (e.g. number and nature of

warnings, prosecutions and other specific interventions) P

P N Y Y Y N N P Y

Q29 - HD Art 12.4 - Measures taken to establish the SYSTEM of MONITORING incidental

CAPTURE and KILLING N

P N Y N Y N N Y P

Q30 - HD Art 12.4 - DATA on the RESULTS of MONITORING incidental CAPTURE and killing N N N N N Y N N Y N

Q31 - HD Art 16 - DEROGATIONS ISSUED Y P N N Y N N N P Y

Q32 - HD Art 16.2 - DEROGATION REPORTS N N N Y Y N N N Y Y

Q50 - HD - NATIONAL COURT DECISIONS related to the Habitats Directive (Aarhus

Convention Art 9.4) P

Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y


September 2014 73



FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK Q51 - HD - INVENTORY OF NATIONAL COURT DECISIONS relevant to the implementation of

the Habitats Directive N

N N N N N N N N N

Q11 - BD Art 5 - MEASURES for SYSTEM of STRICT PROTECTION Y Y Y Y Y Y Y P Y Y

Q12 - BD Art 5 - MEASURES that cover DISSEMINATION of LEGISLATION and of PLANS and

PROGRAMMES N

Y Y N N Y Y P N Y

Q13 - BD Art 5 - ACTIONS to ENFORCE PROHIBITIONS (e.g. number and nature of

warnings, prosecutions and other specific interventions) P

P N Y Y Y N N P Y

Q14 - BD Art 7 - HUNTING RELATED MEASURES Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q15 - BD Art 9 - DEROGATIONS Y N N N Y N N N P N

Q16 - BD Art 9.3 - DEROGATION REPORTS N N N Y Y N N N Y Y

Q27 - BD - NATIONAL COURT DECISIONS related to the Birds Directive (Aarhus Convention

Art 9.4) P

Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y

Q28 - BD - INVENTORY OF NATIONAL COURT DECISIONS relevant to the implementation of

the Birds Directive N

N N N N N N N N N

Legal documents underpinning the Birds and Habitats Directives FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK

Q1 - HD Art 4.4 - INSTRUMENTS for DESIGNATING individual SACs Y Y P Y Y Y Y Y Y P

Q43 - HD Art 23 - TEXT of the HD in NATIONAL LANGUAGE(s) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q44 - HD Art 23 - TEXT of the NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION legislation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q45 - HD Art 23 - TEXTS of INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, conventions, and agreements in the

field of nature Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q47 - HD Art 23 - CORRELATION TABLES between BD and national legislation provisions N N N N N N N N P N

Q5 - BD Art 4.1 - INSTRUMENTS for CLASSIFYING individual SPAs (Art 4.1 and 4.2) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q20 - BD Art 17 - TEXT of the BD in NATIONAL LANGUAGE(s) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q21 - BD Art 17 - TEXT of the NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION LEGISLATION Y Y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q22 - BD Art 17 - TEXTS of INTERNATIONAL TREATIES, conventions and agreements

(specify below) Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q24 - BD Art 17 - CORRELATION TABLE between BD and national legislation provisions N N N N N N N N P N

Public information and participation FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK

Q16 - HD Art 6.3 - EIA: PUBLIC OPINION inter alia organised online P N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y

Q17 - HD Art 6.3 - EIA: ELECTRONIC EXPRESSION of OPINION online P N N N N Y Y P Y Y

Q18 - HD Art 6.3 - EIA: OPINIONS of the public and other CONSULTEES P N N N N Y N P N N

Q36 - HD Art 22 - PRESS RELEASES concerning implementation of the HD Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y


September 2014 74



FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK Q37 - HD Art 22 - GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS on implementation and interpretation of HD

provisions in the MS Y

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q38 - HD Art 22 - Citizens’ COMPLAINTS ABOUT ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES: information on how to

make them P

N N N Y Y N Y N Y

Q42 - HD Art 22 - RE-USE OF INFORMATION P Y N N P N N N Y N

Q41 - HD Art 22 - APPs: online provision by other parties P Y N Y P N P N Y P

Q46 - HD Art 23 - IMPLEMENTATION GUIDES (including EC guidelines) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q48 - HD Art 23 - CONTACT DETAILS competent authorities Y Y P Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Q23 - BD Art 17 - IMPLEMENTATION GUIDES (including EC guidelines) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q25 - BD Art 17 - contact details competent authorities Y Y P Y Y Y Y N Y Y

Scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to Natura 2000 FR DE IE HU NL PL RO ES SE UK

Q25 - HD Art 11 - DATA or summaries of data resulting from SURVEILLANCE Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q33 - HD Art 17.1 - IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y

Q34 - HD Art 18 - RESEARCH and scientific work Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q35 - HD Art 22 - STUDIES and assessments on (re)-INTRODUCTION of species Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y

Q39 - HD Art 22 - CITIZEN SCIENCE Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q40 - HD Art 22 - CROWD SOURCING Y Y N N P N Y Y Y Y

Q49 - HD - EXCEPTIONS to PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION (e.g. Location of rare

species) Y

Y N Y P N P N Y N

Q17 - BD Art 10 - RESEARCH and SCIENTIFIC WORK Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Q18 - BD Art 12.1 - REPORT on the IMPLEMENTATION of NATIONAL PROVISIONS taken

under the BD N

P Y Y Y N N Y Y Y

Q19 - BD Art 12.2 - COMPOSITE REPORT on the IMPLEMENTATION of NATIONAL

PROVISIONS taken under the BD N

Y Y N N N N N N Y

Q26 - BD - EXCEPTIONS to PUBLIC ACCESS TO INFORMATION (e.g. location of rare species) Y Y N Y Y N P N Y N


l

6.2.2 Legal documents underpinning the Birds and Habitats

Directives

Legal documents that underpin the Birds and Habitat Directive are relatively easy to

find within the Member States. For instance, in most Member States instruments for

the designation of SACs are provided (partially found within Ireland and the UK). The

instruments for classifying individual SPAs are also easily located for all the selected

Member States. In France for instance the designation process of Special Areas of

Conservation and Special Protection Areas is jointly described on an information page.

Combining of SPA and SAC information is often the case within the different Member

States. From this joint information page (France) there is no direct link to the legal

instruments of designation. These can however be found very easily from the main

page of the Natura 2000 portal that provides a quick access to the Natura 2000

technical information on the site of the INPN, where a complete list of SACs and SPAs

is provided. Each entry has a direct link to the official designation instrument (decree).

Every reviewed Member State publishes information on the official legal text of the

Birds and Habitats Directives in the national languages. This was either done by

providing the official PDF containing the European Directives or by providing a link to

the official website of the European Commission. In Ireland for instance the text of the

Nature Directives is accessible through a number of national websites. In general a

link is provided to the English version of the text on EUR-Lex. This information not

only can be found on websites concerning nature and biodiversity, but also appears for

example on the website of the competent authority for Seafood Safety and Sea-

Fisheries. Not the text, but the reference to HD and BD are also mentioned on the

Department of Agriculture’s website. However we were not able to find the nature

directives in Gaelic.

The transposition from the European Directives to the national legislation is provided

in every Member State. This information is either directly presented on the webpage

or provided by a PDF. In exceptional cases concrete correlation tables are provided,

examples on this are provided by Hungary. In Romania there are for instance multiple

PDF’s presented on a website providing information on the translation of the Birds and

Habitats Directive into national law. There are also other links providing more general

information on wildlife legislation. Within Romania these two Directives are transposed

by Emergency Ordinance no. 57 of 20 June 2007 on the regime of protected natural

habitats, flora and fauna, as amended. On websites dedicated to specific national

parks also information is provided on the national legislation.

Information on international treaties is provided by every reviewed Member State.

Within the UK two main government websites (environmentlaw.org.uk and

jncc.defra.gov.uk) provide (links to) the texts of international conventions. The JNCC

website even has a specific section only dealing with all the treaties and conventions

(including the nature related ones) signed by the UK. The Federal Agency for nature

conservation in Germany (BfN) also includes links to the original websites of treaties

and conventions. For Poland an overview on all multilateral agreements with respect

to the environment at global and European level is provided on the website of the

Minister of Environment. However, no links are provided here; only a table summary is

given with respect to the name of the agreement, the date of ratification of the entry

into force in Poland and the unit responsible for supervising the implementation. Links

to Bern Convention, Ramsar Convention, European Landscape Convention and the

agreement on the conservation of the Aquatic warbler, however, are available through

the General Directorate of Environmental Protection.


September 2014 76

Good practice: Designation reports for individual sites published in the

Netherlands

Designation instruments for SACs and SPAs are presented in a list on the Synbiosys

page on nature information. They are presented by group (tranche), according to the

state of designation.

The individual designation instruments (aanwijzingsbesluiten) can be reached through

the Natura 2000 sites page (each site contains information on the designation

instrument), or through the page showing the state of designation.

The government Regie Natura 2000 page presents an interactive map-based overview

of the adopted designation procedures.

It should be noted however that the official repository for the designation instruments

is the Official Gazette (Staatscourant). The designation instruments can be found by

applying the following search criteria:

- Zoektermen: aanwijzingsbesluit natura 2000

- Publicatie(s): Staatscourant

- Onderwerp(en): Natuur en milieu | Natuur- en landschapsbeheer

Websites:

http://www.natura2000.nl/pages/kaartpagina.aspx

http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=n2k&groep

=0

http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=actualiteita

anwijzingen

https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/

6.2.3 Information on conservation objectives, measures and

management plans

Finding information on conservation objectives, measures and management plans is

strongly dependent upon the Member State that is addressed. Member States like

France and the UK for instance provide relatively more information.

When searching for conservation objectives and management plans most

Member States provide at least partial information. Conservation objectives were

either found in a database (in the Netherlands and Ireland) or posted in general

publications in PDFs (as found within Romania). It was also possible that no central

database was found, but rather these conservation objectives are posted on

designated SAC or SPA websites (as is the case for Spain). Additionally, in some cases

the conservation objectives are described within the management plans (as is the case

in France). An example of good practice is provided by Ireland, showing a highly

effective manner of presenting conservation objectives.


September 2014 77

Good practice: Providing conservation objectives in an aggregated database

in Ireland.

An index page on conservation objectives is available. This index page is a unique

page, where the conservation objectives are presented for all the SACs and SPAs

within Ireland. These conservation objectives can be downloaded on a site-by-site

basis from an interactive database where you can either distinguish by site code,

county or feature of interest Additionally the Conservation objectives are provided by

a map, where you can select specific areas to download the conservation objectives.

When searching the results a page is provided where multiple PDFs are presented

showing information on the Conservation Objectives, NATURA 2000 Standard Data

Form and the Site Synopsis. Additionally the page provides you with related

publications, like monitoring reports or reports on restoration projects. The

information on the conservation objectives is provided in an easy to read aggregated

form.

Websites:

http://www.npws.ie/protectedsites/conservationmanagementplanning/

http://www.npws.ie/protectedsites/

Management plans are published by almost all reviewed Member States. However,

the main difference between the countries is that either these plans are presented on

a national portal, or these plans are presented on the websites of specific regions

where the SACs and SPAs are located. Member States like Ireland, France, The

Netherlands and Sweden appear to use national databases that contain the

management plans. In Germany, the different federal states all provide management

plans. Most of them include a list with contact information and status of

implementation (management plan finalised, in progress, pending approval, …).

France provides a good practice example on distributing information on management

plans. Progress reports on the concrete implementation of management plans are

however not easily detected. Only within Member States like France, Germany, The

Netherlands and the UK we did find progress reports. The progress on specific

management plans can often be found on local county websites. On the regional

portals these progress reports are often not present. Progress reports are often

presented in PDF files and are linked to a specific area. Therefore finding information

on the progress is difficult. Additionally there is a lot of information on progress

reporting/monitoring strategy under development or planned to take place. Only the

Netherlands provides an aggregated example of presenting progress reports on

management plans.

http://www.npws.ie/protectedsites/conservationmanagementplanning/

http://www.npws.ie/protectedsites/


September 2014 78

Good practice: Obtaining management plans in France

In France, the management plans are called Objective Plans (Documents d’objectifs,

or DOCOB). They are established for each site in a participatory way under the

leadership of a Steering Committee (Comité de pilotage (COPIL). The procedure is

summarised on the management and conservation page of the Natura 2000 portal.

The documents, data and information underpinning the development of individual

management plans can be accessed in a wide variety of ways. However, many of the

entry points, from the national to the local level finally lead to the same webpages and

(geo) information systems where the information is centrally stored.

At national level, the individual management plans for all sites are best accessed

through the online Natura 2000 Directory managed by Atelier Technique des Espaces

Naturels ATEN. The list of sites can be filtered according to the state of development

of the management plans. To track the progress of management plan development

and implementation, ATEN has developed an online tool called SUDOCO: l'outil

informatique de SUivi des DOCOb, a free service for Natura 2000 coordinators.

More details about the process of the development of management plans is given on

the webpages of the Directions régionales de l’environnement, de l’aménagement et

du logement (DREAL). These are regional structures created as part of government

reform and decentralisation, and they carry out the tasks of the Ministry of

Environment, Sustainable Development and Energy (MEDDE) at the regional level. As

an example the links below include guidance page on management plans from the

DREAL Provence Alpes Cote d’Azur (PACA).

Regions also offer centralised access to relevant environmental information at the local

(municipal) level, through their municipal information database. According to the

region, this database is hosted on different types of platform. PACA offers access to

municipal level information on statutory and administrative conservation measures

through a system (base communale PACA) centrally hosted by the MEDDE.

Websites:

http://annuaire.n2000.fr/

http://carmen.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/25/environnement.map

http://www.basecommunale.paca.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Etat_region.asp

http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-documents-d-objectifs.html

http://www.espaces-naturels.fr/Natura-2000/Mise-en-oeuvre-des-Docobs/SUDOCO-l-

outil-informatique-de-SUivi-des-DOCOb

http://www.paca.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartopas-r345.html

http://www.side.developpement-

durable.gouv.fr/clientBookline/recherche/executerRechercheProgress.asp?strTypeRech

erche=MDSIRequest&bnewsearch=true&UID=FF422DAC_593E_4e32_9896_0DE8589E

82DE&instance=exploitation&codedocbaselist=IFD_SIDE&OUTPUT=PORTAL&BACKURL


http://carmen.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/25/environnement.map

http://www.basecommunale.paca.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Etat_region.asp

http://www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/Les-documents-d-objectifs.html

http://www.espaces-naturels.fr/Natura-2000/Mise-en-oeuvre-des-Docobs/SUDOCO-l-outil-informatique-de-SUivi-des-DOCOb

http://www.espaces-naturels.fr/Natura-2000/Mise-en-oeuvre-des-Docobs/SUDOCO-l-outil-informatique-de-SUivi-des-DOCOb

http://www.paca.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/cartopas-r345.html

http://www.side.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/clientBookline/recherche/executerRechercheProgress.asp?strTypeRecherche=MDSIRequest&bnewsearch=true&UID=FF422DAC_593E_4e32_9896_0DE8589E82DE&instance=exploitation&codedocbaselist=IFD_SIDE&OUTPUT=PORTAL&BACKURL





September 2014 79

Good practice: Providing progress reports on management plans within the

Netherlands.

The progress of management plan development is presented on the Synbiosys website

of the government. It lists the management plans that are in procedure and those that

have been developed and officially approved.

Progress reports used to be posted on the website of Regiegroep Natura 2000 which is

not up to date. The progress was communicated through detailed Newsletters that

also analysed the bottlenecks and solutions encountered. It is not known why the

publication of the newsletter was discontinued. The progress of Natura 2000

designation and the development of management plans is now presented through an

interactive map.

Websites:


http://www.natura2000.nl/pages/voortgang.aspx

http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=actualiteitb

eheerplannen

Information on statutory, administrative and contractual measures is not easily

found. First of all most Member States do not publish aggregated information on this

issue. Secondly only France, Germany, Ireland, Spain and Sweden appeared to

provide information on individual measures.

Statutory measures including the designation of protected sites and areas (other

than SACs and SPAs) are available on most portals of the countries included in this

survey. Most portals organise their information according to habitats species and

(protected) sites. In several countries such as France, Spain, Sweden and the UK, the

information about various classes of protected areas can be visualised and queried

through web based map interfaces.

Good practice: Protected Nature geoservice, Sweden

Protected Nature presents all protected areas in an interactive online web-based map

application. The polygons representing the various designated areas can be queried

and are linked to databases with additional information, such as management plans

for the sites. The strength of this services is that it centrally managed by the SEPA,

but that other agencies also embed the relevant sections and layers on their own

websites.

Website: http://skyddadnatur.naturvardsverket.se/

Regarding spatial planning, administrative measures, in France at regional level,

the Schéma de cohérence territoriale (SCoT) is the general framework for spatial

development. It integrates the spatial and territorial aspects of various sectoral

policies including the environment, nature and Natura 2000, and more specifically the

Regional scheme for ecological coherence (SRCE). In Ireland a review report on spatial

planning and Natura 2000 sites is published on the National Trust for Ireland. From

Spain it is clear that the planning and administrative measures and the

implementation are often included in the regional spatial databases, where maps can

be consulted and downloaded. For Sweden planning and administrative measures play

an important role at the local level, where land use plans and building permits need to

take into account the presence of threatened species. Much of the spatial data about

planning and administrative measures can be found on the geoservers.


http://www.natura2000.nl/pages/voortgang.aspx

http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=actualiteitbeheerplannen

http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/gebiedendatabase.aspx?subj=actualiteitbeheerplannen

http://skyddadnatur.naturvardsverket.se/


September 2014 80

Measures taken to increase ecological coherence are not easily found in all

Member States, except Germany. In most cases only general information is provided

on the concept of green infrastructure. The actual measures taken to implement these

measures are not detected. Often these conservation measures are described at

different levels. In Sweden the SEPA has produced guidance for green infrastructure

and provides information about measures to enhance landscape features and

ecological coherence as part of the national landscape strategy. Also at the local level

there is a programme for financing local nature conservation initiatives, some of which

can increase landscape ecological coherence at the local level. It is at the regional

level though that the most explicit reference to the conservation of landscape as part

of the more holistic approach to biodiversity conservation is implemented. For

example in Västra Götaland, more than 100 landscape protection plans have been

implemented by the county council in cooperation with the municipalities. Only two

Member States appear to present information on the progress of the measures taken

to increase ecological coherence. Within the Netherlands the implementation of the

NEN (National Ecological Network) is well documented, and results presented online.

The online dossier on fragmentation of the Human Environment Compendium of the

Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency provides background on the issue, but

also indicators of implementation progress in the sub file on the NEN (Ecologische

Hoofd Structuur). The official national document repository contains the progress

reports of the implementation of the NEN, which are available through a search

function using the search terms "voortgang groot project ecologische hoofdstructuur".

The National Court of Audit also publishes progress reports on the implementation of

the NEN. In France the development of a coherent national ecological network (Trame

Verte et Bleue) has been one of the important results of the Grenelle de

l’Environnement. To support its implementation at all levels of decision making and

administration a special online resources website has been developed (see good

practices).

Good practice: Ecological network resource centre (France)

The development of a comprehensive ecological network at national, regional and local

levels is an important process to improve the ecological coherence of the Natura 2000

network (Article 10). The French government provides the general guidelines and

ensures overall coordination, but the development of the actual implementation plans

is coordinated at the regional level through the development of a Regional plan for

ecological coherence (Schéma regional de coherence écologique or SRCE). To aid the

development of these plans requiring a high degree of public participation, and their

implementation at the local level, the French government has established a

comprehensive online ecological network resource centre, including many measures to

increase ecological coherence.

Websites:

http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/

Good practice: Green blue services in Limburg, The Netherlands

The province of Limburg, in cooperation with the regional Foundation for the

conservation of Samll Landscape Elements has developed an extensive website on the

different measures that can help increase ecological connectivity (green blue

services). It is focusing primarily on land owners and managers and aims to provide

them with knowledge about these measures and the levels of subsidies that are

attached to them.

Website:

http://www.groenblauwedienstenlimburg.nl/

http://www.trameverteetbleue.fr/


September 2014 81

Good practice: Biotopverbund, Germany

The Federal Ministry has an online brochure on ecological coherence and possible

solutions for the defragmentation of landscapes.

The Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN)has a webpage dedicated to

ecosystem connectivity in Germany, including targets, measures, maps, etc., … The

page describes how habitat connectivity is dealt with in Germany on the different

governmental levels. This page also refers to a website with large-scale ongoing

conservation projects. On the specific project websites one can find information on the

implementation of measures.

The BfN also provides a map and descriptions of trans boundary ecological corridors.

Ecological coherence is an integrated part of the landscape plans. These plans are a

first step of reporting on measures about landscape features and ecological

coherence. The visited websites of the federal states all provide examples (some even

publish links to all realized landscape plans).

Additionally, the states offer GIS data on nature conservation, habitats and

biodiversity. These maps offer an interesting instrument to spatial planners in order to

prevent deterioration of habitats. Combined with text documents, it makes it easy to

implement the right measures.

Some of the landscape plans describe previous measures and in this way report on the

implementation.

Websites:

http://www.bfn.de/0311_biotopverbund.html

http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.322418.de

http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/natur/24699.htm

http://www.lung.mv-

regierung.de/insite/cms/umwelt/natur/landschaftsplanung_portal/landschaftsplanung.

htm

Information on special conservation measures for protected and non-protected

bird species is easily found. Almost all Member State provide information on these

issues. In Romania on a national portal, multiple documents are presented that

provide information on the National Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation. In Ireland

index pages provide links to species group Action Plans for birds and their habitats,

Important Bird Area (IBA) information, the Birds of Conservation Concern in Ireland

and information on the development of bird indicators for Ireland.

Information on the progress of measures to avoid deterioration of habitats and species

is not widely available. Only in some exceptional cases there are concrete documents

found on the progress. Although measures to avoid habitat deterioration for birds

outside of SPAs are easily found, these progress reports are not widely distributed.

Finding concrete information on measures taken to prevent habitat deterioration

outside SPAs is difficult in some countries (like the UK). Often portals do not provide

an overview of projects that are performed outside of SPAs. Additionally only sparsely

PDF-reports are published on these restoration or mitigation activities. Other countries

(like France) list for each region all nature protection measures inside and outside

protected areas in its municipal database. The database presents direct links to the

relevant documents (both legal and practical) and to the relevant geographic data

layers.


September 2014 82

6.2.4 Information on financing Natura 2000

Financial information is in some Member States easily provided, while in others it is

most likely absent. Information on co-funding was generally difficult to find and often

not presented in a straightforward way on the main portals. Although an obligation

under Article 8 of the Habitats Directives, many Member States included in this survey

do not publish their Priority Action Frameworks online, so that the national priorities

for Natura 2000 management in terms of EU co-financing are difficult to find.

Conversely, some Member States, such as Spain (among the countries included in this

study) have made an important work of establishing their PAFs, through a LIFE

project. In Poland the priority framework for action to Natura 2000 EU multiannual

financing program 2014-2020 is available. However, it is apparent that no portal

provides financial information on EU-funding in a straightforward national repository.

Not many Member States publish financial information on individual environmental

agreements. This is probably due to the fact that this financial data could harm the

involved parties’ privacy. However there is an NGO ‘farmsubsidy.org’ that searches

specifically for detailed information about payments that are made to farmers as part

of the Common Agricultural Policy. The results of their work show that in most

countries the data are not presented on line but can be requested under the EU

disclosure regulations. The NGO maintains on online database with all the information

about payments they can collect.

Table 12. The farmsubsidy.org Transparency Index: a way of comparing how well EU

member states are doing at providing information on who gets what from the

Common Agricultural Policy (http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/transparency/).

Rank Country Score

1st Sweden 92%

3rd United Kingdom 89%

9th Romania 58%

10th Hungary 54%

14th Poland 47%

17th Spain 44%

19th Ireland 42%

19th Germany 42%

21st France 39%

23rd Netherlands 35%

In the UK details of single environmental agreements are in some cases published

online. On the Natural England website you can select specific agreements on an

interactive map. Additionally general information on the context of the environmental

agreement is presented. In the UK agreements are settled between the government

and the agricultural or infrastructure sector, and most of this information is provided

on the regional portals. Sweden also shows good examples on the way financial

information on environmental agreements is published. Specific information on


September 2014 83

environmental agreements for measures for landscape features is also rarely found.

Additionally for the environmental agreements to safeguard birds, often no distinction

is made between Article 3 and Article 4 measures for conservation, and only very few

(if any at all) measures are specifically earmarked for birds. In Germany, the national

level provides some aggregated information and in general refers to the regions

(federal states) for specific agreements. The federal states inform more in depth on

different support measures (by sector and/ or by funding program) and the actual

agreements. Webpages have links to application deadlines, funding request forms, in

depth information on subsidies for different habitats, financial benefits, etc… These are

often not exclusive to Natura 2000 areas.

Good practice: Progress reports on environmental agreements in Germany

Some states have progress reports on environmental agreements. The report includes

a map, indicating where specific agreements are in place and how large the total area

under agreements is.

The available information and the way it is distributed differs from state to state.

Another source for this type of information is the website of the German Federal

Environmental Foundation (DBU). They have dedicated pages for several agreement-

projects. For most of these, reports are available (progress of the project,

implementation of measures, …). The agreements themselves are not published but

the report gives an insight on the covered areas.

Websites:



http://www.mil.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.213972.de

https://publikationen.sachsen.de/bdb/artikel/14127

https://www.dbu.de/1582.html

Aggregated information on environmental agreements is however more widely

available. Within the Netherlands the Rural Development Programme finances (direct)

payments to land owners and managers are made available through environmental

agreements to avoid the deterioration of habitats and species. Although details of

these payments are not disclosed, the aggregated information is published in the

reports of the Supervisory Committee for the Investment Budget for Rural Areas. Six

such reports have been published and can be consulted online.

All reviewed Member States tend to systematically indicate the EU-support provided

for conservation projects. The Polish website of the Ministry of the Environment gives

an overview of possibilities concerning European Funds. LIFE is included in this

overview and further links are provided to an index page where more detailed

information is provided. Additionally details are presented on calls for proposals and

on projects that have received funding from the LIFE program. Romania also provides

a good practice example for indicating LIFE and other EU supports.


September 2014 84

Good practice: Establishing a Prioritized Action Framework for the funding of

Natura 2000 in Spain.

This LIFE+ project aims at improving the capacity for financing and managing the

Natura 2000 Network in Spain through the preparation and implementation of

measures to maintain and/or restore the habitats and species present in the Network

at favourable conservation status. The project had two specific objectives:

- To establish strategic priorities in relation to the management of the Natura 2000

network, defining the actions that shall be implemented and identifying the potential

role of the EU funds in their financing.

- To show how to implement priority actions through the design and detailed planning

of a set of measures identified in the PAF, which require using different financial

instruments.

Websites:

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-

natura-2000/rn_cons_marco_accion_prioritaria.aspx

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/programas-ue/periodo-de-

programacion-2007-2013/programas-de-desarrollo-rural/

http://www.prioridadrednatura2000.es/

Good practice: Indicating LIFE and other EU-support in Romania.

Romania appears to be highly effective in informing about EU instruments like LIFE

funding. They provide a lot of information on how to attain funding. These guidance

documents are published on multiple national portals.

Multiple links are provided to the LIFE program website where detailed information is

provided on the LIFE projects and their specific financial attributes. Also links to sites

with more general information on funding are provided. This includes information on

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF), Structural Funds (European Social Fund - ESF), European

Fisheries Fund (EFF) and Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE +).

In some cases Romanian pages also provide information on the general budget of a

project and whether LIFE funding was applied. No detailed information on the project

financing is provided.

For more dedicated sites to specific habitats or conservation areas detailed information

on the involvement on EU funding is provided.

The national government also provides an overview on their proportion of financing

within Romania. This mainly includes a list of projects that were (co-)funded by the

Romanian government.

Dedicated NATURA 2000 sites also provide information on LIFE funding with regard to

Environmental programs and the dissemination of conservation information.

Websites: (1) http://www.natura2000.ro/coalitia/publicatii/altele/#Vanatoare-Pescuit

(2)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.sea

rch&cfid=294631&cftoken=46442891

(3) http://www.natura2000.ro/coalitia/proiecte/finantari/

(4) http://www.natura2000.ro/coalitia/proiecte/coalitie/

(5) http://www.mmediu.ro/beta/programe/finantate-din-fonduri-externe-

nerambursabile/life/

(6) http://www.lifenatura2000.ro/index.php?page=stiri

(7) http://mmediu.ro/new/?cat=11

(8) http://www.mmediu.ro/beta/programe/finantate-din-fondul-de-mediu/

(9) http://www.emenatura2000.ro/en/informatii-generale/

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-2000/rn_cons_marco_accion_prioritaria.aspx

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/biodiversidad/temas/espacios-protegidos/red-natura-2000/rn_cons_marco_accion_prioritaria.aspx

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/programas-ue/periodo-de-programacion-2007-2013/programas-de-desarrollo-rural/

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/desarrollo-rural/temas/programas-ue/periodo-de-programacion-2007-2013/programas-de-desarrollo-rural/

http://www.prioridadrednatura2000.es/


September 2014 85

Good practice: Parcel level nature management subsidy planner and tracker

(Netherlands)

An online geo-referenced application that helps all professionals in the nature subsidy

decision making and implementation chain to coordinate their work and exchange

information. Nature objectives, management measures covered by subsidies are all

presented online and can be queried through a map up to the parcel level.

Similar applications exist in the provinces of Limburg (indicating the maximum level of

subsidy per plot and per management type) and Friesland.

Websites:

http://bron.portaalnatuurenlandschap.nl/

http://www.fryslan.nl/3180/natuurbeheerplannen-imnab/

http://www.groenblauwedienstenlimburg.nl/

6.2.5 Information on impact assessments and compensation related

to Natura 2000

Information on impacts assessment and compensation measures is not easily

found. The only complete database on impact assessments at national level has been

found in Spain, on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment. In the

Netherlands, the Environmental Impact Assessment Commission (EIAC) publishes only

EIAs that require their screening and approval. All appropriate assessments are

required to be submitted to the EIAC. Therefore it is expected that all appropriate

assessments are to be found on this website. In other Member States appropriate

assessments are often found on more regional or local websites, without a systematic

framework or database. In the UK for instance this information is only provided on

county websites. Most often the Appropriate Assessment documents themselves do

not seem to be published online in a systematic and centralised way.

Good practice: Providing information on impact assessments in The

Netherlands.

In The Netherlands environmental impact assessments must be checked by the

Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment. Not all impact assessments

require such a control, but all appropriate assessments do. The Commission publishes

online all the assessments it reviews and the assessments database can be queries to

show only the appropriate assessments. The results return details about the procedure

and relevant documents.

Websites:

http://www.commissiemer.nl/zoeken?sort=&it=&dt=passende+beoordeling&regio=&q

=


http://www.fryslan.nl/3180/natuurbeheerplannen-imnab/




September 2014 86

Good practice: SABIA, Information system for the management of impact

assessment procedures (Spain).

The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment manages an online database

through which all Environmental Assessments and Strategic Impacts Assessments are

available and can be searched. A detailed and visual indication of the development

stage of the assessment is presented and relevant documents can be downloaded.

Although it does not focus exclusively on appropriate assessments and appropriate

assessments cannot be selected from the first level, a search with relevant search

items returns impact assessments for Natura 2000 sites. The strong points of the

service are the clear visual illustration of the phase an impact assessment for a plan or

project is currently in, and the supporting documents that can be downloaded.

Website:

https://servicios.magrama.es/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/pcd%213aportal_content%

212fMMA%212fcom.mma.anonimo%212fcom.mma.launcher_anonimo?NavigationTarg

et=navurl%3A%2F%2Faf7b94a698174c8f919c9075e304dbcc&CurrentWindowId=WID

1258101186250&NavMode=3

Information on compensatory measures is almost not available. Only France,

Germany and Sweden appear to provide concrete examples on compensation

information. The notion that compensation is a last resort after all other alternatives

have been found unsatisfactory is quite well understood in France, as is demonstrated

by the mantra “éviter, réduire, compenser”. General information about the process of

compensation and its legal foundations are provided at national level. Information

about the practice of compensation is provided at regional level, for example by the

Réseau régional des gestionnaires d'espaces naturels protégés PACA. The document

they provides a wide range of useful online resources under `Sitiographie`. In Sweden

detailed information about compensatory measures is given at the regional level on

the county pages of the Lansstyrelsen portal. However, the details of compensatory

measures or progress in the implementation were not found.

Good practice: Eco-accounting (Germany)

Aside from general information on compensation measures, the webpages of the

different federal states offer an insight in their method of ecological accounting. The

website of Saxony, for instance, provides links to the actual eco-accounting tools

(including maps), the regulations, an introduction on the concept of eco-accounting

and description of the interface used. Likewise, the state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

provides information on compensation (and specifically on eco-accounting) with maps,

lists of compensation areas, characteristics of measures etc. There are also data on

surface areas, number of compensation sites, etc. included in specific reports.

Website:


http://www.kompensationsflaechen-mv.de/wiki/index.php/Hauptseite

6.2.6 Scientific research, monitoring and surveillance related to

Natura 2000

Scientific and monitoring information underpinning the implementation of the Birds

and Habitats Directives is always quite well disclosed. Vast amounts of research and

monitoring are carried out in the context and/or in support of the implementation of

https://servicios.magrama.es/irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/pcd%213aportal_content%212fMMA%212fcom.mma.anonimo%212fcom.mma.launcher_anonimo?NavigationTarget=navurl%3A%2F%2Faf7b94a698174c8f919c9075e304dbcc&CurrentWindowId=WID1258101186250&NavMode=3





http://www.kompensationsflaechen-mv.de/wiki/index.php/Hauptseite


September 2014 87

the Habitats Directive. All Member States appear to provide information on scientific

work on conservation and summaries of surveillance data. Much of the research

outcomes and data are available online. It is not within the scope of this project to list

all relevant sources of information, but an indicative discussion is given here.

If it concerns the science digested in the habitat and species guidance and reference

documents, these are generally easily found on the main biodiversity portals. Results

of monitoring and surveillance if often a bit more scattered, and often it is not clear to

what extent the data presented on various platforms (of citizen science, survey and

monitoring projects) do finally end up in a common flora and fauna database.

The national Biodiversity Information Facilities, special chapters of the Global

Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) are an example of an attempt to centralise all

relevant biodiversity information, but it is clear that this objective has not been

reached by far.

Member States are aware of the problem of data sharing and some such as Sweden

have taken active measures to try and bring all the knowledge together.

Good practice: Swedish LifeWatch and Analysis Portal

Swedish LifeWatch is a national e-infrastructure for integration and analysis of

biodiversity data. The infrastructure will be based on systems architecture

standardization, enabling access to all relevant scientific domains including major

Swedish data providers from biodiversity and climate archives, observatories, as well

as international databases. The Analysis portal provides a single access point to all

data connected to the infrastructure, together with a range of analytical services.

Websites:

http://www.svenskalifewatch.se/

https://www.analysisportal.se/

For almost all Member States Habitats Directive Article 17 reports were found. This

was either provided on a national dedicated portal or a link was provided to the official

European database (Eionet). However, locating implementation report of national

provisions for the Birds Directive (Article 12 reporting) appeared to be more difficult.

Ireland, Germany and the UK however, appeared to be quite effective in providing

information on Birds directive Article 12 reporting. For the UK, the implementation

reports mentioned in Article 12 are published in the website of the JNCC. The JNCC

has a dedicated page on the consultation on the UK report for Article 12 of the EU

Birds Directive. Surprisingly however the official report can be downloaded via the

Eionet database.

The popularity of citizen science projects has markedly increased over the past years.

Every Member State appears to provide information for people to aid in collecting

information on the distribution of species. Within the UK there are for instance clear

reports from the regional agencies on involving citizens in their conservation actions.

Additionally there are many opportunities to get directly involved in activities such as

bird watching groups and other monitoring activities. Besides public organizations,

conservation organizations like the RSPB provide ample examples of citizens science.

There are also many initiatives like the bird atlas project which asks volunteers to help

monitor the occurrence of different bird species. Similar projects can be found in

Germany. Additionally, there are many (mammal) conservation projects in which the

public can participate.

http://www.svenskalifewatch.se/

https://www.analysisportal.se/


September 2014 88

Good practice: Polish example of increasing public involvement and citizen

science.

The website of the General Directorate of Environmental Protection includes an entire

section on the social part of the Natura 2000 network. Included features allow you to

search for natural paths located within Natura 2000 areas and their associated media.

After logging in you can share your own media and add information about your

favorite tracks, as well as ask the expert and report your observations. Here you can

find also information on where and how in a manner consistent with the protection of

the environment to observe nature.

Websites:

http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/structures/community

A large number of Member States appear to provide information on assessments

for the (re)-introduction of species. Within the UK, although no central database

exists on the studies and assessment carried out on the effect of the (re-)introduction

of species, ample publications are available on regional and local websites covering

these issues. In most cases elaborate impact studies and risk assessment are made

available for “big” reintroduction programs, as was apparent from Romania. These

reports often cover ambassador species which are appealing to the broader public

(e.g. White tailed eagle, Beaver, European Bison, Wolf and Otter). In Sweden

reintroduction of fauna and flora is well documented and included in the law. The SEPA

must authorise a reintroduction scheme based on documentation. Zoos play an

important role in captive breeding for possible reintroductions but this is carefully

regulated in the law. It is however surprising that no central repository was detected

within the different reviewed Member States.

Exceptions of public access to information were not easily detected. In France the

location of certain vulnerable species is sometimes kept secret. As an example, the

nesting sites of the highly endangered Bonelli’s Eagle (Aquila fasciata) in Southern

France are not shown on the maps of the online Atlas of French Breeding Birds. In

Sweden, the SEPA Species Protection Manual provides a special section on exceptions

to public access of information and lists four main categories where these exceptions

are valid. The first concerns government publications, which should in principle be

directly available under the freedom of press act. However, if a government body

denies the information to be made public this needs to be well documented and

argued. The second concerns information about (the location of) vulnerable species.

Another category are the personal details under the Privacy Act. Personal information

in relation to species may be not disclosed if the publication of this information may

harm the person. The main species information gathering websites hide exact

locations of sensitive and vulnerable species. Other concrete examples on public

access limitation were not detected.

6.2.7 Legal information on strict protection, court rulings and

derogations

Legal aspects of the Birds and Habitats Directive implementation and their

implementation are also generally not part of the main portals on biodiversity,

protected areas and Natura 2000. Regional biodiversity portals often give more

detailed information about these aspects as they are often in charge of

http://natura2000.gdos.gov.pl/structures/community


September 2014 89

implementation and enforcement. This type of information has often to be sought

independently from the main portal on dedicated sites.

All Member States provide information on these measures making up the system for

binding rules and strict protection. Also a lot of information is provided about

hunting regulations, for instance the duration of the hunting season and the fining

process. In some member states, such as The Netherlands and Sweden, the

importance of providing clear guidance and information on the legal and legal

measures for strict nature protection have resulted in the development of special

portals dedicated to this issue. In The Netherlands, BirdLife partner Vogelbescherming

has developed a webportal “Birds and the Law” that provides detailed information

about prohibitions, permits derogations, hunting related measures etc. In the other

Member States the legal system is explained via the national portals, by presenting

PDFs with the legal texts or guidance documents on how to interpret the legal

documents. In Ireland for instance the NPWS website provides relevant legislation and

highlights on what is not allowed (or for which requests for derogation are required)

and what is protected (the most relevant items) are indicated in accompanying

guidance.

Good practice: Manual for Species Protection Regulations, Sweden

This web Guide is an aid to the officer at the county government who comes into

contact with species protection regulation. The content is largely based on the

experiences of county administrative boards amassed since Species Protection

Ordinance came into force in 1999. The guide is aimed primarily at the provincial

government as regulator for Species Protection Ordinance. But other involved

agencies, operators and other stakeholders can also take advantage of the content.

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/hb/Artskyddsforordningen/Start/

Good practice: Species protection and legislation example from the UK.

The legislation in the United Kingdom provides for the protection of certain species of

wild plants, birds and animals at all times; some species of bird are protected at

certain times of the year only, while certain methods of taking or killing wild animals

and birds are prohibited.

The information on these legal issues is provided on the National Portal from the

JNCC. Here both the official document and simple guideline are presented that aid in

understanding the system of strict protection.

Even categories are distinguished on this website. There is information in relation to

protected plans, birds and animals.

Websites:


Most of the Member States provide information on the actual plans and

programmes that are established for enforcing the system of strict

protection. Within the Netherlands for instance, most species protection policies are

organised at the provincial level with (financial) support from the central government

and coordination by the IPO. Legal requirements and measures for species protection

are translated into provincial and local plans and programmes (structure visions,

spatial plans, land use plans etc.). There is a central repository for all spatial plans,

although the search function does not allow to search by species or nature protection

theme. There also are also species protection plans have been developed over the

course of a 20 year period. The list of plans is presented in the Human Environment

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/hb/Artskyddsforordningen/Start/



September 2014 90

Compendium page. In recent years a new approach targeting has been introduced to

ensure better species protection: the habitat approach (leefgebiedenbenadering). In

Romania on the national park websites specific plans and programs for the protection

of fauna are provided. The UK generated a dedicated action group called the

Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime.

Surprisingly, only a few Member States present information on the enforcement of

prohibitions, or the number of warnings, prosecutions and other specific

interventions. Only Hungary, Poland, The Netherlands and the UK appear to publish

these issues. In the Netherlands the prohibitions laid down in Article 12 of the Habitats

Directive have been transposed to the two national implementing legislations: the

Flora and Fauna Act and the Law on Nature Protection (to be merged into one Nature

Act in 2014). Felons committing a crime against flora or fauna as described in the

national transposition of Habitats Directive are arrested or detained by officers of the

Animal Police or Special Investigating Officers. The latter are either municipal or

provincial civil servants or wildlife rangers with a special training and authority to

make arrests. Criminals are prosecuted in court and court decisions are stored and

accessible through an online database. When searched with the keywords "Flora en

Faunawet" or "Natuurbeschermingswet", details of nature related crimes are

displayed. Within the UK criminals are prosecuted in court and court decisions are

stored and accessible through panels as the National Wildlife Crime Unit. This portal

directly displays the content of the prosecution, the owner and enforcement.

Good practice: Wildlife crime unit website from the UK.

The prohibitions laid down in Article 12 of the Habitats Directive have been transposed

various wildlife acts within the UK.

Criminals are prosecuted in court and court decisions are stored and accessible

through panels as the National Wildlife Crime Unit. This portal directly displays the

content of the prosecution, the owner and enforcement. Other plans and programs

include the ones established by the Wildlife Crime Conservation Advisory Group. This

advisory group has been established to monitor wildlife crime priorities for targeted

enforcement action in the UK and is a key partner in the Partnership for Action against

Wildlife Crime.

Websites:

http://www.nwcu.police.uk/what-are-priorities-and-intelligence-

requirements/priorities/

Data on incidental capture an killing is not easily found. Only four Member States

appear to provide some information on these issues. In Germany some monitoring

reports on specific species (e.g. Wolf) include information on measures to monitor

incidental capture and killing. Within Poland the Department of Interventions informs

about the steps taken following receipt of notification of a violation of law - the

destruction of habitats and species Natura 2000 sites or potential hazards. After

checking the reports they perform to the relevant authorities to intervene. The whole

process, documentation of violations and the course of the intervention presented to

date in the form of successive notes. Full information is provided with maps on the

location, the threat, the actions taken, the evidence, and so on. Also, the Naturalist

Club provides their contact details for anyone searching for means to report a threat

or destruction of wildlife. Sweden even provides a dedicated monitoring system for

large predators.

http://www.nwcu.police.uk/what-are-priorities-and-intelligence-requirements/priorities/

http://www.nwcu.police.uk/what-are-priorities-and-intelligence-requirements/priorities/


September 2014 91

Good practice: Monitoring incidental capture in Sweden.

A detailed system of monitoring the killing of large predators (Wolf, Bear, Wolverine

and Lynx) has been set up by the SEPA. It has its own website with a database to find

all documented kills of these animals. SEPA also mentions the compulsory registration

for hunting of some species protected by the Habitats Directive, such as the Lynx

(given as an example below).

Websites:

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-

miljoarbetet/Rattsinformation/Beslut/Lodjur/Registrering-jakt-pa-lodjur/

http://www.rovbase.se/

Although publishing derogation reports is obligatory according to Habitats Directive

article 16.2 and Birds Directive article 9.3, most Member States do not easily provide

information on these so called derogation reports. Individual derogations are even less

well disseminated. The UK, Sweden and the Netherlands provide the best examples

for providing information on derogation reports. Sweden for instance provides general

information about derogations at a national level. More detailed information

(regulations, guidance, forms, contact information etc.) is provided by the regional

Councils websites. Sweden has submitted derogation reports under the Birds and

Habitats Directives from 2000 to 2012 (present on Eionet Reporting Obligations

database), but these documents or the individual derogations have not been found on

any Swedish website. Which is often the case within Member States.

Good practice: Reporting obligations website, The Netherlands

The Netherlands has produced a reporting obligations website presenting the concept

and reason for international reporting obligations. It presents all international

biodiversity agreements (including the EU Nature Directives) and details the reporting

obligations required under each agreement. For the Birds and Habitats Directives it

presents the Derogation reports and the Implementation reports. An introduction for

each reporting obligation is given, the details of the persons and organisations

involved in the reporting process and the different reports issued are presented either

as downloadable pdfs or through a link to the Eionet repository.

Website:

http://www.natuurgegevens.nl/

No inventories of national court decisions have been found within the reviewed

Member States. However individual national court decisions are published within

different Member States. In Spain the General Council of the Judiciary offers an online

search engine for case law at national, regional and provincial level. Court decisions

regarding the Birds and Habitats Directives, Natura 2000 can be found by appropriate

keyword search, for instance “Natura 2000”, “zepa”, “habitat”. In most other Member

States a separate legal portal is found where searches have to be performed in a

database to acquire Natura 2000 specific information.

6.2.8 Public information and participation

Perhaps the most general conclusion about information and communication around the

implementation of the birds and habitats directives is that there is an overload of

information and that although often existing, specific information takes very long to

identify. Therefore, there is a real need for portals that help the stakeholders in finding

the information they are looking for.

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Rattsinformation/Beslut/Lodjur/Registrering-jakt-pa-lodjur/

http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Stod-i-miljoarbetet/Rattsinformation/Beslut/Lodjur/Registrering-jakt-pa-lodjur/

http://www.rovbase.se/


September 2014 92

When specifically looking for opportunities to provide an opinion on for instance

environmental impact assessments, performed in the context of an

appropriate assessment, relatively few Member States provide an option to do so.

Member States that show good practises on this are Poland, Romania, Sweden and the

UK. Within Poland a projects lists of Natura 2000 areas for consultation are published

on the website of the Ministry of Environment. Also draft regulations are posted

online. Also, with the Ministry of Environment at their website there is a specific entry

on public consultations. Also information in public hearing procedure is available, this

is information on conducting a public hearing be made public in the Information

System of the Sejm for 14 days before the hearing - no individual notification mode,

so one needs to keep track of the parliamentary website. Within Romania NGO’s and

Natura 2000 organizations provide the opportunity to respond to a blog or press

release which addressed nature conservation issues. The official consultations are

organized by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. The website dedicated

to a specific area also provides information on the public consultation possibilities.

Additionally in some cases there is the possibility to fill in an online opinion on a

specific issue in relation to Natura 2000. In Sweden SEPA publishes information on

the consultation process as part of the EIA. At regional level, a consultation process

was identified for a proposal for the designation of new nature reserves in Västra

Götaland. This process is not carried out online, but the opinions should be sent in

writing by surface mail. At the local level, as in the Västra Götaland municipality of

Uddevalla the planning requests are actually reviewed and permits issued after a

complete preparatory process that includes a nature impact assessment if relevant.

Planning documents are presented at the municipality planning department for

consultation and opinions can be submitted in writing or by email, but not through an

online form. Within the UK Public consultation, expression of public opinion and

recording the results of these opinions are a fundamental part of the EIA, also

including Appropriate assessments. Every governmental website in de different

regions provides a link to the present consultations that are open to the public to

attend. When performing a quick search you can easily find Environmental Impact

Assessment reviews. Attending these consultations can be arranged on the website, in

some cases providing online comments on the process appears is possible.

Good practice: Natura 2000 Network website for the Balearic Islands, Spain

The Government of the Balearic Islands has developed a very simple, yet effective

way of presenting the information on the implementation of the Natura 2000 network

for the people concerned. Although it does not cover all aspects in detail (for example

issues related to impact assessment and compensation) it provides a logical and clear

access to site, habitat and species information, and information about the process of

designation and establishment of management plans, in which the public and other

stakeholders are actively involved.

Websites:

http://www.xarxanatura.es/

All Member States provide information on press releases, guidance documents,

implementation guides and contact details of the competent authorities.

These components are similarly addressed in the different Member States. Press

releases are often provided on the homepage of the national or regional authorities or

via the official national gazette. Guidance documents are most often presented on a

dedicated page for guidance and general information. Contact details are often

provided on a link where either a general form is presented or an email address of the



September 2014 93

secretary of the national portal is provided. In Germany, the different states often

provide specific contact information on the thematic webpages themselves.

Good practice: The Natura 2000 Directory (France)

“Atelier technique des espaces naturels” (ATEN) offers an online Natura 2000 directory

where Natura 2000 sites, site management organisations and practitioners contact

details can be searched. The three components of the directory are connected to each

other, so that by selecting a specific organisation, both the sites managed by this

organisation and the professionals working there can be identified. Personal details are

however only available for registered members. A similar service is offered by the

“Pôles-relais nature”, professional network organisations for the managers of specific

ecosystems (such as Mediterranean laggons). These pôles-relais nature offer very

useful online directories for experts, practitioners and managers linked to the

ecosystems and sites.

Websites:


http://www.pole-lagunes.org/acteurs-des-lagunes

Citizens’ complaints about illegal activities are not always easily provided. Within

the Netherlands enforcement of nature protection is carried out at the regional

(provinces) or local (municipalities) level. In general provinces provide a service that

deals with environmental complaints including reporting of (suspected) illegal

activities. For example, the Province of Noord-Holland has an online form to lodge a

complaint or to report a possible illegal activity. Also the Province of Groningen

provides such an online service, but advises to use the telephone for acute and urgent

matters. Within Spain the Citizen Service page of the competent ministry offers a

possibility to citizens to lodge a complaint. Within the UK the regional government

agencies like Natural England have an online enquiry service to lodge a complaint or

to report a possible illegal activity. Also the Scottish Natural Heritage provides an

online enquiries service.

Crowd sourcing is applied in many Member States. A lot of Member State authorities

or NGOs provide show initiatives where crowd sourcing is applied. In Romania for

instance crowd sourcing is widely applied. Especially the dedicated website to national

parks provide information on how to support the conservation of the conservation

areas. Within the UK there are many non-governmental organisation which use crowd-

sourcing (e.g. the RSPB). The regional agencies also provided the opportunity to

actively participate in realising the nature conservation targets. The Scottish Natural

Heritage for instance asks for volunteers or people joining major events.

Regarding the re-use of information, it is difficult to assess to what extent this is

being done. Sweden provides a great example in which several government agencies

(including the Environmental Protection Agency, SEPA and the Swedish Agricultural

University, SLU) collaborated and launched a “Hack for Sweden” Event. Citizens and

organisations with IT skills were invited to participate in the competition for the best

re-use of government data. Although not specifically focused on biodiversity or nature

protection, the competition was promoted yielded interesting results and could be a

model to develop new uses for nature data and information throughout Europe.. In

Spain no special programmes or initiatives other than the citizen science portals

managed by SEO (see under citizen science) have been identified that re-used data or

information. As a general observation, the re-use and dissemination of national

biodiversity data by GBIF could be considered a model.


September 2014 94

Good practice: Hack for Sweden

Hack for Sweden is a unique collaboration between thirteen agencies and

organisations that want to create an opportunity for programmers, students, and data

journalists to develop new and innovative services and products using location-bound

open or free data . Hack for Sweden aims to inspire increased use of agencies open

and free data so that new products and services can be developed and brought to the

public portion. On Facebook and Twitter pictures are posted from the competition

weekend. Interviews with participants are available on Youtube.

Website

http://hackforsweden.se/

6.3 INSPIRE analysis

6.3.1 Screening of portals and websites

Throughout the screening of portals and websites related to BD and HB, all webpages

offering spatial data and information (to view, to download, etc.) were selected and

further explored, with the aim of identifying the precise datasets that were used

and/or made available on the page.

Three key observations can be made regarding this process:

In many cases, it was remarkably difficult to identify the precise datasets, as

no or very little information was provided on the datasets that were used and/or

on the owner of the dataset. Also metadata on the data in many cases were not

available. From the perspective of the users, it is often difficult to understand the

content of the dataset and evaluate the usability of a dataset, but also to know

under which conditions the data can be accessed and/or re-used.

Many of the spatial data that were made available on the selected webpages,

could not be found back in the INSPIRE Monitoring information or on the EU

INSPIRE geoportal. This means that some spatial datasets that are relevant to

INSPIRE are not reported, and a large amount of valuable data are ‘kept out’ of

INSPIRE. In several countries, it is especially the information collected at lower

administrative level - not the national level – that is not reported to INSPIRE.

Another important reason why certain datasets are not reported, is that the data

are collected and provided by non-public authorities, such as research institutions

and non-profit organizations.

Certain spatial data sets are made available on different websites. Due to the

lack of metadata, it is often difficult to assess whether it is exactly the same

dataset or whether there are slight differences between the datasets. In certain

cases, the data are not up-to-date. A typical example of this is the development of

webpages and portals providing spatial data in the context of time-limited EU-

funded and other projects. After the projects are finished, data are still made

available, but no longer kept up-to-date.

To illustrate the link between the screening of the portals and websites, Table

provides a selection of different websites that were screened and the spatial datasets

that were found back on these websites.


September 2014 95

Table 13: Selection of screened websites and the spatial datasets found back on these

websites

Country Websites and spatial datasets

Sweden http://observer.gbif.se/

PS.HELCOM; PS.OSPAR; TUVA

http://data.naturvardsverket.se/

PS.Art- och habitatdirektivet (Natura2000, SCI, SAC);

PS.Biotopskyddsområden; PS.Djur– och växtskyddsområde;

PS.Fågeldirektivet (Natura 2000, SPA); PS.Kulturreservat;

PS.Nationalparker; PS.Naturminnen ytor; PS.Naturreservat;

PS.Naturvårdsområde; PS.RAMSAR; PS.Vattenskyddsområden;

Biogeografiska regioner; Myrregionindelning; Naturgeografiska

regioner

http://w3.vic-metria.nu/n2k/jsp/main.jsp

PS.Art- och habitatdirektivet (Natura2000, SCI, SAC);

PS.Fågeldirektivet (Natura 2000, SPA);

United

Kingdom

http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/out-and-about/nrw-web-

maps/?lang=en

Biosphere reserves; Local Nature Reserves; National Nature Reserves

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/

Ramsar sites; Special Areas of Conservation; Marine Conservation

Zones; National Parks; Special Protection Areas

http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/searchmap.jsp

Local Nature Reserves; National Nature Reserves; Ramsar Sites;

Sites of Special Scientific Interest; Special Areas of Conservation

https://gateway.ceh.ac.uk/terraCatalog/Start.do

Countryside Survey Molecular Biological Analysis of Microbes; NERC

Soil Biodiversity Thematic Programme

Romania http://portal.ddbra.ro/harti_delta_dunarii

Zonespt - zone strict protejate; Zonetg - zone tampon; Renaturarea

Dunării ColoniiT, Rezervația Biosferei Delta Dunării

http://www.biodiversity.ro/n2000/

Limitele parcurilor naționale, parcurilor naturale si rezervaţiilor

biosferei; Limitele zonelor de conservare specială ale parcurilor

naţionale şi natural; Limitele siturilor de importanţă comunitară;

Limitele ariilor de protecţie specială avifaunistică

http://www.anpm.ro/articole/

Limitele zonelor de conservare specială ale parcurilor naţionale şi

naturale (la nivel de parcelă); Limitele siturilor de importanţă

comunitară; Limitele ariilor de protecţie specială avifaunistică

Hungary http://www.natura.2000.hu

Boundaries of Natura 2000 sites

http://observer.gbif.se/

http://data.naturvardsverket.se/

http://w3.vic-metria.nu/n2k/jsp/main.jsp

http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/out-and-about/nrw-web-maps/?lang=en

http://naturalresourceswales.gov.uk/out-and-about/nrw-web-maps/?lang=en

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/protectedsites/

http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/searchmap.jsp

https://gateway.ceh.ac.uk/terraCatalog/Start.do

http://portal.ddbra.ro/harti_delta_dunarii

http://www.biodiversity.ro/n2000/

http://www.anpm.ro/articole/

http://www.natura.2000.hu/


September 2014 96


http://geo.kvvm.hu/tir/viewer.htm

Boundaries of IUCN Protected sites; Boundaries of Natura 2000 sites;

Boundaries of Ramsar sites; Boundaries of UNESCO MAB Biosphere

Reserve

Poland http://geoserwis.gdos.gov.pl/mapy

Protected areas (reserves, park landscapes, national parks, bird

areas, habitat areas, etc), planned changes to Natura 2000

boundaries

http://obszary.natura2000.pl/

Natura 2000 sites

http://geoportal.gov.pl/

Mapa Sozologiczna Polski (shows the state of the natural

environment and the causes and effects of changes in the

environment)

Spain http://www.xarxanatura.es

Espacios naturales protegidos y zonas periféricas; Reserves

Marines, Reserves Naturals

http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/cartografia-y-sig/

Zonas protegidas de la cuenca hidrográfica del Ebro.; Áreas Marinas

Protegidas (AMP); Espcios Naturales Protegidos (ENP); Humedales de

importancia internacional (Ramsar); Lugares de Importancia

Comunitaria (LIC); Red de Áreas Marinas Protegidas (OSPAR);

Reservas de la Biosfera (MaB); Zonas de Especial Proteccion para las

Aves (ZEPA); Zonas Especialmente Protegidas de Importancia para el

Mediterráneo (ZEPIM)

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/

Delimitación de los Espacios Naturales Protegidos de Andalucía; Pisos

bioclimáticos de Andalucía; Sectores biogeográficos de Andalucía;

DEA100 - Biogeográfico

Ireland http://www.npws.ie/mapsanddata

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC); Special Protection Area (SPA);

Natural Heritage Areas (NHA)

http://mida.ucc.ie/

Saltmarshea; Coastal Lagoons; Periwinkle Distribution;

Harbour seal distribution and abundance; Grey Seal Summer Haul-

out Distribution; Cetacean Sightings

Germany http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.310474.de

Naturschutzfachdaten, Artendaten, Biotope, geschützte Biotope und

FFH-Lebensraumtypen, Flächendeckende Biotop- und

Landnutzungskartierung (BTLN), Naturraumgliederungen,

http://geo.kvvm.hu/tir/viewer.htm

http://geoserwis.gdos.gov.pl/mapy

http://obszary.natura2000.pl/

http://geoportal.gov.pl/


http://www.magrama.gob.es/es/cartografia-y-sig/

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/

http://www.npws.ie/mapsanddata

http://mida.ucc.ie/

http://www.mugv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/bb1.c.310474.de


September 2014 97


Schutzgebiete nach Naturschutzrecht Brandenburg und Natura 2000

http://www.geodienste.bfn.de/schutzgebiete/

FFH Gebiete , Vogelschutzgebiete, Naturschutzgebiete,

Nationalparke, Biosphärenreservatie, Naturparkes,

Landschaftsschutzgebiete, Naturräume, Biogeografische Regionen

http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/natur/natura2000/index.aspx

Fledermausquartier, FFH-Gebieten, Vogelschutzgebieten

France http://inpn.mnhn.fr/telechargement/cartes-et-information-

geographique

Arrêtés de protection de biotope; Parc nationaux; Parc naturel marin;

Parc naturels régionaux; RAMSAR; RAMSAR; Réserves biologiques;

Réserves de biosphère ; Réserves naturelles; Sites d'importance

communautaire désignés par la France;

http://carmen.developpement-durable.gouv.fr

Typologie des paysages de Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur; Unités

paysagères de Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur; Zones naturelles

d'intérêt écologique floristique et faunistique (ZNIEFF), terrestres et

marines de Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur

http://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/accueil

Arrêtés de protection de biotope; Parc nationaux; Parc naturel marin;

Parc naturels régionaux; RAMSAR; RAMSAR; Réserves biologiques;

Réserves de biosphère ; Réserves naturelles; Sites d'importance

communautaire désignés par la France;

Netherlands http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/

Natura2000; NB-wet gebieden buiten Natura2000; Wetlands

(RAMSAR); Nationale parken

http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/

Natura2000; NB-wet gebieden buiten Natura2000; Wetlands

(RAMSAR); Nationale parken


Provinciale EHS; Habitattypenkaarten van de Natura2000 gebieden

en de overige gebieden v.d. provinciale EHS

6.3.2 INSPIRE Monitoring sheets 2013

http://www.geodienste.bfn.de/schutzgebiete/

http://www.umwelt.sachsen.de/umwelt/natur/natura2000/index.aspx

http://inpn.mnhn.fr/telechargement/cartes-et-information-geographique

http://inpn.mnhn.fr/telechargement/cartes-et-information-geographique

http://carmen.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/

http://www.geoportail.gouv.fr/accueil

http://www.compendiumvoordeleefomgeving.nl/

http://www.synbiosys.alterra.nl/natura2000/googlemapszoek.aspx



September 2014 98

Table 64 provides an overview of the number of datasets as reported by the Member

States under the themes ‘Protected Sites’ (I.9), ‘Bio-geographical regions’ (III.17),

‘Habitats and biotopes’ (III.18) and ‘Species distribution’ (III.19).


September 2014 99

Table 64 - Number of datasets reported in INSPIRE Monitoring 2013.

Protected

sites

Bio-

geographical

regions

Habitats

and

biotopes

Species

distribution

All

Germany 374 15 197 109 695

Spain 121 23 74 223 441

France 190 14 206 42 452

Hungary 4 0 0 1 5

Ireland 8 0 3 10 21

Poland 7 1 1 1 10

Netherlands 14 1 8 12 35

Romania 11 2 9 5 27

Sweden 16 5 12 5 38

United

Kingdom

98 18 53 81 250

Total 843 79 563 489 2034

The following general observations can be made:

There are substantial differences in the number of datasets that were reported

under the four themes. The 10 countries in our evaluation can be split up into two

main groups, as in Germany, Spain, France and the United Kingdom the total

number of datasets reported under the four themes is much higher than in the

other six countries. Germany, Spain, France and United Kingdom together are

responsible for 1838 of the 2034 reported datasets, i.e. 90,3%;

Germany has reported the highest number of datasets (695) in total. Especially

the number of datasets reported under the ‘Protected Sites’ theme is significantly

higher in Germany than in the other countries. Spain has reported the most

datasets under the themes ‘Bio-geographical regions’(23) and ‘Species distribution

(223). The highest number of datasets under the ‘Habitats and biotopes’ theme is

reported by France (206);

Some countries did not reported any datasets for some of the themes: while

Hungary did not report any datasets under the themes ‘Bio-geographical regions’

and ‘Habitats and biotopes’, for Ireland no datasets were reported under the

theme ‘Bio-geographical region’. Poland reported one dataset under the themes

‘Bio-geographical regions’, ‘Habitats and biotopes’ and ‘Species distribution’.

Table 15 shows to what extent the datasets reported in the INSPIRE Monitoring sheets

are compliant with the requirements of INSPIRE. Seven INSPIRE requirements are

included in this table: 1) existence of metadata for spatial data sets, 2) conformity of

metadata for spatial data sets with the implementing rules on metadata, 3) conformity

of spatial data sets with the data specifications and of their metadata with the

implementing rules on metadata, 4) accessibility of metadata for spatial data sets

through discovery services, 5) accessibility of spatial data sets through view services,

6) accessibility of spatial data sets through download services and 7) accessibility of

spatial data sets through view services and download services. For each of these 7

requirements, table x shows the total number of datasets that is compliant with this

requirement, based on the information as reported by the Member states.


September 2014 100

Table 15 - Compliance of datasets according to INSPIRE Monitoring 2013.

Total numb

er

Metadata Data Services

M&R Existence

Conform

Conform

Discover

View Download

View & download

Germany 695 N/A N/A 24 401 270 87 87

Spain 441 434 84 3 355 258 184 144

France 452 452 426 0 452 95 41 41

Hungary 5 4 4 4 4 4 0 0

Ireland 21 12 8 7 6 5 0 0

Poland 10 2 1 0 2 3 1 1

Netherlands 35 18 14 6 17 17 17 17

Romania 27 20 13 0 13 4 7 0

Sweden 38 31 28 1 33 25 16 16

United

Kingdom 250 229 229 0 229 98 20 20

Based on the information in Table 15, several interesting observations can be made

regarding the compliance of spatial datasets related to HD and BD with INSPIRE

requirements:

For the majority of the reported datasets under the four themes, metadata are

reported to be available. In fact, Poland is the only country where metadata exist

for less than half of the reported data sets (metadata exists for 2 of the 10 data

sets). Moreover, in most countries these metadata are also conform with the

INSPIRE implementing rules on metadata. A special case is Spain, where metadata

exist for 434 of the 441 datasets that were reported, but only for 84 datasets

(19%) these metadata are conform with the INSPIRE requirements;

Also remarkable is the situation as reported by France, stating that metadata exist

for all 452 datasets. Moreover, all metadata are discoverable through a discovery

service. According to the information provided in the Monitoring sheets, almost

95% of the datasets these metadata are conform with the INSPIRE implementing

rules on metadata. The further ‘INSPIRE compliance assessment’ should provide

more insight in whether this information is correct or not;

Less than 2% of all datasets (21 out of 1279, Germany not included), are conform

with the data specifications and have metadata that are conform with the

implementing rules on metadata. Countries that have the most INSPIRE conform

datasets under the four themes are Ireland (7), the Netherlands (6) and Hungary

(4). Again, caution is needed when interpreting these numbers, as they are based

on the information provided by the Member States themselves;

In five of the examined countries, the majority of the datasets have metadata that

are accessible through discovery services (Spain, France, Sweden, the United

Kingdom and Hungary). While in the Netherlands and Romania almost half of the

datasets have metadata that are accessible through discovery services, in Ireland

and Poland very few metadata are accessible through discovery services;

Three of the countries that were examined do not have any datasets that are

accessible through both view services and download services (Hungary, Ireland,

Romania). In Poland, only one of the datasets reported is accessible through view

and download services. In most countries, the number of datasets that are

accessible through view services is higher than the number of datasets accessible


September 2014 101

through download services. Romania is the only country that has reported more

datasets accessible through a download service than datasets with a view service.

When comparing the datasets under the four themes (see Annexes), significant

differences can be seen between the four themes:

As can be expected, the degree of compliance with INSPIRE requirements is the

highest for datasets under the theme ‘Protected Sites’, which is the only theme

from Annex I of the INSPIRE directive. According to the information provided by

the Member States, the majority of the datasets under the theme ‘Protected Sites’

have metadata (97,8% of all reported datasets) and in most cases these metadata

are compliant with INSPIRE requirements (76,3%). Most of these datasets also

have metadata that are accessible through discovery services (91,4%). The

accessibility of the data themselves through view and/or download services is

much lower. While 62,4% of the datasets is accessible through a view service,

26,0% of the reported datasets under the theme ‘Protected Sites’ is accessible

through a download service. The percentage of datasets with a view service and a

download service is 24,3%;

For datasets under the other three themes, metadata are available for more than

90% of all reported datasets. There are however important differences with regard

to the compliance of these metadata with INSPIRE requirements: while 73,7% of

the datasets reported under the theme ‘Habitats and biotopes’ and 56,1% of the

datasets under the theme ‘Bio-geographical regions’ have compliant metadata, for

datasets under the theme ‘Species distribution’ INSPIRE compliant metadata are

available for only 38,6% of the reported datasets. Also striking are the differences

related to the existence of view and download services for the datasets. View

services are available for 17,1% of the datasets under the theme ‘Habitats and

biotopes’, for 34,7% of the datasets under the theme ‘Species distribution’ and for

36,8% of the datasets under the theme ‘Bio-geographical regions’. With regard to

the accessibility of data through download services, it is interesting to see that

mainly datasets under the theme ‘Species distribution’ are accessible through a

download service (36,4%) while for datasets under the theme ‘Bio-geographical

regions’ (12,2%) and especially datasets under the theme ‘Habitats and biotopes’

(5,1%) the accessibility of data through download services is significantly lower;

With regard to the level of compliance of data with the INSPIRE data specifications,

it should be noticed that for all four themes the level of compliance is low. Only for

datasets under the theme ‘Protected sites’ some countries (Spain, Hungary,

Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden) have reported to have a few datasets that are

compliant with the INSPIRE data specifications. While Spain has reported one

datasets under the theme ‘Bio-geographical regions’ to be in compliance with the

INSPIRE data specifications, under the themes ‘Habitats and biotopes’ and ‘Species

distributions’ no datasets were reported to be compliant with the relevant data

specifications.


September 2014 102

6.3.3 Selection of databases

As the total number of datasets reported under the four relevant themes was too high,

the INSPIRE compliance assessment was performed on a selection of datasets.

Especially in Germany, Spain, France and UK not all reported datasets were taken into

account, but only a selection. The selection primarily included datasets that were

‘detected’ through the screening of websites, portals and webpages. In addition to

these datasets, also other datasets were selected, to obtain a sufficiently large

sample. A balanced selection was made of datasets over the four relevant data

themes and datasets from different data providers.

With regard to the selection of datasets in the other six countries (Hungary, Ireland,

Poland, the Netherlands, Romania and Sweden), it should be mentioned that datasets

under the theme ‘Protected sites’ that were not related to BD and HB, were left out of

the sample.

Table 16 provides an overview of the total number of datasets that were selected for

the assessment in each country.

Table 76 - Selection of datasets for assessment.

Number of

datasets in

M&R

Number of

datasets in

assessment

Percentage

of datasets

in

assessment

Germany 695 39 5,6%

Spain 441 34 7,7%

France 452 32 7,0%

Hungary 5 5 100%

Ireland 21 17 80,9%

Poland 10 6 60,0%

Netherlands 35 26 74,2%

Romania 27 26 96,2%

Sweden 38 38 100%

United

Kingdom

250 31 12,4%

Total 1974 254 12,8%

6.3.4 Assessing the spatial datasets

The further assessment of INSPIRE compliance is split up into three steps: First, it was

checked whether the datasets in our evaluation can be found back in the European

INSPIRE geoportal. Secondly, it was checked whether the provided datasets are

compliant with the INSPIRE implementing rules on metadata. Thirdly we checked

whether view services and download services were available for the datasets.


September 2014 103

Table 87 shows for each country. the number and percentage of spatial datasets that

could be found back in the European INSPIRE geoportal


September 2014 104

Table 87 - Datasets in INSPIRE geoportal.

Number of

datasets in

assessment

Number of

evaluated

found back

in INSPIRE

geoportal

Percentage

of datasets

found back

in INSPIRE

geoportal

Germany 39 7 17,9%

Spain 34 19 55,8%

France 32 22 68,7%

Hungary 5 0 0%

Ireland 17 4 23,5%

Poland 6 1 16,6%


Romania 26 8 30,7%

Sweden 38 21 55,3%

United

Kingdom

31 23 74,1%

Total 254 111 43,7%

It can be seen from


September 2014 105

Table 87 that there are significant differences between countries in the extent to which

the datasets that were reported under the four relevant data themes can be found in

the European geo-portal. While Spain, France and the UK were similar to each other

with regard to the number of datasets they had reported, they are also similar to each

other with regard to the number of datasets that can be found back in the European

INSPIRE geoportal. In all three countries, more than half of the assessed datasets

could be found back through the INSPIRE geoportal, with figures varying from 74,1%

in the UK to 55,8% in Spain. Also in Sweden the number of datasets that can be found

back on the INSPIRE geoportal is relatively high, i.e. 55,3%. In all other countries less

than one third of the reported datasets can be found back on the INSPIRE geoportal.

In Hungary, none of the reported datasets can be found back on the INSPIRE

geoportal. This is in fact the case for all datasets that were reported by Hungary, as

they did not (yet) define a discovery service as endpoint in the EU geoportal.


September 2014 106

Table 98 shows the number and percentage of spatial datasets that have compliant

metadata for each country. The assessment of the availability of compliant metadata

was only performed on datasets that could be found back on the INSPIRE geoportal.


September 2014 107

Table 98 - Compliance of metadata.

Number of evaluated

datasets found back in

INSPIRE geoportal

Number of datasets

without issues on metadata

Percentage of datasets

without issues on metadata

Germany 7 0 0%

Spain 19 0 0%

France 22 0 0%

Hungary 0 0 0%

Ireland 4 4 100%

Poland 1 1 100%


Romania 8 0 0%

Sweden 21 17 80,9%

United

Kingdom

23 1 4,3%

Total 111 24 21,6%

Based on the information in


September 2014 108

Table 98, it can be argued that relatively few of the assessed datasets have metadata

that are fully compliant with INSPIRE. In several countries (Germany, Spain, France,

Hungary and Sweden) none of the assessed datasets had metadata that were

compliant. Only in Ireland, Poland and Sweden, INSPIRE compliant metadata were

available for most of the assessed datasets. It is however important to notice that the

low mark for metadata compliance does not mean there are major issues or that the

quality of the metadata is bad. In most cases the errors that were detected were

related to one or a few missing elements in the metadata. Especially the conformity

element is often missing or incomplete.


September 2014 109

6.3.5 View and download services

The results of the assessment of the availability of view services and download

services can be seen in Table 109. Again, the assessment was only performed on

datasets that could be found back in the INSPIRE geoportal.

Important differences can be seen between the countries in our assessment. In three

countries (Hungary, Poland and Romania), none of the reported datasets had a view

service or a download service. In Spain, 19 of the datasets in our assessment could be

found back on the INSPIRE geoportal, but only one of these datasets had a view

service, while none of them had a download service. In absolute terms, France and

the UK had most datasets with a view service (16 in France, 9 in the UK) and also

most datasets with a download service (15 in France, 12 in the UK). For the

Netherlands and Ireland, only a limited number of the assessed datasets could be

found back on the INSPIRE geoportal, but for most of these datasets a view service

and/or a download service was defined.

Table 109 - Availability of view services and download services.

Number of

evaluated

datasets

found back

in INSPIRE

geoportal

Number of

datasets

with view

service

Percentage

of datasets

with view

service

Number of

datasets

with

download

service

Percentage

of datasets

with

download

service

Germany 7 6 85,7% 1 14,2%

Spain 19 1 5,2% 0 0%

France 22 16 72,2% 15 68,1%

Hungary 0 0 0% 0 0%

Ireland 4 3 75,0% 3 75,0%

Poland 1 0 0% 0 0%

Netherlands 6 4 66,6% 4 66,6%

Romania 8 0 0% 0 0%

Sweden 21 3 14,2% 3 14,2%

United

Kingdom

23 9 39,1% 12 52,1%

Total 111 42 37,8% 38 34,2%

When assessing the compliance of the view and download services, it seemed that

none of the assessed services was accessible (no restrictions) and fully compliant with

INSPIRE requirements.

6.3.6 Conclusion

To summarize the results of our assessment, Table 20 shows the number of datasets

that are compliant with the different requirements of INSPIRE. Strictly speaking,

although the process of implementation of the INSPIRE Directive is foreseen to be

concluded by 2020, it can be argued that at this stage none of the assessed datasets

is fully compliant with INSPIRE, since few of the datasets is compliant with the data

specifications and none of the datasets have view and download services that are fully

compliant with the requirements of INSPIRE.


September 2014 110

Table 20 - Overview of results of assessment.

Nu

mb

er o

f

evalu

ate

d

data

sets

Data

sets

fou

nd

back

in I

NS

PIR

E

Geo

po

rtal

Data

sets

wit

hou

t

issu

es o

n

meta

data

Data

sets

wit

h v

iew

serv

ice

Data

sets

wit

h

do

wn

load

serv

ice

Data

sets

co

mp

lian

t

wit

h d

ata

sp

ecif

icati

o

ns

(rep

orte

d)

Data

sets

with

com

pliant

vie

w

serv

ice

Data

sets

with

com

pliant

dow

nlo

ad

serb

ice

Germany

39 7 17,9%

0 0,0%

6 85,7%

1 14,2%

1 2,5%

0 0,0%

0 0,0%

Spain 34 19

55,8% 0

0,0% 1

2,9% 0

0,0% 3

8,8% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

France 32 22

68,7% 0

0,0% 16

50% 15

46,8% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

Hungary 5 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 4

80% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

Ireland 17 4

23,5% 4

23,5% 3

17,6% 3

17,6% 3

17,6% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

Poland 6 1

16,6% 1

16,6% 0

0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

Netherlands 26 6

23,0% 1

3,8% 4

15,3% 4

15,3% 1

3,8% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

Romania 26 8

30,7% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

Sweden 38 21

55,2% 17

44,7% 3

7,8% 3

7,8% 1

2,6% 0

0,0% 0

0,0%

United Kingdom

31 23 74,1%

1 3,2%

9 29,0%

12 38,7%

0 0,0%

0 0,0%

0 0,0%

Table 20 allows us to compare the status of INSPIRE implementation between

different countries, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each country:

A key problem in Hungary, Ireland, Poland, the Netherlands, Romania and Sweden

is the low number of datasets that are recognized as INSPIRE datasets, i.e.

datasets that are reported in the INSPIRE Monitoring sheets. Throughout the

screening of websites and portals, several relevant datasets were discovered that

officially fall under INSPIRE but were not mentioned in the INSPIRE monitoring

sheets;

An important weakness in Hungary is the lack of a discovery service that is defined

as an endpoint in the EU INSPIRE geoportal. As a result, none of the datasets of

Hungary can be discovered through the EU INSPIRE geoportal;

While in Germany, Romania, the Netherlands, Ireland, and Poland some datasets

can be found back on the EU INSPIRE geoportal, for most of the relevant datasets

this is not the case, which makes them invisible and inaccessible to the European

community;

A key strength of Germany, Spain, France and the UK is that they have reported a

broad set of spatial datasets under the INSPIRE monitoring sheets and also have

made most of their data discoverable through the EU INSPIRE geoportal;

Also in Sweden the majority of the relevant spatial datasets can be found back on

the EU INSPIRE geoportal. An important strength of Sweden is that for most

datasets the metadata are fully compliant with the INSPIRE requirements on

metadata. In Ireland only a small number of datasets can be discovered through

the EU INSPIRE geoportal, but all these datasets have metadata that are fully

compliant with INSPIRE;


September 2014 111

Although Spain has reported many datasets in the INSPIRE Monitoring sheets,

and has made more than half of these datasets discoverable through the EU

geoportal, none of these datasets have metadata that are fully compliant with

INSPIRE. Also the number of datasets with a view service and/or download service

is very low;

UK and especially Germany and France were most successful in making their data

available through view services and download services. In France, almost half of

the datasets in the assessment is accessible through view and download services;

Three requirements are hardly met by any of the examined countries: the

compliance of data with data specifications, and the compliance of view services

and download services with the relevant requirements.


l

7 Outcomes of feedback

7.1 Stakeholder survey

To control for our objectivity in this work and to allow for detecting whether we have

missed essential information we performed a stakeholder survey. To guarantee a

uniform way of requesting and collecting feedback from stakeholders we developed a

questionnaire with drop-down menus and in a way that replies can be handled in an

efficient and structured manner. For authorities managing the Natura 2000 websites

we included an additional specific set of questions.

7.1.1 Respondent profile

Of the originally consulted stakeholders 28% filled out the questionnaire. In total 57

persons were consulted. An additional 10 persons who intended to attend the

workshop have been provided the possibility to fill out the questionnaire.

Figure 177 gives an insight in the respondents profiles:

Most respondents (12/16) work for a governmental organization. Only two of the

respondents work for an NGO (HU, IE) and one for a private company (UK).

There is no respondent for the following country:

o Romania

There is only one respondent for the following countries:

o Germany

o Spain

o Ireland

o France

o Poland


September 2014 114

Figure 177: Survey Respondents profile

Most of the respondents (8/16) work in policy development. Other fields of work

are: land use planning, spatial planning, GIS and data management, conservation,

Environmental impact assessment and policy research.

Most work on a national level (11/16), while 4 work on a sub national level and 1

on an EU/intra national level. One respondent works on all three levels.

The majority of the surveys did not reply to all questions that required text

(explanations, opinion, …) . Part of the respondents gave the same answer for

several themes, e.g. when asked to explain why they do (not) agree with the

report.

7.1.2 Stakeholder perspective of our portal survey

Except for two countries, the main portals have been identified correctly in the

survey findings report.

- For Sweden, a different subpage was reported as main portal. The

respondents for Sweden however indicate that webpages (the portal website)

have been changed since the first stages of this study.

- For France, a different webpage was indicated as main portal. The respondent

for France, however, indicated to fully agree with the survey results for the

main portal

Aside from the UK the respondents either fully or partly agree with the survey

reports findings for the main portal. The web content for Natura 2000 information

is currently under review in the UK. One of the UK respondents states as remark

for not (partly) agreeing with the survey report findings: “The report provides a

helpful analysis of the current provisions in the UK (in regard to EU Nature


September 2014 115

Directives). However, in view of the ongoing work to improve the access to

information (e.g. development of GOV.UK), it is difficult to draw any conclusions at

this stage”.

7.1.3 Stakeholder perspective of our page/content survey

The matrix underneath shows a score based on the respondents answers for the three

main questions and this for each theme:

How important is the theme in your field of work?

How easy can one find the information?

To what degree do you agree with the report’s findings?

These questions were asked in a multiple choice format. Appointing a score (1 to 10)

to each answer allowed to calculate the score. A distinction was made between the

subgroups: Government, NGO and Private Sector. The last three columns of the table

give an integrated view on the results for each theme. Due to the limited amount of

data, the results should be evaluated with care.

When looking at the group NGO versus Government, respondents working for the

government, seem to find it easier to find the information. This could easily be

explained by the fact that these people are involved in the structure behind many of

the portals and are very knowledgeable about the way information is disseminated for

their working field. This could also explain why NGO representatives agree to a larger

degree with the report’s results.

Interesting to see is that information on impact assessments and compensation

related to Natura 2000 is more important to NGO’s (and private sector) and less

important to governmental organisations. With regard to the private sector, at this

point, we cannot offer conclusions as this group was represented by only one

respondent1.

1 this respondent indicated to partly disagree (2.5/10 score), but gave as remark that the report

was ‘largely accurate’, which seems to be contradictory and indicates that there might be a

need for at least three respondents in order to be able to ‘read’ the scores

Active dissemination of Natura 2000 information – Workshop 24 October 2014

l


l

7.1.4 Stakeholder needs and expectations on online information

Overall, ‘legal and policy aspects’ and ‘conservation objectives, measures and

management plans’ are the most important themes in the work of the respondents.

Financing Natura 2000, scientific research and public information and participation

seem the least important themes in the work of the respondents.

‘Financing Natura 2000’, ‘impact assessment and compensation’ and ‘legal aspects’

seem to be the hardest themes to find information on. Most of the respondents

indicate information on these themes to be difficult to find (respectively 11, 10 and 10

respondents out of 16). This confirms the findings of the survey.

For the UK there were four or more respondents, allowing to assess whether

responses are similar:

In the UK:

Information on legal and policy aspects is unanimously found to be moderately

difficult to be accessed. Several respondents point to an ongoing process of

reviewing what information is needed to be made public.

It is difficult to find information on impact assessments and compensation. The

reason for this is that there are many different relevant webpages and that the

information is to be found at the competent authority level (e.g. local planning

authority).

Two respondents from governmental organizations systematically find it easier

to access information than the other two respondents (NGO and private

company).

The ongoing process of changing the information pages to gov.uk, emphasizes

the fact that the report offers an impression of available information at a certain

moment.

Some of the respondents are involved in delivering information on Natura 2000 to the

broader public. As such, they are very well placed to comment whether the survey

findings are correct. As they are very familiar with the websites, it is more obvious to

them where certain information can be found. This, however, can in part explain the

dissimilarities different respondents indicate regarding the difficulty in accessing the

right information (even though they both indicate the topic as being very relevant for

their work). Another reason is that some websites have ‘hidden’2 pages with

information that is only accessible for so-called ‘outsiders’ (e.g. Sweden, pages on

financing Natura 2000).

This points to one of the main challenges in the dissemination of information: how to

ensure that end users find the right information.

2 pages are behind a firewall / secure access mechanism


September 2014 118

7.1.5 Stakeholders expectations for the workshop

The respondents favored the following topics to be addressed in the workshop:

1. Dissemination framework and survey study:

clarification of the specific legal and EU policy requirements regarding

information dissemination;

Key conclusions of the EU study;

Sharing good examples.

2. Guidelines for online information

Who are possible end-users of the information

o Spatial planners

o Agriculture: How can land users receive information on management

prescriptions, land management recommendations at site/ farm and

even parcel level? -> Mainstreaming Natura 2000 information to

agricultural advisory networks throughout web applications.

o How is information on Natura 2000 accessed by land managers and

citizens? How should it be provided to the public?

What data on NATURA 2000 is really needed? Differences between the

countries (policy and plans) “The minimum requirements for Natura 2000 in

comparison to what countries actually do/implement”

Which level (EU/ Member state/ Region) is best placed to provide the

different data?

How should one structure the available information?

Use of an intranet where relevant NGO's and the competent body could

share data, maps and ideas

Financing information

o technical and human resources

o financing nature engagement of the public through the new

communication technology.

Quality control of information on the internet

This all seems to indicate the need for a SIIF.

3. Additional elements of interest, following the discussions with and ideas of

other MS colleagues and being considerate of having only 16 respondents


September 2014 119

7.1.6 Stakeholders perspective on IT possibilities and room for

interaction

None of the respondents are aware of market applications based on re-use of Natura

2000 datasets (e.g. services based on user-friendly visualization of data).

In order to have in-depth conclusions on data driven innovations and interaction with

the broader public it would be beneficial to have more fully filled-out questionnaires.

However, some conclusions can be drawn:

While respondents indicate a potential for data-driven innovation, this is not made

explicit with examples;

There is resistance against having the private market use public data for their

service. The data are public, compiled and financed by the public. Therefore the

data have to be free for the public and should not be used for (private) market

purposes.

Some of the respondents indicate that they see a potential for data driven innovations

(5/16). However, many have chosen not to answer this question (9/16). Some of the

remarks are:

A combination of data gives better insights for developments in and around the

protected areas;

There might be potential, but a lot of choices are political;

The Nature Directives information within the scope of the Survey Findings

Report, would form only a small part of the scope of these services. The most

concrete indications for interaction and innovation are related to working fields

that have a possible impact on Natura 2000 (land use, (master) planning,

farming,...). This supports the opinion that a successful tool can be achieved by

not solely focusing on the Nature Directives.

The answer to whether there is room for more interaction is primarily “yes”. Some

respondents add their ideas on what this should entail:

Bringing information together and giving specific information;

Land use prescriptions and financing mechanisms at site level;

An interactive map linking to positive and easily understood explanations of the

rationale behind designations along with interactive information on habitats and

species.

One respondent sees attractive and interactive websites as a possibility to change

people’s view on Natura 2000 for the better and change the perception of nature

conservation as a constraint. Resources and creativity are indicated as key elements

to unlock the online potential.

Only one respondent indicated that he does not see more room for interaction and

would rather inform the public at the moment measures will be carried out and not

organize more interaction. The indicated reason is that Natura 2000 information is

very specific and complicated. Another respondent states that the challenge is more to

get nature conservation professionals to use online information and learn from it.

Although interaction is in generally seen as being a positive development, one should

be clear on the objectives and provide the necessary information from an end-users

point of view: who would benefit from what information. It can be necessary to adapt


September 2014 120

the depth and complexity of information for these purposes, especially if information is

seen as sensitive or can be misunderstood.

7.1.7 A national competent authorities’ perspective

There are data available for these questions for the following countries: Germany,

Hungary, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden (limited) and the United Kingdom.

In Hungary and Germany there is no specific official policy with regard to the

dissemination of online environmental information. All environmental data have to be

provided however, according to e.g. the Aarhus Convention. In Spain, legislation is

under review and the implementation of new ideas on dissemination is dependent on

the available budget. In the UK, the government is leading the development of

GOV.UK, which is bringing most of the online information and services from

government together in one place. In Hungary and Sweden there are plans to review

or set-up webpages and IT infrastructure. In Germany, there is a more gradual

approach by making improvements when data is improved or added.

These upcoming changes could benefit from an in-depth discussion on where and how

online information should be disclosed.

While in the UK and Germany IT resources are deemed sufficient in order to cope

with the obligations, In Hungary their might be a shortage of human resources in

order to collect, analyse, process and publish the data. One respondent also points to

the dependence of an agency on other governmental bodies in order to deliver the

right information, as a possible liability.

No data were given on the administrative burden or cost-effectiveness of

information systems. The following remarks were made:

The introduction phase is demanding. This phase needs a motivated and well-

educated staff and continuous IT support. For a system to be cost-effective, it may

take a few years. (HU)

The information system should be simple. Focus should be on making agreements

on the development of Natura 2000 and monitoring the results. Do not monitor

measures or policy. (NL)

The burden is not too high, but cost-effectiveness is low. (NL)

Information systems are only effective if they are useful for one or more targeted

user groups. (DE)

In general, the provision of on-line information is likely to reduce administrative

burden (e.g. in regard to dealing with information requests from the public). (UK)

The identified obstacles and constraints to expanding online information are:

Data availability: Lack of open data and at the same time the need to protect

sensitive information (e.g. location of rare species etc.).

Resources: The right infrastructure (e.g.; broadband internet access), staff and

finances (e.g. to set up monitoring and data collection activities).

Lack of awareness.

EU financial assistance is deemed useful by all of the respondents (NL, ES, UK) and

even needed (HU). Inspire data should be free of charge for all governmental bodies

in order to be able to fulfill reporting obligations. The UK respondent specifies that

support for innovative projects that seek to improve on-line tools would appear useful,

provided they deliver a clear conservation gain.


September 2014 121

7.1.8 Additional remarks

Regularly the questionnaire does not give an answer as to why respondents do not

fully agree with reports findings. This is most often the case when ‘partly agree’ is

indicated: possibly, respondents do not feel comfortable with indicating ‘fully

agree’. Another reason might be the extra time it takes to write an explanation.

The additional websites are sometimes only reported in the first section of the

questionnaire (part A).

Many of the remarks are about webpages that have regional information. It is clear

that the survey does not cover all of the more detailed regional resources and that

this is a knowledge gap. Often, this type of information is also reported to be more

difficult to find.

A UK respondent states that more needs to be done by governments to understand

what information is useful/needed by end-users


l

8 Outcomes of the workshop

8.1 Workshop programme

WORKSHOP

Brussels, 24 October 2014,

Brussels 1160, Avenue de Beaulieu 5, room BU5 0/046

PROGRAMME

09:00 - 09:15 Welcome coffee and registration of participants

Introduction by Director Mr Aurel CIOBANU-DORDEA

09:15 - 10:45 Session I: What information should be made actively

available and why?

The Access to Information Directive, 2003/4/EC and the INSPIRE Directive,

2007/2/EC, already create requirements to provide online environmental information.

The Aarhus Convention also provides for active dissemination of information. This

session will set the scene by looking at the implications of these requirements for

environmental information generated by the implementation of the Birds Directive,

2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC. The Commission will present the

legal and policy background, with a perspective from an Aarhus Convention expert

following. Arcadis/University of Leuven (KUL)/European Centre for Nature

Conservation (ECNC) will summarise the sorts of information currently presented

online in the Member States surveyed. There will be end-user perspectives from a

consultant and BirdLife, setting out the practical value of having information available

online. A discussion will follow.

Moderator: Mr Robert KONRAD (DG ENV)

09:15 - 09:25 Commission overview by Mr Michael O'BRIAIN and

Adam Daniel NAGY (DG ENV)

09:25 - 09:35 The Aarhus Convention perspective: Mr Rudolf

LEGAT (Austrian Environmental Agency)

09:35 - 09:50 Findings of Arcadis/KUL/ECNC: Mr Johan

LAMMERANT (Arcadis)

09:50 - 10:00 A consultant's user perspective: Mr Bernard

FLEMING

10:00 - 10:10 An NGO user perspective: Mr Wouter LANGHOUT

(Birdlife)

10:10 - 10:45 Discussion

10:45 - 11:00 Coffee break


September 2014 124

11:00 - 12:30 Session II: Where and how is the information made

available?

As with other public authorities, nature conservation authorities typically operate web

portals to communicate information to the public. This session will focus on experience

with online systems, in particular official web portals. Arcadis/KUL/ECNC will present

their criteria for assessing web portals and the results of their study. There will be

presentations from two Member States highlighting the positive role that such portals

can play. There will also be a presentation on the lessons that can be drawn from data

challenges at EU level, including how the need for a more sophisticated Natura 2000

viewer is proposed to be addressed.

Moderator: Mr Stefan LEINER/MICHEAL O'BRIAIN (DG ENV)

11:00 – 11:15 Arcadis/KUL/ECNC study findings: Mr Mark

SNETHLAGE (ECNC)

11:15 - 11:25 The Irish experience: Mr John GARETH (National

Parks and Wildlife Service)

11:25 - 11:35 The UK experience: Mr Dave CHAMBERS (JNCC)

11.35 - 11:45 Meeting challenges at EU level: Mr Frank VASSEN

(DG ENV)

11:45 – 12:30 Discussion

12:30 - 13:30 Lunch break (a light meal will be served at the

venue)

13:30-15:00 Session III: How can the management and use of spatial

information be improved?

In Europe, the INSPIRE Directive, 2007/2/EC is giving a major impetus to the

geospatial industry, a leading sector in global economic growth, by putting in place the

infrastructure that enables a multitude of software applications to be developed. This

session will assess the relevance and importance of managing and using spatial

information in the context of the two nature directives. It will consist of a Commission

overview of the wider role of INSPIRE, the findings of the Arcadis/KUL/ECNC on the

influence of INSPIRE to date on the two nature directives and expert perspectives on

the challenges involved in getting the most value from nature-related spatial

information.

Moderator: Mr Hugo DE GROOF (DG ENV)

13:30 – 13:40 Commission overview by Mr Hugo DE GROOF

13:40 - 13:50 JRC perspective: Mr Paul Smits

13:50 – 14:05 Arcadis/KUL/ECNC study findings: Mr Danny

VANDENBROUCKE (KUL)

14:05 – 14:15 Expert perspective from Finland: Mrs Aija KUKKALA

(Helsinki University)

14:15 - 14:25 Expert perspective from Belgium: Mr Bart DERONDE

14:25 - 14:35 Expert perspective from Romania: Mrs Cristina-

Violeta OANA



September 2014 125

15:00 - 15:10 Coffee break

15:10 - 16:40 Session IV: Overall lessons and next steps

This session will seek to draw lessons from the previous sessions and outline options

for improving online information for the two nature directives, including for example

the use of a structured checklist for information on implementation (the so-called

"SIIF" concept).

Moderator: Mr Robert KONRAD/Mr Liam CASHMAN (DG ENV)

15:10 – 15:20 The European Environmental Agency's perspective:

Mrs Rania Spyropoulou


16:40 - 16:50 Closure and concluding remarks

8.2 Workshop report

The aim of the process is to discuss the better, smarter and more efficient

dissemination of the data and information resulting from and relating to the nature

Directives. The disclosure of this information should be seen in the context of the

Access to Information and Inspire Directives. It also relates to the currently running

Fitness Check, i.e. the process of evaluating and exploring the potential for

improvement of the Natura 2000 legislation.

The broader framework concerns the developments in information technology and

making information better available to the public. Questions that emerge are:

Which best practices can be shared (best soft law solutions)?

Which are the most effective solutions for decreasing the administrative burden

for public administrations (MS and EC)?

How many solutions could be provided through e-government?

How to improve interactions with the public?

How can needs and expectations of end-users be met?

In a nutshell it comes down to using modern information technology to facilitate

administrative work and enforcement related to the implementation of nature policy

and legislation. In this context it may help to consider the potential of using a SIIF to

improve the delivery of MS administrations tasks and duties.

In what follows, a synopsis of the oral presentations is provided. Full presentations will

be shared by the European Commission with workshop attendants. In addition, the

discussions that were held during the day are also reported. The workshop programme

is attached in Appendix B.

Session I: What information should be made actively available and why?

The Access to Information Directive, 2003/4/EC and the INSPIRE Directive,

2007/2/EC, require Member States to provide online environmental information. The

Aarhus Convention also provides for active dissemination of information. This session

sets the scene by looking at the implications of these requirements for environmental

information required for and generated by the implementation of the Birds Directive,


September 2014 126

2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC. The Commission presented the legal

and policy background, followed by the perspective from an Aarhus Convention

expert. The contractor (a consortium comprising ARCADIS (lead), University of Leuven

(KUL) and ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation) summarised the outcomes

of their study on the environmental information currently presented online in the ten

Member States included in the survey. End-user perspectives were presented by a

private consultant and an international conservation NGO, setting out the practical

value of having information available online. The presentations were followed by a

discussion.

Commission overview by Mr Michael O'BRIAIN and Adam Daniel NAGY (DG

ENV)

Legal framework: Aarhus Convention (1998) art. 5; Access to Information Directive

(2003) art. 7 and Inspire Directive (2007).

Principles and objectives:

2008: 7 principles of good information management (SEIS)

2013: 7th Environment Action Programme: aims by 2020. Priority objective 4

(paragraph 65) and 5 (paragraph 73).

Types of information that should be available to the public for implementation of the

HD and BD:

Legal documents underpinning the Directives;

Natura 2000 related information: site designation, conservation objectives,

management instruments, information for appropriate assessment,

compensation;

Information on financing opportunities for Natura 2000;

Species protection information;

Research, monitoring and reporting information;

Public information and participation.

The Aarhus Convention perspective: Mr Rudolf LEGAT (Austrian

Environmental Agency)

The convention’s framework: it promotes the active dissemination of environmental

information, but advises to restrain access to information that may lead to harming

the environment such as in the case of information on rare or endangered species’

precise geographical distribution. An implementation guide3 is available and very

useful.

Recommendations for more effective dissemination of information by electronic tools

(www.unece.org/env/pp/electronictools.html):

Formulate e-government strategies;

Establish one-stop access point(s) for citizen-oriented environmental related e-

governmental services;

Maintain a national web site.

3http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/treaties/public-participation/publications/public-

participation/2013/aarhus-convention-implementation-guide-second-edition-text-only-version.html

http://www.unece.org/env/pp/electronictools.html

http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/treaties/public-participation/publications/public-participation/2013/aarhus-convention-implementation-guide-second-edition-text-only-version.html

http://www.unece.org/environmental-policy/treaties/public-participation/publications/public-participation/2013/aarhus-convention-implementation-guide-second-edition-text-only-version.html


September 2014 127

Benefits of dissemination of environmental information include, among other things:

information being the currency of democracy, improved quality of decision making,

reduced number of information requests and positive impact on implementation.

Findings of ARCADIS/KU Leuven/ECNC: Mr Johan LAMMERANT (ARCADIS)

The study reviewed how European Member States (for a selection of 10 EU Member

States) currently disseminate information related to the implementation of the Birds

and Habitats Directives and Natura 2000. The study results were obtained by an

assessment of the national main access portals and a systematic review of a

substantial number of web pages that jointly provide the widest possible data and

information coverage of provisions of the nature Directives. Based on its review of

online provision of content and the feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, the

contractor formulated a number of suggestions for consideration by the workshop

participants. These suggestions related to the 7 common data and information themes

that have been extracted from a detailed analysis of the nature Directives. These are

explained in depth in the workshop document and in the study report.

An example was provided on which online information would facilitate the process and

preparation of appropriate assessments and technical assessments of complaints and

infringements. In spite of the fact that information on sites is provided through

sources such as the Standard Data Form and similar sources at national level, details

of species and habitat distribution within a site, which are very important for carrying

out appropriate assessments, are in general not provided. Another important source of

information for these exercises are the results of earlier EIAs, AA´s, and permit

decisions.

A consultant's user perspective: Mr Bernard FLEMING

Mr Fleming presented his views on the current situation in England (not UK) as

regards the availability of data and information required to perform a range of

ecological assessment tasks: it is a mixture of good and bad practices, with some

complex guidance being available, but often vague conservation objectives, a lack of

spatial information, a lack of management information, inconsistent site information,

and sometimes inconsistent (or even wrong!) government guidance.

He suggested that it would be better for government to provide less but correct and

reliable information, rather than more, but vague or even incorrect, data and

information.

He also reported on his views regarding the role of data, information, and their

understanding and correct use by the competent authorities. His opinion is that in

England, 5% of major cases are managed effectively, but for 95% the situation is less

comfortable. Many competent authorities lack the skills to carry out their duties.

As a consequence, people in key positions tend to make rapid decisions that are wrong

(small damages accumulating) and sometimes act too precautionary not being backed

sufficiently by sound data and then being too careful and not deciding.

Three priorities for improving the data and information provision in England:

Make sure existing data is accurate;

Develop simple, effective spatial tools;

Provide better guidance in particular for art. 6(3) and 6(4) and keep it up-to-

date.


September 2014 128

Finally, he hinted at a possible solution, parallel and in addition to government

information services private companies may provide a subscription-based guidance

that is detailed and up-to-date.

An NGO user perspective: Mr Wouter LANGHOUT (Birdlife)

Effective monitoring of the correct application of the nature Directives by independent

watchdogs such as Birdlife partners and possible (legal) action to fight abuses are only

possible if reliable data and information are available and accessible. At all levels of

the enforcement chain, data and information are needed. This is especially true for

small NGOs with limited resources for carrying out their own monitoring and data

gathering. Access to information needs to be seen in the context of improving access

to the justice and the enforcement chain. Information should be available in an easy

accessible way (considering most end-users are non-GIS or non-IT experts). To play

their role of watchdog over the implementation of Europe’s nature legislation, NGOs

would need to have maps of the sites (downloadable for further analysis), site

conservation objectives, links to management plans and horizontal protection

measures, vegetation maps and/or land use data of the sites, maps that indicate

which authority is responsible for which part of the site, links to appropriate

assessments and screenings on the site, and ecologically relevant information such as

habitat type occurrence within the site and species’ usage of the site. NGOs also need

public information on appropriate assessments, including all the full appropriate

assessments, with information on public consultation and mitigation and compensation

measures, all projects screened out and all rejected projects. In order to identify

cumulative effects, they ask for the addition of keywords which help identify projects

with similar impacts.

Discussion

A first question related to Article 17. Art 17 reports contain much relevant

information on habitats and species in the EU. Considering reports are prepared

for the EC, do Member States make Art.17 reporting data and information

available to the public online? It is the intention of the European Commission to

make this information publicly available from 2015 onwards.

Another question related to whether desirable information is available, but not

disseminated, or not at all available? Much is available, but not centrally

accessible, hence much fragmented and difficult to have any overview. Also,

we do not necessarily make good use of what is available.

Good practice example: Denmark has developed an online GIS platform for the

dissemination of spatial data related to protected nature. This platform also

includes the information per relevant spatial unit (for example a specific region)

on which funding opportunities are available within that spatial unit.

Information to be found in MS on Natura 2000 dissemination is not necessarily

to be found through Nature Directives terminology or reference to articles of

these Directives, this because it is made accessible through the MS referring to

national legislation. Also, much information is made available through local

administrations only.

For specialists much information may be accessible, but how much is available

to the general public and to which degree are they aware? Much of the

available information cannot be understood by the “man in the street”.

However, the Aarhus Convention is for the general public. For example, do not

introduce species names in Latin, show them with a picture and provide a link

to easy-to-understand information. But this also raises the question as to how

much the general public is interested.


September 2014 129

It is a huge challenge to bring Natura 2000 to the general public and to the

different audiences. For a legal framework one needs technical documents.

How to get information accessible for the public; a major challenge for the MS.

Guidance about the implementation of the nature Directives, including sector

specific documents, is being developed and updated. Also data provision needs

to reflect the complementarity in the roles of the European Commission, the

Member States and the regions.

Recognize constraints and reasons for why information was collected. This may

not necessarily serve other needs.

User-friendliness of portals is important. Much information is available but not

necessarily accessible for the layman because of technical challenges.

Stakeholders and general public are mostly interested in specific sites, not in

general information.

Session II: Where and how is the information made available?


portals to communicate information to the public. This session focused on the

experience with online systems and, in particular, official web portals. ARCADIS/KU

Leuven/ECNC presented their criteria for assessing web portals and the results of their

study. There were presentations from two Member States (Ireland and the UK)

highlighting the positive role that such portals can play. There also was a presentation

on the lessons that can be drawn from data challenges at EU level, including how the

need for a more sophisticated Natura 2000 viewer is proposed to be addressed.

ARCADIS/KU Leuven/ECNC study findings: Mr Mark SNETHLAGE (ECNC)

At Member State level, the portals related to the Birds and Habitats Directives offering

the widest range of useful data for these Directives are in general the Natura 2000

portals. But in many cases not all data and information relevant to all articles of these

Directives are presented on the Natura 2000 sites. Therefore, a range of web sites is

often required to provide the full coverage. In addition, most countries have not one

portal but many entry points to Natura 2000 information. Which is the main portal

depends on the users’ point of view. An overview of some good practices on how good

information is available online for the seven themes (details in workshop document)

was presented. Sometimes information is available but not linked to Natura 2000. For

example, AA information can be found on EIA website, but is not linked to (spatial)

Natura 2000 information or to sites or species.

The Irish experience: Mr Gareth JOHN (National Parks and Wildlife Service)

This presentation was focussed on sharing some good practice from the National Parks

and Wildlife Service (http://www.npws.ie/), not on providing a comprehensive

overview of the data provision services in Ireland. For example protected sites are

easily accessible with an online viewer and species information

(http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/). This is connected to the Irish Spatial Data

Infrastructure. Individual site pages provide information on conservation objectives.

Other important and useful online resources for planning in and around protected sites

include Myplan, i.e. a free and easy to use public information system about the

development plan or local area (http://www.myplan.ie/en/index.html).

http://www.npws.ie/

http://webgis.npws.ie/npwsviewer/

http://www.myplan.ie/en/index.html


September 2014 130

The UK experience: Mr Dave CHAMBERS (JNCC)

The UK provides a slightly heterogeneous image with regard to the four countries it

comprises. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) has information on each

and every UK Natura 2000 site, but information is limited. Most of the information is

available at the country level. A recent development in providing comprehensive

nature conservation information concerns a pilot project for the offshore protected

sites that aims to be a “one-stop-shop”, starting with high level accessible information

but also technical advice and information, and interactive maps for the advanced end-

user. Country portals have very detailed information on site specific monitoring.

Art. 17 reporting is so much work, that MS administration are thrilled to get it done,

and consider it an end-point for reporting, rather than a starting point for further use

and exploitation at Member State level. On the other hand Art 17 reporting might

benefit a lot from a more systematic recording of information for all sites.

As an example of good practice, the UK recently published information on a portal on

case law with respect to Natura 2000.

Future challenges include:

Developing improved guidance for stakeholders;

Updating Standard Data Forms by the end of 2015;

Join all information up to UK level;

“Nature Directives” information needs to be part of a wider picture on nature

state and pressures with detailed spatial information.

Meeting challenges at EU level: Mr Frank VASSEN (DG ENV)

With regards to the dissemination of environmental information related to the

implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, the Commission has three main

challenges:

EC only has access to the data that it receives from the MS. MS typically only

provide the minimum that is asked for, and not what may additionally be

available.

Technical challenges in bringing information of 28 MS together and being

disseminated. For example, it was a challenge that different GIS projection

systems were used by different MS.

The way data is presented should consider EU added value: comparing the

situation in different MS and providing the “bigger picture”.

Natura 2000 viewer:

It is a popular tool: on average 2000 unique users daily;

It is a tool for the EC, the topic centres, but also for the informed public and

has potential as an education tool for the general public;

Use the viewer as an incentive for MS to improve data quality and

completeness;

Some future challenges:

o Possibly too much functionality within a single tool. Now considering

whether it is possible to cater specifically for each of the different end-

users. Thus exploring whether having more viewers than having a single

viewer would be more suitable; or to have a same starting point but

various ways of then continuing depending on the user needs and

requirements;

o Challenge is to cover also historical data (at least last 5 years);


September 2014 131

o Solve the time gap between delivery of data by MS and the information

being disseminated through the viewer.

Discussion

Sometimes it is a challenge to find specific information, although it is available.

Good practice examples of MS that were not included in the 10 studied MS are

very much welcome.

Considering the various end-users: is a single entry point, a central portal,

advisable? A suggestion is made to indeed have central portals in place per MS.

A question also rises about whether it is advisable to have Natura 2000

information isolated from all other environmental or spatial planning issues, or

whether it could be or should be merged with other relevant environmental

information (in particular pressures, threats, uses etc.).

A lot of citizen science is feeding Natura 2000 information. How to establish a

link between citizen science data and useful Natura 2000 information? What

about validation?

The focus should not be restricted to sites, but it should be recognised that

Natura 2000 is a network of sites. Information about the environment

neighbouring the sites is essential for the good management of these sites.

How can available information outside of Natura 2000 sites be integrated in

optimal way?

Can online systems be open-source and how does that relate to cyber safety?

Information needs to be up-to-date to be useful. Perfect is the enemy of the

good. Creating a great system now may cause challenges down the road. A

first step for improvement may be to make sure that available online

information remains up-to-date.

Future strategies should consider how to make best use of the information that

is already available.

Information needs to be structured to meet the goals.

The Natura 2000 Viewer clearly has an enormous potential. If it also includes

an inventory of other protected areas (other protection status than Natura

2000) the tool could be a perfect instrument to identify ecological corridors and

the missing links, also at transnational level. A clear view on user needs

(maybe by means of online survey) might provide much useful information that

could feed into the future strategy for elaborating the Natura 2000 Viewer.

Session III: How can the management and use of spatial information be

improved?

In Europe, the INSPIRE Directive, 2007/2/EC is giving a major impetus to the

geospatial industry, a leading sector in global economic growth, by putting in place the

infrastructure that enables a multitude of software applications to be developed. This

session assessed the relevance and importance of managing and using spatial

information in the context of the two nature Directives. It consisted of a Commission

overview of the wider role of INSPIRE, the findings of the ARCADIS/KU Leuven/ECNC

on the influence of INSPIRE to date on the two nature Directives and expert

perspectives on the challenges involved in getting the most value from nature-related

spatial information.


September 2014 132

Overview by Mr Hugo DE GROOF

If information is the water, than INSPIRE is the system that brings water where it is

needed and can bring water together to serve needs. INSPIRE is not a goal but the

road.

JRC perspective: Mr Jiri Hradec

Why Europe needs a spatial data infrastructure? Just an example: 70% of fresh water

bodies in Europe are part of a trans-boundary system. Europe is a patchwork in many

ways, also in the field of geospatial data management. There is a need for cross-

sector data interoperability (sharing information across disciplines). INSPIRE is a

technical vehicle for data sharing, it is there, available and accepted. Currently there

are > 340.000 datasets: how to link and harmonize them, which ones are easy to find,

which ones are aggregated? Historical data are emerging and have much value. About

50% of data related to Annex 1 are not yet harmonized. This should be seen as good

news, work remains to be done, but much has been accomplished (glass is half full,

not half empty). Europe has a “one-stop-shop” with the INSPIRE Geoportal. How to

ensure satisfying user’s needs? Publishing the data to serve which needs? A path

paved for SIIFs. One of the disadvantages of INPIRE is that it concerns spatial data

only, but reporting usually requires more than only spatial data.

ARCADIS/KU Leuven/ECNC study findings: Mr Danny VANDENBROUCKE (KU

Leuven)

How can an end-user search and find data? It is often difficult to understand the

context of datasets and to judge whether a dataset meets your needs. User questions

often include: are there conditions for using the data?; how reliable is the dataset?;

who is responsible for data? The most important observation may be that there is

often a lack of integration with non-spatial information. INSPIRE was set up to

eliminate these barriers and allow for re-use of spatial data and services.

Harmonization requires having European standards. This includes, for example, to use

identical descriptions and categories across Europe for how soils are described (data

model). The INSPIRE assessment of MS showed that significant improvement remains

possible, however, there are several good practices available that can inspire MS.

Recommendations:

INSPIRE should be considered as an opportunity rather than an obligation;

INSPIRE will serve many purposes, not only environmental policy;

Joint responsibility for data providers and coordinators to share tasks and

responsibilities;

Make existing data available as soon as possible through the INSPIRE

infrastructure;

Complete and revise metadata and provide view and download services;

Seize opportunities for more advanced viewing or downloading possibilities,

possibly serving various end-users;

Analyse datasets and evaluate whether they are compliant with INSPIRE

specifications;

Review arrangements for providing public assess.

Expert perspective from Finland: Mrs Aija KUKKALA (Helsinki University)

Ajia Kukkala provided a researcher’s perspective on INSPIRE and spatial conservation

planning and presented a tool called Zonation. Biodiversity research is a data-

intensive science with the researcher as a data end-user. Challenges the researcher is

facing include: data availability, data quality, data documentation (for example how to

refer to data)? She provided a suggestion: it would be of value to have notifications

that data are updated (improved communication between data producers and users).


September 2014 133

A message from researchers is that they have the methods, but are missing data. The

ideal is to have harmonized up-to-date high quality data.

Expert perspective from Belgium: Mr Bart DERONDE

There is an opportunity to generate data through the application of new technologies

including: ecosystem monitoring by means of remote sensing. The remote sensing

chain starts with technology (satellites) that renders data (data storage) leading to

information and product services. Satellite data are validated and calibrated through

field data. The price / quality ratio of this approach is interesting. However, quality of

remote sensing cannot compete with the depth of information that is achieved through

detailed field inventories. On the other hand, field inventories of large areas may

require several years to complete and incur significant costs. Here remote sensing has

the benefit that monitoring can be done continuously over time with up-dates

occurring constantly.

Expert perspective from Romania: Mrs Cristina-Violeta OANA

Cristina Violeta Oana provided an example of good practice from Romania. Many

features are in place to easily access spatial biodiversity data and to add information

both for experts and for citizen science. Romania has over 10 SEIS in place as part of

e-Reporting. This was initiated because of Natura 2000 reporting obligations for

monitoring biodiversity in protected areas. They are conform INSPIRE specifications.

For successful implementation at national level it is very important to have a

decentralized solution available.

Discussion

The main challenge may be to continue the IT maintenance needs after the

architecture has been put in place, due to limited financial and human

resources. Another main challenge is to create an interoperability framework.

It is important to consider the user’s challenges in accessing and using the

systems and dealing with different languages at a cross-country level.

One should not forget to cater for capacity building and training: bridging the

thematic and technological communities. It is essential to consider

communication and awareness raising.

Is this about opportunities or obligations? It may be an opportunity to meet

obligations.

One should not forget that among the many existing systems there is already a

wide variety of approaches between the Member States. Therefore, there are

limits in how far harmonization can go.

Session IV: Overall lessons and next steps

This session aimed to draw lessons from the previous sessions and outline options for

improving online information for the two nature Directives, including for example the

use of a structured checklist for information on implementation (the so-called "SIIF"

concept).

The European Environmental Agency's perspective: Mrs Rania Spyropoulou

EUNIS provides quick facts and maps in a friendly way to the public on species,

habitat types and sites. On the EEA website more datasets and viewers are available.

Under various reporting obligations, MS provide information not only to EC but also to

global initiatives: e.g. nationally designated areas in Europe (CDDA). Portals on

protected areas are interpreted differently in different countries, because there are

significant differences in overlap between the nationally protected areas and the areas

designated under Natura 2000. Biota can be described at a species or site level, but


September 2014 134

for a site the socio-economic perspective and prevailing pressures are very relevant.

MS have various reporting obligations: there is an opportunity to find synergies

between national, EU, and global reporting obligations. As a summary on approaching

harmonizing, the suggestion would be to start any work with a few countries to

structure the information and then try to get to a more common agreement with more

MS.

Discussion

A citizen can in principle request any environmental information.

Administrations then have the obligation to provide this information (there are

some exceptions however). This is the obligation to provide information, with

the possibility to only do so passively, i.e. only when asked for. A different

approach is to actively provide the information to meet citizen needs (this can

be done, but is no obligation). Then citizens do not have to ask and

administrations are fully transparent. Moreover, this type of active

dissemination is shown in the long run to reduce the administrative burden, as

users finding the information online, do no longer make personal and time

consuming requests.

We do not start from zero, online information is already a reality in all MS. The

question thus is how to improve.

There are three components to deal with, each possibly with a different

guidance?:

o Accountability/reporting;

o Active dissemination of information;

o Management of the sites.

MS have tasks that can be catered for in connection to a central portal, but also

have tasks that may need to be available in different places. MS vary and thus

also may differ in deciding on where to best have the information available.

Thus, harmonization on where information is available may only provide benefit

for some sets of information.

Some aspects may need to be managed at the EU level, others at the MS level.

The question therefore is: how to manage available information relevant at the

EU level, but also how to manage the available information at the MS or local

level? What should be available where and how much can be linked throughout

hierarchies?

Share information on the state, but also on the drivers and the pressures

(DPSIR). For example, where to have wind farms taking into account bird

migration routes. In providing online information there is a need to make the

distinction between “nice to have” and “need to have”.

A SIIF should not focus on meeting the needs of the EC only. It should also

emphasise provisioning for the end-users in MS. Indeed, there are different

communities of users that need to be addressed in terms of information. A

suggestion could be to apply the distinction between the “shall’s”, “should’s”

and “may’s” as used in the GHG-protocol. The ‘shall’ refers to the existing

obligations under the Access to Information Directive and the INSPIRE

Directive (so no additional obligations). The ‘should’ refers to the

recommendations as presented in this report, and these are driven by the user

needs. The ‘may’ refers to the different ways of disseminating Natura 2000

information (good practices). There is a background of shared commitments

and question is how to address these in a SMART way.

Some information can be disclosed with little efforts. In that case, there should

be little reason for not doing so.

A SIIF should also highlight benefits/paybacks for authorities. Where can costs

be reduced and how much administrative burden can be avoided. Actively

providing information can promote efficiency. Show the business case for SIIF.


l

9 Final list of recommendations

Throughout this chapter, for the various recommendations, the benefits for different

end-user groups are indicated. Obviously, for each of the recommendations further

refinements may be needed when addressing the exact needs for any specific end-

user groups.

Further, to most optimally provide information to the various end-user groups it is

crucial to have a clear understanding of the needs of these end-users with respect to

Natura 2000 related information. Also, a thorough understanding on how the various

end-users will be searching for information is crucial (see also 9.2.A). Understanding

may be gained through questioning end-user groups during meetings or by means of

surveys or also by including feedback mechanisms on web portals that allow for

measuring visitor satisfaction. The latter may include analysis of visitor statistics (e.g.

by making use of Google Analytics), a pop-up survey with limited, but targeted

questions (being organised such that this survey only pops up once per IP address) or

a feedback button at the bottom of the webpage (which could vary from a basic ‘like’

to a more extensive survey).

9.1 What information should be made actively available and why?

To answer the question what information should be made actively available and why,

it is necessary to compare the general requirements of the Access to Information

Directive and INSPIRE Directive with the actual kinds of information required to be

generated by implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. Allowing for

possible different legal interpretations, it can be argued that the Access to Information

Directive and INSPIRE Directive presuppose that many different kinds of information

generated by the Birds and Habitats Directives should be available online.

In appendix A we have indicated for each of the questions in the questionnaire

whether specifics of the Access to Information Directive (Article 7) or of the INSPIRE

Directive apply. Interpretation of Appendix A then allows evaluating which information

is expected to be available online following both the nature and the information

directives. This prompts for already making a first suggestion for

improvement: it would be useful to have a more complete annotated

document linking specific provisions of the Access to Information Directive

with specific provisions of Nature Directives, i.e. the core elements of a so-

called SIIF - "Structured Implementation and Information Framework" (see 3.4).

As shown by the results of this study, Member States do present information online in

line with the requirements for environmental information disclosure generated by the

implementation of the Birds Directive, 2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive,

92/43/EEC. However, not all required aspects of information are publicly available. A

major concern is that legal information on strict protection, court rulings and

derogations, as well as information on impact assessments were rarely found within

the different Member States.


September 2014 136

Therefore, Member States could further improve information disclosure by performing

a thorough examination of the requirements included in the Birds and Habitats

Directives. Also in the ‘Survey Findings Report’ that accompanies this discussion note,

several examples are provided on how different MS disclose information and where

which information can be found more easily.

In particular Art 6(3) and Art 6(4) on project developments are very important

elements, as many complaints relate to these articles. Among other things, it is worth

analysing what is mentioned in terms of motivation on ‘screened out decisions’ (i.e.

when no appropriate assessment is required), if appropriate assessments are available

online (important with regard to cumulative impacts!) and if, based on the available

information, a categorization can be made with regard to the type of projects which

are affected by these articles (e.g. wind farms, roads, etc.). Also Art 6(1) on

conservation measures and management plans, as well as Art 6(2) on how Member

States avoid further deterioration of sites deserves more attention. Somewhat

surprisingly, not all Member States provide easy access to information on financing

Natura 2000. This not only concerns providing insight into financing available within

Members States, but also financial sources at the EU level. Often the information is

technically available, but very much dispersed between the various institutions from

the local to the European levels that manage these funds. Having information on the

possibilities for financing made available more easily can constitute a catalyst for

increasing the numbers of efforts to realise Natura 2000 conservation goals in Member

States.

In what follows, for each of the seven defined themes the information that should be

made actively available is evaluated, as well as the reasons why. We consider the

results of our survey and make suggestions on improvements that Member States can

make.

9.1.1 Recommendation 9.1.1

RECOMMENDATION 9.1.1: The competent authorities (mainly at Member state level,

but also often at the regional level in decentralised MS) should indicate legal

instruments that apply to each of the sites, habitats and species concerned by the

Birds and Habitats Directives; A clear link is established between each individual

entry for species, habitats and sites on the one hand and a comprehensive database

of legal documents and instruments at the other hand.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

This theme relates to the following provisions of

the nature Directives: Article 2 BD and Article 4

HD. Further, this BHD information category relates

to Art. 7.2 (a) of the Access to Information

Directive, 2003/4/EC. From a practitioners point of

view it is important to have easy access to the

legal documents underpinning the Birds and

Habitats Directives but also more widely, the

instruments for designating and providing a

protected status to the Natura 2000 sites.

A wide range of stakeholders and practitioners,

Authorities Each authority having easy access and overview to all relevant legal documents and

instruments Will make authorities

to loose less time when in need for relevant legislation; for example when needing to respond to question by the public

or by stakeholders or


September 2014 137


but also often at the regional level in decentralised MS) should indicate legal

instruments that apply to each of the sites, habitats and species concerned by the

Birds and Habitats Directives; A clear link is established between each individual

entry for species, habitats and sites on the one hand and a comprehensive database

of legal documents and instruments at the other hand.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

both from the conservation and development

sectors require access to the legal documents

related to the conservation areas (in particular

Natura 2000 sites) but also the areas protected or

managed under other schemes, such as nationally

designated conservation areas, or areas under

conservation management that contribute to the

ecological coherence as defined under article 10 of

the Habitats Directive.

Natura 2000 sites and the natural infrastructure

that connects them ensuring their ecological

coherence can be protected under a wide range of

instruments ranging from local land use plans and

nationally designated areas, to designations under

international treaties and conventions.

for authorities for which nature

legislation is not their prime competence (i.e. agriculture, fishery, infrastructure,

tourism, …)

Citizens Citizens have immediate access to legal documents and instruments

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers

and land users have immediate access to relevant legislation and can build on this for preparing any intended project development or change in land use

NGOs NGOs know where to find the relevant legislation and are

facilitated in following up more easily

whether changes in legislation occur

Consultants Consultants know where to find the relevant legislation and are facilitated in

following up more easily whether changes in legislation occur


September 2014 138



but also often at regional level in decentralised MS) should disclose all mentioned

sources of information to allow full and informed participation of stakeholder groups

in the process of agreeing on conservation objectives and management measures.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS


the nature Directives: Article 2, 4 and 12 BD and

Articles 6, 10, 17 HD. Further, this BHD

information category broadly relates to Art. 7.2

(b) of the Access to Information Directive,

2003/4/EC. As understood under the Birds and

Habitats Directives, Member States have at their

disposal a wide range of mechanisms to maintain,

achieve and restore favourable conservation

status of the species and habitats listed in the

nature Directives. These mechanisms include the

legal instruments as described in the previous

paragraph. However, in addition, land owners, site

managers and the competent authorities must

define conservation objectives, agree on the

measures to achieve these objectives and report

on the progress towards achieving the objectives

(see also 5). Since much of this process of

agreeing conservation objectives, but more even

so defining the management measures to reach

these objectives is a participatory process based

on active stakeholder involvement, a clear

disclosure of all relevant information is required to

ensure transparency. Land owners, users and

managers need to be able to access all relevant

information that allow their full and informed

participation in the process of agreeing on

conservation objectives and management

measures. In addition, because of the complexity

of ecological processes, much of the practices to

achieve the conservation objectives cannot be

exclusively based on hard science, but rely to a

great extent on adaptive management. The

practical results of adaptive management

approaches are an important source of information

that needs to be readily accessible to inform the

process of management plan development.

Authorities Authorities have a convenient overview of the available information, can

easily share this with other authorities or

stakeholders and are considered to have a transparent approach

Will make authorities to loose less time when in need to

retrieve or have overview of available information

Citizens Citizens will feel more invited to become

involved in the participatory process and can take part in informed manner

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers have all context

available in order to start evaluating whether intended project developments are likely to get permission and whether specific mitigating measures

may facilitate acceptation. Land users have access to the needed information for optimal use of their lands and for assessing whether

alternative uses are

acceptable or possible.

NGOs NGOs will have the needed information

and can add to that information in order to achieve an optimal participatory process


September 2014 139


but also often at regional level in decentralised MS) should disclose all mentioned

sources of information to allow full and informed participation of stakeholder groups

in the process of agreeing on conservation objectives and management measures.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

Consultants Consultants will have information available for when they are included in project work on deciding on conservation or management

objectives, also consultants will have access to crucial

information that may be relevant for project developments on which they provide consultancy, advice,

or engineering work.


RECOMMENDATION 9.1.3: Invest efforts in making the various possibilities for

financing more transparent; This could be organized in a tailor-made approach to

cater specific target groups (farmers, etc.) or different regions if regional differences

apply (role for regional or local authorities).

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS


the nature Directives: Article 8 HD. Further, the

Access to Information Directive, 2003/4/EC makes

no specific reference to the requirement for

Member States to provide information on funding

and financing (the implementation of)

environmental policies. However, Art. 4.2 (f) of

the Access to Information Directive, 2003/4/EC

protects the confidentiality of personal data and

/or files where the person has not consented their

disclosure to the public. This article can apply to

the individual payments made under the CAP agri-

environmental schemes which in most instances

are therefore only available at an aggregated level

(regional or national) and not at the parcel or

property level.

When asking nature practitioners which challenges

they are confronted with in realizing Natura 2000

conservation objectives, among others, access to

financing typically is indicated. Such finances may

Authorities All authorities (also these for which nature legislation is not their prime

competence (i.e. agriculture, fishery, infrastructure, tourism, …) share conveniently the possibilities for financing Natura 2000

Will facilitate collaborations among authorities with different competences as to

have overview on potential trajectories to succeed in

financing projects for which authorities are in charge or are involved


September 2014 140

RECOMMENDATION 9.1.3: Invest efforts in making the various possibilities for

financing more transparent; This could be organized in a tailor-made approach to

cater specific target groups (farmers, etc.) or different regions if regional differences

apply (role for regional or local authorities).

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

be available within MS through national or regional

financing possibilities and certainly also are

available at the EU level. Sometimes these

finances are specifically catered for limited target

groups such as farmers or specific countries (for

example CAP payments and the various INTERREG

programs). While there never will be sufficient

finances available, providing easy access and

guidance to financial sources can act as a catalyst

to spur the realization of Natura 2000 objectives in

many more locations. It should be noted that

there is an ongoing effort on the part of the EU to

inform stakeholders in Member States about

opportunities to finance Natura 2000, with the

organisation of national workshops and the

presentation of resources online on a dedicated

websites http://www.financing-natura2000.eu/.

In line with the SEIS principle 1, “Manage

information as close as possible to its source”,

detailed information about funding should be

provided on the website of the competent

authorities (e.g. Ministry of Agriculture for CAP

related payments and subsidies). However, the

Nature Directives portal should provide clear and

exhaustive references to the various pages

providing the detailed funding information.

From the study report and the responses to the

stakeholder consultation, it seems that much

information about funding possibilities for Natura

2000 is in principle available online, but that its

easy disclosure for non-experts (i.e. land owners

and users wishing to make use of these funds) has

not been fully achieved yet. It seems that there

are opportunities for quick wins here, and the

above-mentioned Financing Natura 2000 Report

and website should definitely play a role in this

respect.

Citizens Citizens and especially those with a profession for which subsidiaries or other financial supports may provide opportunities become

well informed on their possibilities

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers can evaluate whether developments can be

facilitated through financial streams available through various programs. Land users/owners can evaluate whether they can improve land management

and be supported for this.

NGOs NGOs have overview on financial opportunities for own

work or for when being involved or

providing advice to third parties

Consultants Consultants can inform clients better

on how they can have successful project implementations and thereby include possible financial streams on Natura 2000 in their budgets

Also when consultant

agencies take up roles in the context of green entrepreneurship this may be stimulated by

being well informed on possible additional funding

http://www.financing-natura2000.eu/


September 2014 141


RECOMMENDATION 9.1.4: Compile a detailed inventory of the type of information

required for preparing (or independent assessment of) an AA; Inform competent

authorities about these specific user requirements. Invest efforts in making available

online the EIA and AA reports and supporting documents through a centralized

indexed search facility (by site, by habitat, by type of impact etc.) BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS


the nature Directives: Article 6 HD. Further, this

BHD information category broadly relates to Art.

7.2 (g) of the Access to Information Directive,

2003/4/EC.

Appropriate Assessments (AA) are key documents

for providing authorities involved in the permit

granting decision for plans or projects potentially

affecting site integrity of Natura 2000 sites with

the required information for making a justified

decision. The preparation of such appropriate

assessments, as well as independent assessment

of complaints and potential infringements related

to Art. 6(3), benefits substantially from the

availability of, and easy access to, specific

information such as Natura 2000 maps, site level

conservation objectives (see 2), approved Natura

2000 management plans, detailed data on habitat

and species distribution within protected areas,

ECJ rulings (see 6), AAs and EIAs on project

developments in the neighbourhood of the new

plan/project (for assessing cumulative impacts),

etc. However reality shows that many of these

data are not available online or are outdated:

Online information on protected sites often

provides data on the location and boundaries

of a site, as well as on the protected species

and habitats within a site but fails to provide

information on where exactly these habitats

and species occur within the site; this

information is crucial for an AA (significance

assessment of impacts);

In many cases it’s not clear which conservation

objectives have been defined for a site; also

site management plans are rarely available,

although these could provide very useful

information on how conservation objectives will

be achieved (e.g. locations of restoration

Authorities Authorities that need

to decide or to advise on plans and projects will be better informed if they have

access to information on neighbouring developments (cumulative impacts), on detailed

location of habitats and species, etc.

Authorities having access to high quality online information will be much better placed for carrying out quality review of

SEA, EIA and AA Authorities will need

less time with responding to

questions by consultants, NGOs, …

Authorities will work more efficiently as

they will spend less time in court cases, legal disputes, etc.

The EC will face less complaints and infringement cases, reducing time and resources dedicated

for this purpose

Citizens Citizens will be better informed on the type of impacts of project developments

Citizens might compile a stronger dossier in case of a potential infringement


September 2014 142






GROUP BENEFITS

activities);

Online information on ECJ rulings related to

Natura 2000 is outdated;

As cumulative impacts assessment is a key

element in EIA and AA data are required on

planned projects (location, type of activity,

license record number, competent authority,

link to license document, …); only in some rare

cases part of this information is available.

From the analysis it seems that much of the

information required to perform AAs and EIAs is in

principle available online, but often difficult to

locate. One major element which is in general

absent is the documentation related to previous

assessments (AA or EIA) performed in or near the

site under consideration. These documents are in

general published online by the local competent

authority, the developer and/or the

contractor/consultant. When it is not known what

these institutions are, finding the relevant

documents becomes very difficult.

As a consequence AA practitioners need to spend

substantial efforts to acquire the necessary

information, e.g. additional field work, meetings

with authorities, etc. This increases costs and

requires more time.

Guidance on how to perform AAs and EIAs is in

general the type of information related to

assessments which is the most readily available

from Natura 2000 related websites (see 7 Public

information)

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers will be better informed on the type of impacts of their

project and the possible avoidance or mitigation measures

Project developers

might benefit from more efficient (and thus less costly) report preparation

(AA etc.) and more efficient decision processes

Risk on lawsuits will decrease

Land users have access to the information for assessing current and

future uses of their lands and of neighbouring lands.

NGOs NGOs will be able to more effectively

monitor the correct application of nature legislation if they have access to reliable data. This is especially true for small NGOs with limited resources for

carrying out their own monitoring and data gathering.

NGOs will be able to compile stronger cases in case of potential infringements.

Consultants More efficient

preparation of AA and SEA, EIA (shorter time). Field visits can be limited to those cases where

specific information is lacking (e.g. seasonal variations in presence of animals).


September 2014 143






GROUP BENEFITS

Higher quality reports due to availability of more accurate data on potential

cumulative impacts, monitoring data, etc.


RECOMMENDATION 9.1.5: Prepare an inventory of the research and monitoring

occurring in the Member State and make the relevant information available to the

different user groups.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS


the nature Directives: Article 4 and 10 BD and

Article 18 and 22 HD. Further, this BHD

information category relates to Art. 7.2 (d) and

partly also to Art. 7.2 (c) of the Access to

Information Directive, 2003/4/EC. Art 4.2 (h) of

the Access to Information Directive also applies to

this information category where an exception

should be made for “the protection of the

environment to which such information relates,

such as the location of rare species.”

Providing access to all relevant scientific data

relating to the state of biodiversity and to the

factors (such as pressures) that affect species,

habitats and sites, is essential for informing the

wide range of measures related to the

implementation of the Nature Directives (see in

particular 2 Management plans and 5 Appropriate

Assessments). Without a good baseline in terms of

biodiversity and without information about trends

and developments in population, range and extent,

no assessment about progress towards target

(favourable conservation status) can be made.

Authorities Authorities have a convenient overview of the available information, can easily share this with

other authorities or stakeholders

Will make authorities to loose less time when in need to retrieve or have overview of available information

Citizens Citizens will feel more invited to become involved in the participatory process and they will be able to take part

in informed manner Citizens may access

scientific information

easily and can compile stronger dossiers in case they feel to challenge authorities on taken

or intended decisions


September 2014 144

RECOMMENDATION 9.1.5: Prepare an inventory of the research and monitoring

occurring in the Member State and make the relevant information available to the

different user groups.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

In general, scientific information referred to here is

quite readily accessible. In part this is the

consequence of the reporting obligations under

Article 17 and 18 of the Habitats Directive and

Article 10 and 12 of the Birds Directive.

From the point of view of the wide range of users,

information overload and the lack of clarity about

where to look for the right data is more of an issue

than the availability of scientific information per se.

A website such as www.conservationevidence.com

can provide inspiration on how to filter and make

accessible the relevant scientific information for

Natura 2000 implementation purposes.

In order to enable the assessment of conservation

status of species and habitats at population and

biogeographical level, it is important to provide

access to comparable data across regional and

national borders.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers

and land users have access to all information that may be relevant in the context of planning, but also have opportunity more easily to evaluate whether authorities

take correct

decisions.

NGOs NGOs will have all the needed information to have

decisions being taken on their own management and policy, and also to report, to plan, to comment, to object

Consultants Consultants will have all available information available for providing most ideal consultancy work


RECOMMENDATION 9.1.6: Update the information on relevant case law in relation to

Natura 2000 at EC level; To establish structured and indexed links between the

species, habitats and sites (as presented in the national biodiversity databases) and

the relevant court rulings, derogations, and instruments of strict protection that refer

to them.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

This theme relates to the following provisions of the

nature Directives: Article 5 to 9 BD and Article 11 to

16 HD. Further, this BHD information category broadly

relates to Art. 7.2 (f) of the Access to Information

Directive, 2003/4/EC. It is of great importance for the

legal and legal decision making process, especially

where it involves resolving conflicts between parties

with opposing interests regarding the use and

management of species and of land inside and around

protected sites. It is also an essential class of

Authorities Authorities have overview and backlog on all aspects of case low, court rulings,

derogations and instruments of strict protection

Authorities are better informed when having contact with stakeholders or citizens


September 2014 145

RECOMMENDATION 9.1.6: Update the information on relevant case law in relation to

Natura 2000 at EC level; To establish structured and indexed links between the



to them.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

information for impact assessments, including AAs and

EIAs, as described under 4.

Under Article 3 of the Access to Information Directive it

should be possible for any party having an interest to

request the lists of derogations for species, court

rulings or information on strict protection unless, for

example, disclosing this information obstructs the

course of justice (Art. 4.2 (c)). However, such a

procedure can be cumbersome and time consuming. At

this moment however the compiled overview of

relevant case law in relation to Natura 2000 has not

been updated since 2006

(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/c

aselaw/index_en.htm).

The type of information referred to here, although

often available in the public domain, is rarely explicitly

linked to the species, habitats or sites of the BHD

concerned. It would make much sense from the users’

point of view to establish such a link between the

online repositories of court rulings, derogations,

prohibitions, prosecutions and instruments of strict

protection on the one hand and the species, habitats

and sites they refer to on the other.

Citizens Citizens have insight (for example when involved) in all exceptions and prior

decisions on Natura 2000 relevant rulings, protection and cases

Project

developers

and

landowners

/users

Project developers are

better positioned to evaluate risks they

may face by specific project developments

Land users are better positioned to evaluate risks they may face by specific land use developments

NGOs NGOs are well-informed and can use specific prior cases to build string dossiers in general or on new specific cases

Consultants Consultants can most ideally inform clients

on possible risks or opportunities.


RECOMMENDATION 9.1.7: Make available as much as possible relevant information

and services through the centralized national or regional databases of sites, species

and habitats. This can also include deep links directing the user to the relevant other

repositories, as in the case of court rulings.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS


the nature Directives: Article 22 HD. Further, this

BHD information category broadly relates to the

“Introduction / preliminary considerations” and to

Articles 1 and 3 of the Access to Information

Directive, 2003/4/EC. It includes a wide range of

online services for a better involvement of the

public in all activities relating to the

implementation of the EU Nature Directives.

Authorities Authorities have a

convenient overview of the available information, can easily share this with other authorities or

stakeholders Will make authorities

to loose less time when in need to retrieve or have

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/caselaw/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/caselaw/index_en.htm


September 2014 146

RECOMMENDATION 9.1.7: Make available as much as possible relevant information

and services through the centralized national or regional databases of sites, species

and habitats. This can also include deep links directing the user to the relevant other


BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

Decisions regarding the management of species

and sites are increasingly an activity of societal

compromise, which must however comply with the

requirements of the Nature Directives and their

transpositions into national law. Started largely as

a top-down and science driven exercise, the site

designation process under the Habitats Directive

resulted in such widespread public opposition in

the 1990ies that a more inclusive and

participatory approach was adopted by most

Member States in the development and

implementation of management plans. This

current inclusive, participatory and bottom-up

approach in many Member States requires specific

instruments and information sources to allow its

smooth implementation.

These include, for example, guidance documents

translating the requirements of the Birds and

Habitats Directives in simple guidelines for land

owners and managers. Much of the suggestions

made in the earlier paragraphs (1 to 6) also

support the general aim of a more inclusive and

participatory decision making and implementation.

Ideally, all relevant information relating to the

management and use of a site, habitat or species,

should be accessible through one centralised entry

point, directing the visitor to the legal documents,

court rulings, scientific data and information,

geographic information, documents referring to

earlier stages of decision making (such as AAs,

EIAs or compensation measures) etc. relevant to

the species, habitat or site.

It should also make it clear how each party

(citizen, NGO, private company or owner) can

participate in the process through online

consultation.

overview of available information

Citizens Citizens will feel more invited to become

involved in the participatory process and they will be able to take part in informed manner

Citizens may access all available information easily and can compile stronger dossiers in case they feel to challenge authorities on taken or intended

decisions

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers and land users have access to all

information that may be relevant in the

context of planning, but also have opportunity more easily to evaluate whether authorities take correct decisions.

NGOs NGOs will have all the needed information to have decisions being taken on their own management and policy, and also to

report, to plan, to comment, to object

Consultants Consultants will have all available information available for providing most

ideal consultancy work


September 2014 147

9.2 Where and how is the information made available?


portals to communicate information to the public. Clearly, if constructed appropriately

such portals can positively contribute to distributing relevant information to the public.

The question then becomes where to disclose information and how to make

information accessible such that end-users can locate what they search for in a

straightforward and easy way. Thus, the link has to be made between the “what” and

“why” of information with the “where” and “how”.

As to how information most successfully can be disclosed in our full report we provide

detailed insight and several MS good practices. Also, we already refer to section 3.4 in

which the usefulness of SIIFs - "Structured Implementation and Information

Frameworks" is discussed (here also we indicate the core elements for the SIFF). In

essence, SIIFs can take the form of guidance on how the information can be organized

and presented online by Member States. In addition, we highlight the European

Commissions SEIS (Shared Environmental Information System) Implementation

Outlook. This Outlook aims to identify any current shortcomings in the quality and flow

of environment data and information and to stimulate further steps towards achieving

an efficient and useful SEIS (for the guiding principles (see 3.4). Concretely, the aim is

to foster improvements in the streamlining of EU reporting requirements, in the

monitoring of information on the implementation of EU environment legislation, on

public access to environmental information and on the participation of the public in the

collection and dissemination of environment information.

Much of what follows in the next section will show parallels with the SIIF and SEIS

principles. However, what follows is specifically based on our survey and interpretation

of the information online available. Therefore, the points raised in this section 3.2 can

either be similar to the SEIS or SIIF principles or could provide additional

considerations for when developing a specific approach on disclosing Natura 2000

information.

In the Birds and Habitats portal assessment we focused on five overall performance

dimensions which may provide a model for future assessments of other portals:

Ease of navigation, interoperability and user friendliness;

Structure;

Searchability and georeferencing;

Accuracy, objectivity and historical depth; and

Coverage and coherence.

The value or score of each dimension was calculated by evaluating specific criteria that

were answered in a questionnaire. Each criterion was evaluated by answering a simple

YES / NO question, along with a short motivation. The questions to evaluate the

assessment criteria were derived from widely available website assessment

frameworks. However, as widely recognised in relevant literature, the definition of

clear, reproducible assessment criteria and associated questions is notoriously difficult

for websites, whose architecture and design leave much freedom to the developers.

The criteria and questions used in this assessment together with a sample set of

answers for the JNCC website (UK) are given on page 20 of the draft report. They


September 2014 148

could be used for a discussion to improve such criteria for wider use in the context of

the development of a SIIF.

In assessing the portals no weight was given to the different questions relating to the

chosen criteria. As rightly pointed out by one respondent, the different criteria used

shouldn’t have the same weight, as some refer to essential characteristics of a portal /

website, while others simply indicate a slightly better user experience.

Therefore we suggest to:

Review the assessments of the 10 portals with a wider range of experts in

order to develop a more detailed set of evaluation criteria.

Discuss whether there are opportunities for developing a weighting

system for these criteria

Again, we have organised this section accordingly the seven themes that guide our

survey. In addition, following the seven themes we have added a further section with

four general principles and accompanying suggestions on where and how to provide

information.


September 2014 149

For each of the seven themes, again recommendations are provided:



but also often at the regional level in decentralised MS, specifically when catering for

specific end-users) should make reference to legal documents that at all times reflect

the accurate and valid legal rules. This can be done most conveniently by linking to

these national or European repositories where documents on any legal aspect are

disclosed. Accompanying explanatory documents need to be kept up-to-date at all

times. In case this cannot be guaranteed it may be better to have such documents not

made available to the public.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

From a practitioner point of view it is important to

have easy access to the legal documents and the

explanatory documents that directly relates to the

legal documents. It is essential that this

information at all times is accurate and consistent.

In many Member States therefore when reference

is made to legal documents a link is made to

either EC web sites (either Natura 2000 or Eur-

Lex) and to national repositories on legal texts.

For any accompanying explanatory documents

that are provided, care has to be taken that these

are at all times giving interpretation of most

recent legislative rules.

Authorities Making sure that legal underpinning of site designation or other action to implement the BHD is

accurate, correct and easily accessible, reduces administrative burden (and costs) in dealing with individual cases.

Citizens Not that relevant to most citizens. Quite important for those citizens entering as a

party in a legal battle over a controversial planning decision.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Knowing about all the relevant legal documents underpinning the conservation status of a site near a

development project allows project developer lawyers detect possible bottlenecks at an early stage and avoid possible costly compensation later

on. Land users can better

evaluate the risks and opportunities they have in managing their lands.


September 2014 150


but also often at the regional level in decentralised MS, specifically when catering for

specific end-users) should make reference to legal documents that at all times reflect

the accurate and valid legal rules. This can be done most conveniently by linking to

these national or European repositories where documents on any legal aspect are

disclosed. Accompanying explanatory documents need to be kept up-to-date at all

times. In case this cannot be guaranteed it may be better to have such documents not

made available to the public.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

NGOs This information well disclosed allows NGOs to prepare for possible legal battles or campaigns by

having access to the

relevant legal ammunition.

Consultants Consultants have easy access to relevant legal

documents to support advice to any party requesting support in relation to a project development plan.


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.2: The competent authorities (can be the Member state level,

but often will involve the regional level in decentralised MS or the local level) should

disclose information in such a way that stake-holders have convenient access to this

information that relate to a listed species or designated area.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

Stakeholders most typically will search for

available information either per species or per

designated area. Therefore, when organising the

wealth of information available it will help to

consider how end-users will search for such

information. Also, here it is very relevant to have

overview of the history of documents and rapid

insight in the state-of-art.

Authorities Structuring information disclosure

in a number of different ways including by species or site helps organising complex information both for external and internal use and consultation

(more efficient internal processes)

Citizens Species and sites are among the nature related information types most likely to

be used by citizens to search for.


September 2014 151

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Sites are the areas in

or around some development projects might be planned. Therefore having easy access to accurate site information and related data presents

a benefit for developers. Species conservation status are often the focus of impact assessments and therefore information about

them (linked to the

site) is relevant to developers.

Land users may better identify how sites and species relate to their land and land management

NGOs NGOs having to act as watchdog for the good application of impact assessment and planning permits need easy access to

site and species information.

Consultants Appropriate assessments are conducted at site

level and include detailed study of impact on species present at the site. Better efficiency and lower costs are the benefits for the consultants.


September 2014 152


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.3: Have clear understanding on which financial sources are

available and which end-users they may serve such that the information can be

disclosed in an appropriate way through websites that the various end-users are

known to consult. It would help end-users to have contact points for providing

further assistance to interested parties

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

When asking nature practitioners which challenges

they are confronted with in realizing Natura 2000

conservation objectives, among others, access to

financing typically is indicated. Clearly, when

financial possibilities are available this information

is preferably disclosed with a specific focus on the

end-users that may benefit.

Authorities Significant reduction in administrative burden currently linked to the individual replies to

requests for

information.

Citizens Better access to information about funding opportunities with the potential of more applications for

nature friendly subsidies

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Better information about available nature subsidies for

integration in development plans or land management

NGOs Better management of managed and

owned protected areas through better access to subsidies

Consultants Better advice to developers in terms of subsidies and other financial instruments for improving

biodiversity in development projects


September 2014 153


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.4: Make sure that the information (including the reports of

previous AA’s) is kept and made accessible through one-stop websites were is

indicated where the different pieces of information are available (see Optimizing data

structures)

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

The preparation of appropriate assessments, as

well as independent assessment of complaints and

potential infringements related to Art. 6(3),

benefits substantially from the availability of, and

easy access to, specific information such as Natura

2000 maps, site level conservation objectives,

approved Natura 2000 management plans,

detailed data on habitat and species distribution

within protected areas, ECJ rulings, AAs and EIAs

on project developments in the neighbourhood of

the new plan/project (for assessing cumulative

impacts), etc. However reality shows that many of

this information is not available online or is

outdated. As a consequence AA practitioners need

to spend substantial efforts to acquire the

necessary information, e.g. additional field work,

meetings with authorities, etc. This increases costs

and requires more time.

Authorities AAs will better reflect the effect of cumulative impacts, and thus avoid

damage to sites, habitats and species.

This will in turn benefit the maintenance of or return to FCS of the target species and habitats

Well disclosed information will also bring down the administrative burden of replying to information requests.

Citizens This is not likely to bring very significant benefits to citizens. It will better inform those citizens that

are actively trying to take part in the

protection of and decision making about the sites they wish to conserve.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Easy access to this type of information

allows project developers to anticipate possible cumulative effects and thus avoid subsequent surprises resulting from an AA.

Land users can better

access the possible

impacts of their land management

NGOs This allows NGOs to more effectively map

the threats to the sites they wish to protect and to anticipate their campaigns and negotiations for the


September 2014 154

RECOMMENDATION 9.2.4: Make sure that the information (including the reports of

previous AA’s) is kept and made accessible through one-stop websites were is

indicated where the different pieces of information are available (see Optimizing data

structures)

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

protection of these sites.

Consultants Having to perform AAs that also take into account

cumulative impacts,

consultants will have a much easier access to the required information and will be able to improve the quality and reliability of the AAs

and bring down the costs.


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.5: To provide structured access to a body of basic and

validated scientific data and information indexed according to species, habitats and

sites of the Birds and Habitats Directives; Explore the opportunities to harmonize

monitoring protocols and conservation assessments across regional and national

borders

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

Providing access to all relevant scientific data

relating to the state of biodiversity and to the

factors (such as pressures) that affect species,

habitats and sites, is essential for informing the

wide range of measures related to the

implementation of the Nature Directives. Without

a good baseline in terms of biodiversity and

without information about trends and

developments in population, range and extent, no

assessment about progress towards target

(favourable conservation status) can be made.

From the point of view of the wide range of users,

information overload and the lack of clarity about

where to look for the right data is more of an

issue than the availability of scientific information

per se.

In order to enable the assessment of conservation

Authorities Enable a more efficient and coherent implementation of the nature directives, in particular HD Art. 10, by having access to harmonized and comparable baseline

information across regional and national

borders. Improve the

assessment of conservation status and in particular the trends in CS.

Citizens This would be particularly useful to citizens if the scientific (baseline)


September 2014 155

status of species and habitats at population and

biogeographical level, it is important to provide

access to comparable data across regional and

national borders.

knowledge would be

presented in layers of successively technical knowledge, starting with a simplified entry point level.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Many development

projects have an (regional / national) cross border dimension and would thus benefit from a higher level of harmonization and compatibility between

the scientific data.

Land users or owners that have cross border dimensions with their lands benefit similarly as project developers.

NGOs Campaigns often focus on cross border issues. These benefit from a more harmonized and coherent presentation

of relevant baseline data and information.

Consultants Facilitates preparation of technical

assessments


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.6: To establish structured and indexed links between the



to them.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

The type of information referred to here, although

often available in the public domain, is rarely

explicitly linked to the species, habitats or sites of

the BHD concerned. It would make much sense

from the users’ point of view to establish such a

link between the online repositories of court

rulings, derogations, prohibitions, prosecutions

Authorities An information

management system that explicitly relates site, habitat and species information to relevant court rulings and other legal documents


September 2014 156

and instruments of strict protection on the one

hand and the species, habitats and sites they refer

to on the other.

Citizens By providing a better

and more efficient access to information relevant to decision making, the role of active participation of citizens in the decision making process is improved.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

By having access to site related information linked to existing case law, project developers have a better idea of

prior potential threats

to their projects. Prior adaptation of the plans can avoid later costs related to compensation or delays in the project development.

Land users similarly can evaluate possible future land uses or changes in land management

NGOs Having easy access to case law linked to sites, habitats and species makes the work of NGOs as

watchdogs of a correct implementation of the

BHD very much easier and allows for a more efficient spending of their limited means.

Consultants This allows

consultants in the planning phase to identify possible bottlenecks associated with a development plan or project and to better evaluate the

likelihood and

significance of cumulative impacts.


September 2014 157


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.7: Make as much relevant information and services available

through one entry point linking national or regional databases of sites, species and

habitats. This can also include deep links directing the user to the relevant other


BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

Ideally, all relevant information relating to the

management and use of a site, habitat or species,

should be accessible through one entry point,

directing the visitor to the legal documents, court

rulings, scientific data and information, geographic

information, documents referring to earlier stages

of decision making (such as AAs, EIAs or

compensation measures) etc. relevant to the

species, habitat or site. It should also make it

clear how each party (citizen, NGO, private

company or owner) can participate in the process

through online consultation.

Authorities Data management is far easier and efficient in a well-structured system where there is no

duplication of data. Authorities will make significant wins in efficiency.

Citizens Access to information

and related themes will be easier if information is presented through a unique entry point.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Offering access to

data through a unique access point for information and related themes makes the work of developers and land

users easier and more efficient and

avoids lengthy searches for different data themes related to a same site.

NGOs By presenting

ecological, legal, socioeconomic information related to a site, habitat or species through a unique access point, NGOs that are in general short on

means can increase the efficiency of

research for their campaigns and thus devote more time to the campaigning itself.


September 2014 158

Consultants A more efficient

presentation of related data and information themes saves costs and thus brings down the price (and improves the quality) of assessments.

Additional general recommendations:


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.8: Gain thorough insights in where end-users may be assisted

by specific information; Inform competent authorities on these needs and on where

information is available; Centralise information and provide thematic, regional end-

user windows (see also “Optimizing data structures” below)

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

Some MS do have a central Natura 2000 portal.

This may aid a variety of end-users in finding the

information they need. In addition, it has to be

acknowledged that end-users not necessarily will

look for Natura 2000 related information from a

Natura 2000 perspective. Indeed, for example a

farmer may simply be looking for ways to diversify

and thereby be aided by knowing that a Natura

2000 focus can be one option. Knowing which

end-users may need Natura 2000-related

information and understanding the online paths

they may choose to reach that information can aid

in providing the required information on the places

where they are likely to be looking for it. This

concerns information available at the various

departments at the national level, but also the

information provided at regional and local levels.

Indeed, different groups of end-users have very

different ways in which they interact with Natura

2000. In particular, sectors whose activities often

conflict with the regulations see Natura 2000 as a

limiting factor to their business. They will not be

inclined or have a natural tendency to go and dig

into technical information provided on a website

dedicated to Natura 2000. In relation to their

activities they might rather go to a website or

information source about general environmental

regulations, or regulations in general. The same

holds for enterprises that might be able to develop

synergies with Natura 2000 objectives. These

Authorities Considering that authorities directly or indirectly concerned with the nature

directives implementation include a wide range of end user types (national, regional,

local actors, in different sectors such as planning,

conservation, development, energy, agriculture etc), a more target group approach of disclosing centrally managed information will improve the

efficiency of these players in the implementation process.

Citizens Considering that

citizens can include a

wide range of end user types with specific interests and needs, this approach will allow these different groups to find information more

efficiently


September 2014 159

RECOMMENDATION 9.2.8: Gain thorough insights in where end-users may be assisted

by specific information; Inform competent authorities on these needs and on where

information is available; Centralise information and provide thematic, regional end-

user windows (see also “Optimizing data structures” below)

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

might not know that Natura 2000 portals offer this

information. The web portals they usually visit (for

example about support to industries) should point

towards the websites providing relevant Natura

2000 information. For example, in the

Netherlands, businesses, developers and

industries will usually not visit Natura 2000 portals

to find information about regulations but go to the

portal of the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO)

where all information about environmental

regulations (including Natura 2000) is presented,

as well as opportunities for funding through

subsidies etc.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Offering the relevant information related to the aspects of nature directives implementation through the accustomed channels

increases the likelihood that this information will be

found by developers and land users and used in the planning or management process.

NGOs NGOs will probably have a wider and more open vision on data search for nature directives

implementation and conservation, and benefit relatively less.

Consultants Offering data and information in such a

way that all relevant baseline ecological

data, policies, legal documents, case law and planning decisions are easily identified and found increases efficiency and reduces costs

(see also below FOR MORE DETAILS)


September 2014 160


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.9: Optimize access and navigation of websites and portals

according to the latest standards of good practice in web design. Examples from the

study can also be highlighted as inspiration; Consider how users may find the

information they need most straightforward and conveniently, and to implement what

is needed to that end in any website design. This could include easy-to-use tools for

finding out how specific articles of the BD and HD are implemented.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

As with all different themes available online,

challenge lays with the end-user to find the

proverbial “needle in the haystack”. Therefore it is

crucial to provide end-users with all available tools

and tricks to rapidly find the information that

matches what they are looking for. Luckily, many

aids can be included in online information to

support the online visitor. Without being

exhaustive the following list provides several

examples on how such needs can be met:

The presence of an extensive sitemap,

providing information on the structure and

content of the portal.

A homepage with a logical and intuitive first

level structure, i.e. simple overarching

classes that are easy to understand. This

can include menus that show dropdown

attributes once they are selected.

An advanced search function to allow

finding desired information.

Interactive maps that can guide the user to

regions, sites, habitats and species.

Both the provision of intuitive pictures and

an interactive homepage can aid the user

in understanding the content of a specific

page or part of the portal.

A general web layout for all central

government departments and their

representative bodies at regional and

department level makes moving around

from one website to the other related ones

much easier.

Clear instructions on contact points that

can aid in finding answers.

Within portals and certainly when linking to

Authorities Here the main benefit for the authorities (owning and managing the data) is the significant

reduction in

administrative burden in dealing with individual information requests.

Citizens The main benefit for

the citizens is an easier and quicker access to information and data

Secondly, because of better access to information, it invites the citizen to public

participation in decision making regarding the implementation of

the nature directives

Project

developers and

landowners/users

A better disclosure of relevant information helps manage and reduce the risks associated with development projects or intended land uses having a potential

impact on sites and species

NGOs A better disclosure of all relevant information about the nature directives is

essential for NGOs having to monitor the

right application of laws and signal and campaign against possible legal infringements with regards to the nature

directives implementation


September 2014 161

RECOMMENDATION 9.2.9: Optimize access and navigation of websites and portals

according to the latest standards of good practice in web design. Examples from the

study can also be highlighted as inspiration; Consider how users may find the

information they need most straightforward and conveniently, and to implement what

is needed to that end in any website design. This could include easy-to-use tools for

finding out how specific articles of the BD and HD are implemented.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

other portals and external pages it helps to

have short explanation of what to expect

and not simply providing full documents.

It is also important to get quick access to

either new information items or to other

relevant Natura 2000 portals.

Linking back to suggestion 1 on end-users

specific features may cater for specific end-

users. For example for end-users with a

focus on legal compliance it would be

beneficial to have assistance in finding

information linked to specific articles of a

Directive. To ease the finding of such

information drop-down menus based on the

articles of the Directives (in the case of the

nature Directives this could include options

such as measures under 6(3) or 6(4),

management plans, etc. For other end-

users similarly easy-to-use tools may much

improve finding much easier the answers to

specific questions that specific end-users

groups do have.

Consultants Consultants can provide assessments and other advice

related to the implementation of the nature directives in a more efficient

cost effective way and are less likely to oversee significant information.


September 2014 162


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.10: Provide an annual distinction in the structure and make

that visible easily to the user; Maintain a multi-annual database to allow for users to

have insight in any history; To make clear indication on most recent updates and

possibly on upcoming updates. To avoid information being available at many different

sources. This to avoid the risks on inconsistencies between different sources and

assure that what is available online provides consistent information. When efforts

have been made to make available large amounts of information on a specific website

(either governmental or NGO or other) it is preferable to link to this information

rather than copying it. Evidently, it needs to be verified that the source of reference

remains providing up-to-date information.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

For users online information does not always provide

clear indication on whether it is still valid and updated.

Also, sometimes users may need specific information

concerning predefined year(s) for example to allow

tracking back progress on conservation status or prior

actions that were taken. Optimising data structures,

centralising to the highest level of competent authority

can also help avoid data getting outdated or the

simultaneous existence of contradictory information on

different platforms.

Authorities Increased transparency in trends by providing time series for essential nature related data and information.

Keep the data and

information as close as possible to the source so as to avoid information becoming outdated.

Citizens Better opportunity to verify consolidated trend information about nature and environmental data

and information.

NGOs Increased opportunity to verify claims about trends in conservation status and other environmental indicators.

Better opportunities to

challenge these claims.


September 2014 163


RECOMMENDATION 9.2.11: Review the data and information structures across

platforms and organisations and analyse where normalisation can lead to simpler

data structures avoiding redundancy of information; Have an EC repository that lists,

describes and disseminates cases of good practice where such an approach actually

works (e.g. France, Sweden).

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

As many different bodies collect and manage

information about the same, sites, habitats

species, interventions etc., there is a danger of

redundancy, which can lead to contradicting or

outdated information.

The results of the study have shown that there

are many countries where each authority at a

certain level manages the full array of information

sources including digitised maps showing the

boundaries of the sites, sometimes none of them

exactly the same.

It is very important to avoid data duplication.

Current information technologies allow centrally

managed information sources to be shared and

embedded in subsidiary websites (which provide a

regional or user specific thematic window on the

data). Good examples are provided in France and

Sweden where the information about habitats,

species and sites is centrally managed and the

lower authorities and agencies responsible for

actual management of these sites provide a

regional window to this central database. Spain is

an example of a very decentralised country where

autonomous regions are responsible for Natura

2000 but even in such countries there should be

an opportunity for more data and information

centralisation while the regions maintain the

responsibility for managing the sites and species

and collecting the information. A centralised

shared data information management structure

with access for all regions would be very useful

from an end user point of view, and would also be

benefiting analysis and reporting.

For example it could be argued that there should

be one central database for all species sites and

habitats per country. This is already often the

case. However, in many cases information specific

to the regional or local implementation and

management of these sites, species and habitats

are only provided at the regional and local level

(websites of local and regional authorities, or

management NGOs / agencies). From these lower

Authorities Normalisation of data is essential to avoid duplication and redundancy which in turn are essential

elements to avoid

internal contradictions in datasets, and outdated data. It is therefore essential to ensure the coherence and quality standards of the data managed by the authorities

(who generally are the data managers)

Citizens The user experience of a shared and coherent data

information system is substantially increased and searches generate

more harmonised results.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

One centralised data storage and management system with specific customised regional or thematic access windows familiarise

the user with the data structure and search tools and the search improves efficiency.

NGOs One centralised data storage and

management system with specific

customised regional or thematic access windows familiarise the user with the data structure and search tools and the search

improves efficiency.


September 2014 164

RECOMMENDATION 9.2.11: Review the data and information structures across

platforms and organisations and analyse where normalisation can lead to simpler

data structures avoiding redundancy of information; Have an EC repository that lists,

describes and disseminates cases of good practice where such an approach actually

works (e.g. France, Sweden).

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

level websites, there is often a link to the

centralised information but not vice versa. Having

direct access to the derogations, EIAs, AAs,

management plans, court rulings etc., within the

centralised database would be a great advance.

Consultants One centralised data storage and management system with specific customised regional

or thematic access windows familiarise the user with the data

structure and search tools and the search improves efficiency.

9.3 How can the management and use of spatial

information be improved?

The INSPIRE Directive, 2007/2/EC aims at improving the access, exchange and

sharing of spatial information. The implementation of INSPIRE will have an impact on

the application of the Birds Directive, 2009/147/EC and Habitats Directive, 92/43/EEC

in many different ways, as these two Directives are dealing with the collection and

creation of new spatial data (e.g. protected sites, habitats, species distribution), the

management and use of these data (e.g. for developing management plans), the

exchange of these data between public authorities (e.g. for reporting obligations), and

the dissemination of data and information to the public. Putting into place INSPIRE will

provide great benefits to the execution of these key tasks related to the

implementation of the BD and HD. A key challenge at EU level is to show Member

States how INSPIRE can help them in fulfilling the requirements of the BD and HD.

Although the INSPIRE Directive primarily focuses on data sharing among public sector

organizations, INSPIRE also has the ambition to better facilitate public access to

spatial information across Europe. The implementation of the INSPIRE Directive will

tackle several key barriers to the access and re-use of spatial data and services:

The creation of metadata and the establishment of discovery and view services

should allow users to easily discover all available data and services of all Member

States and to view most of these data and services free of charge;

As download services for the spatial data sets and services need to be available to

the public, even though they can be charged for by the data providers without any

restrictions, users will be able to download complete datasets or parts of such

datasets and integrate them into their applications

As data providers need to provide information on the conditions applying to access

to, and use of, spatial data sets and services and on the corresponding fees, users

will know under which conditions they can access and re-use data and services

As data need to be made available harmonized to the INSPIRE data specifications,

it will be easier for users to combine data from different sources, even across

borders.


September 2014 165

Citizens and business should be able to easily find information, to view the spatial data

sets and to use the spatial data sets and services without too much difficulty. Public

authorities should make their data and services available in a way that makes it easy

for the user to obtain access. Data providers should not consider INSPIRE as an

obligation, but as an opportunity to facilitate the access to and re-use of data and

services by citizens, businesses and other stakeholders. However, putting into place

INSPIRE for data under the biodiversity themes is a joint responsibility of the

responsible data providers and the national INSPIRE/SDI coordinator. Although

different approaches can be followed for allocating tasks between both parties (i.e.

more decentralized versus more centralized), input is needed from both parties.

Several good practices can be found on how to deal with INSPIRE requirements in

making environmental data accessible:

In Ireland, an ‘INSPIRE Protected Sites Pilot Project’4 was set up by the

Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (DAHG) and the Marine Institute

(MI) to explore the level of effort required to satisfy the Implementing Rules for

INSPIRE Data Specifications and Network Services. The INSPIRE theme ‘Protected

Sites’ was chosen as the central theme of the pilot project. One of the key

activities within the pilot was an assessment of the effort involved in transforming

spatial data under the administration of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the

Gaeltacht and the Marine Institute (MI) into the INSPIRE Protected Sites Data

Specification model. Also the creation of INSPIRE compliant metadata, the

publication of Protected Sites data and metadata through INSPIRE compliant

Network Services, and Data Sharing and Licensing arrangements were addressed

in the pilot project. The work done and the results achieved are well-documented,

and can be of great value for other data providers.

The Environmental Data Portal of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency

(http://mdp.vic-metria.nu/miljodataportalen) provides users access to a broad

range of information about nature and environment, such as environmental

monitoring stations, perimeter and results from surveys and geographic analysis.

Users can search for information geographically or by key word, and can search for

information across Sweden or select a particular area. Metadata are available and

easily accessible, providing the user all the information he needs to understand the

data. Also reference is made to relevant background information, with direct links

to related (non-spatial) information. The map viewer makes it possible to view and

combine different map layers in an easy and straightforward way. Users have

different possibilities to download the data for advanced used in their own GIS

software.

The website of the Environmental Information Network of Andalusia

(REDIAM) provides users access to a variety of environmental information

(http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/site/rediam/portada). REDIAM

focuses on the integration of all environmental information generated by different

data providers in Andalusia. REDIAM explores and uses different channels to make

information available to external users. The information is organized in different

manners and can be explored, viewed and accessed through these different

channels.


4 Report on the pilot project can be found online:

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoa

d,31327,en.pdf

http://mdp.vic-metria.nu/miljodataportalen

http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/medioambiente/site/rediam/portada

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,31327,en.pdf

http://www.environ.ie/en/Publications/DevelopmentandHousing/Planning/FileDownLoad,31327,en.pdf


September 2014 166

RECOMMENDATION 9.3.1: Data providers should make existing data as soon as

possible visible within the INSPIRE infrastructure, through the creation of a national

INSPIRE discovery service defined as INSPIRE endpoint to the European INSPIRE

portal, and harvesting or uploading existing metadata in the central metadata

catalogue, and metadata for all INSPIRE data and services should be completed and

revised.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

According to Article 5(1) of Directive 2007/2/EC,

Member States should ensure that metadata are

created for the spatial data sets and services

corresponding to the themes listed in Annexes I, II

and III, and that those metadata are kept up to

date. The INSPIRE Metadata Regulation (i.e.

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1205/2008

implementing Directive 2007/2/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council as regards

metadata) sets out the requirements for the

creation and maintenance of metadata for spatial

data sets, spatial data set series and spatial data

services corresponding to the themes listed in

Annexes I, II and III of the Directive 2007/2/EC.

It defines a number of metadata elements, their

multiplicities and the value domains to be used.

The creation of metadata, which could be seen as

descriptions of available data sets and services,

will reduce the loss of time and resources in

searching for existing spatial data and/or deciding

whether these data can be used for a particular

purpose.

Moreover, according to Article 11(1) of Directive

2007/2/EC, Member States also need to establish

discovery services that make it possible to search

for spatial data sets and services on the basis of

the content of the corresponding metadata and to

display the content of the metadata. INSPIRE

discovery services allow users and computer

programs to search for spatial datasets and

services based on their metadata records. The

implementation of these discovery services will

also facilitate the search for BD and HD related

spatial data.

In practice different public authorities still create

and maintain their own datasets and services

which are located in various storage collections.

These storage collections are often stored locally

and can be in different forms and formats. To

have a clear overview of the nature of these

datasets and services, metadata should be

created, which is a responsibility of the producers

and providers of the data and services. Often

these metadata are not (yet) INSPIRE compliant.

Authorities Authorities make their data visible through a central

catalogue. Easier for data

providers to share their data with other

governments, partners and the public

Increasing the usage

of data by other users

Authorities will easily discover relevant data sets and services from other data providers

Citizens Easier for citizens to discover relevant data sets and services from different data providers

Reduced expense of time and resources in searching for data and deciding whether data are useful

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Easier for project

developers and land users/owners to discover relevant data sets and services from different data providers

Metadata help project

developers and land users to understand the data and determine the data’s

appropriate uses and context

Reduced expense of time and resources in

searching for data and deciding whether data are useful


September 2014 167

RECOMMENDATION 9.3.1: Data providers should make existing data as soon as

possible visible within the INSPIRE infrastructure, through the creation of a national

INSPIRE discovery service defined as INSPIRE endpoint to the European INSPIRE

portal, and harvesting or uploading existing metadata in the central metadata

catalogue, and metadata for all INSPIRE data and services should be completed and

revised.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

Therefore, the national SDI/INSPIRE coordinator

should take up the role of ‘geo-broker’ or librarian,

and create, fill up and augment a central metadata

catalogue which is a collection of metadata

describing and referencing the storage collections

of different authorities. The geo-broker should

also take up the role as organizer and guide and

support data providers in making their metadata

INSPIRE compliant. As filling up the metadata

catalogue with the various metadata records can

be done in different ways, it should be decided

how metadata from different data sources will be

harvested (pulled) or uploaded (pushed) in the

central catalogue. The national SDI/INSPIRE

coordinator should also be responsible for making

all the resources from the different stakeholders

‘visible’ within the INSPIRE infrastructure. The

implementation of a national INSPIRE discovery

service should support the listing of available

metadata records of the metadata catalogue, but

should also be defined and serve as an INSPIRE

endpoint in order to make it visible at the

European level (INSPIRE geo-portal).

NGOs Easier for NGOs to discover relevant data sets and

services from different data providers

Metadata help NGOs

as data users to understand the data and determine the data’s appropriate

uses and context Reduced expense of

time and resources in searching for data and deciding whether data are useful

Consultants Easier for consultants to discover relevant data sets and services from different data providers

Metadata help

consultants as users to understand the data and determine the data’s appropriate uses and context

Reduced expense of time and resources in

searching for data and deciding whether data are useful


September 2014 168


RECOMMENDATION 9.3.2: On the short term, data providers should prepare a view

service for each of the INSPIRE spatial data sets based on the minimum INSPIRE

portrayal requirements and to make data downloadable via simple ATOM feeds. On

the long term, they should define which more advanced viewing services and more

complex download mechanisms based on WFS should be developed, taking into

account the needs of different user communities.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

View Services make it possible to display,

navigate, zoom in/out, pan or overlay viewable

spatial data sets and to display legend information

and any relevant content of metadata. A view

service offers a map or a presentation of the

features of a defined geographical object from a

dataset. View applications use view services, e.g.

a web application (web map viewer) allowing the

user to view a map, navigate through it and query

the spatial objects. Download services enable

copies of spatial data sets, or parts of such sets, to

be downloaded and, where practicable, accessed

directly. A download service supports the

download of a complete dataset or datasets, or a

part of a dataset or datasets, and where

practicable, provides direct access to complete

datasets or parts of datasets. The implementation

of view and download services will allow users to

view HD and BD related data and integrate these

data in their own applications in an easy and

effective manner.

The implementation of a view service (WMS or

WMTS type of service) is not complex per se.

However, there are some issues to be considered

for this type of services. Organisations might

implement them as ‘simple’ preview mechanisms.

A user typically searches for a particular data set,

finds it, analysis its metadata, pre-view it (how

does it look like) and – when it fits purpose –

download the data set for further use. This pre-

view is a simple map with not too much complex

portrayal, usually only showing the relevant ‘layer’

or theme (e.g. the hydrographic network).

However, this does not necessarily help the user

using the data. A view service is often also needed

to be integrated as one of the layers in a GIS

desktop application, or as part of a web

application. It can be recommended to develop

view services for each spatial data layer

individually, but also aggregated using different

data layers, which facilitates the use of several

layers together. With regard to the portrayal of

data, the INSPIRE data specifications define some

Authorities Download services allow data providers to give users direct access to their

datasets Advanced viewing

services allow to

provide different views on the same data sets, based on the needs of different user communities

View and download services allow public authorities to view and download data

from other data providers and integrate them in their own applications in an efficient way

Citizens View applications using INSPIRE view services allow citizens to view relevant spatial data sets

More advanced viewing services allow citizens to view

data in the most suitable and meaningful way

INSPIRE view and download services enable the development of new and better products

and services for

citizens

Project

developers and

landowners/users

View applications using INSPIRE view services allow project developers and land

users/owners to view relevant spatial data sets

More advanced viewing services


September 2014 169

RECOMMENDATION 9.3.2: On the short term, data providers should prepare a view

service for each of the INSPIRE spatial data sets based on the minimum INSPIRE

portrayal requirements and to make data downloadable via simple ATOM feeds. On

the long term, they should define which more advanced viewing services and more

complex download mechanisms based on WFS should be developed, taking into

account the needs of different user communities.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

very basic rules for portrayal that do not

necessarily provide the optimal portrayal for all

user communities. Users often need more complex

/ standard schema’s or even particular views on

the spatial data set. Although INSPIRE requires

‘only’ at least one view service for each data set

reported under INSPIRE, organizations should

analyse the needs of different user communities in

more detailed to define several ‘views’ on the

same data sets.

For implementing INSPIRE Download Services

public authorities can chose between 3 options:

ATOM Feed providing access to pre-defined

datasets, OGC WFS 2.0 serving pre-defined

datasets and OGC WFS 2.0 serving features

(Direct Access). The Atom syndication format

[ATOM] is a way to implement pre-defined dataset

download services with a minimal implementation

cost and complexity. ATOM provides a simple,

widely understood mechanism for publishing

information on the web in the form of feeds in a

way that is compatible with existing web

architectures. Many tools exist for implementing

ATOM feeds. ATOM is an XML-based document

format that describes lists of related information

known as "feeds". These feeds are then composed

of a number of items, known as "entries", each

with an extensible set of elements that contain

information about the entry.

allow project developers and land

users to view data in the most suitable and meaningful way

If necessary, project developers and land

users can use download services to use and integrate

spatial data in their own applications

NGOs View applications using INSPIRE view services allow NGOs to view relevant

spatial data sets More advanced

viewing services allow NGOs to view data in the most suitable and meaningful way

If necessary, NGOs

can use download services to use and integrate spatial data in their own applications

Consultants View applications using INSPIRE view services allow consultants to view relevant spatial data sets

More advanced viewing services

allow consultants to view data in the most suitable and meaningful way

If necessary,

consultants can use download services to use and integrate

spatial data in their own applications


September 2014 170


RECOMMENDATION 9.3.3: All data providers should analyze their existing spatial data



cooperation with technical experts. Pilot projects (at national or European level)

should be considered as a good instrument to bring different data providers together,

in order to collaboratively explore the data transformation process and stimulate the

exchange of knowledge and experiences.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

A key condition for the exchange of spatial data is

that all data sets share certain characteristics. The

structure of spatial objects, definitions of objects

and mandatory attributes must be comparable and

coherent across different data providers and

across different Member States in order to be

exchanged via services or to be compared. This is

called “interoperability” and the actions

undertaken to achieve this is called “data

harmonisation”. Interoperability means that users

can seamlessly combine spatial information on

many different topics and from different sources

across Europe.

INSPIRE provides a high degree of interoperability

by describing data specifications per theme which

need to be implemented by all Member States. It

means that each data provider must translate/map

the existing data to the INSPIRE data

specifications. In practice data providers might

generate an INSPIRE conformant version of their

existing spatial data sets. Data specifications can

be defined as detailed descriptions of a data set or

data set series together with additional information

that will enable it to be created, supplied to and

used by another party. An INSPIRE data

specification should be seen as the user manual

for anyone that needs to create or modify a

dataset within the scope of INSPIRE. The INSPIRE

data specifications are all build according the same

system or conceptual framework. These concepts

are common to all data specifications. In addition

to that the data specifications contain a variable

part which contains theme specific requirements

and suggestions.

In practice, thematic data are often offered in

various formats/data structures to meet different

user requirements. To bring a certain data set in

the desired target format (data specification) a

transformation process is needed. The complexity

of this process will be determined by the

divergence of the source data with respect to the

target data. The INSPIRE data harmonisation

Authorities Data harmonization increases the usability of spatial

data Public authorities can

easily combine their own datasets with datasets on many different topics and from different sources

A ‘pilot project’ based approach allows

public authorities to learn from the experiences of other data providers

Citizens Cross-sectoral and cross-country data

interoperability

increases the usability of spatial data for information provision, decision making and service delivery to citizens

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers and land users using spatial data themselves will be able to seamlessly combine spatial data

on many different topics and from different sources across Europe.

Cross-sectoral and

cross-country data interoperability increases the

usability of spatial data for information provision, decision making and service delivery to project developers and land users/owners


September 2014 171

RECOMMENDATION 9.3.3: All data providers should analyze their existing spatial data



cooperation with technical experts. Pilot projects (at national or European level)

should be considered as a good instrument to bring different data providers together,

in order to collaboratively explore the data transformation process and stimulate the

exchange of knowledge and experiences.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

(transformation) process can be subdivided into

two major phases:

1. Semantic harmonisation: in this phase the

terms and concepts of the source data model must

be translated to the classes and definitions as

described in the INSPIRE data specifications. This

phase requires the knowledge of a domain expert

who can interpret the definitions in both models,

find the correspondences between elements of the

source and target schema and if necessary define

the transformation rules needed to convert source

elements to target elements;

2. Technical harmonisation: in this phase the

conversion takes place from the source data

format (using the source data model) to the

exchange format of INSPIRE (using the model as

described in the data specifications), making use

of the mapping and mapping rules defined in the

semantic harmonisation phase. This phase is

typically performed by a technical expert (with

knowledge/experience in

databases/GML/UML/ETL).

This division is often only schematic, during the

working process the two phases will take place in

parallel, and the thematic expert and the technical

expert work in cooperation with each other. In

most cases, the thematic expert will be provided

by the data provider, while the technical expert

will be somebody from the national SDI/INSPIRE

body or from a third party (e.g. private companies,

universities).

NGOs NGOs using spatial data themselves will be able to seamlessly combine spatial data on many different topics and from

different sources across Europe.

Application of INSPIRE data specifications enables NGOs collecting their own data to easily combine these data with other – government – data

Cross-sectoral and cross-country data interoperability increases the usability of spatial data for information provision, decision

making and service

delivery to project developers

Consultants Consultants using spatial data themselves will be able to seamlessly

combine spatial data on many different topics and from different sources across Europe.

Cross-sectoral and cross-country data interoperability

increases the usability of spatial data for information

provision, decision making and service delivery to consultants


September 2014 172


RECOMMENDATION 9.3.4: Each data provider should review and simplify its

arrangements for providing public access to spatial information and make them

compliant with INSPIRE as soon as possible. It is suggested that view services

providing public access to nature data and the nature data themselves are offered

free of charge since they are collected as part of environmental reporting obligations .

Most other view services are preferably free as well, while access to services can only

be limited under well-specified conditions. Data providers should define the use

conditions of each data set and services by making use of the two INSPIRE model

licenses or other (national) model licenses.

BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

The INSPIRE Directive contains some basic

principles for providing public access to spatial

information. Member States have the

responsibility to define and implement concrete

measures to take into account these principles:

Member States need to establish different

kinds of services for their spatial data sets

and services and these services need to be

available to the public and accessible via

the Internet or any other appropriate

means of telecommunication.

Public access to discovery services needs

to be free of charge. This also applies to

view services, unless charges would secure

the maintenance of the spatial data sets

and services, particularly in cases

involving very large volumes of frequently

updated data. Other services, such as

download services, can be charged for by

the public bodies without any restrictions.

Public access to data and services can be

limited under certain conditions which are

laid down clearly in the Directive. Access

to discovery services can only be limited

when “such access would adversely affect

international relations, public security or

national defense”. Access to the other type

of network services and the corresponding

spatial data can, besides the already

mentioned reasons for discovery services

be limited for various other reasons: e.g.

to protect personal data, for IPR reasons,

or to protect e.g. rare species/habitats.

However such limitations “shall be

interpreted in a restrictive way” and “the

Authorities Public authorities can

make use of model licenses for defining the use conditions of their data sets and services

Standard data and service sharing arrangements avoid

that individual arrangements should be created on an ad hoc basis

Clear and common data and service sharing arrangements also

facilitate the access

to data and services from other data providers

Citizens Citizens will be able

to easily view the spatial data sets and

to find information

on how they get access to data and services and under

which conditions and charges they can do so.

Project

developers and

landowners/users

Project developers and land

users/owners will be

able to easily view the spatial data sets and to find information on how they get access to data and services and under which

conditions and charges they can do so.


September 2014 173










BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

public interest served by disclosure shall

be weighed against the interest served by

limiting or conditioning the access”.

Besides these principles, it is suggested to public

authorities to make their data and services

available in a way that makes it easy for the

citizen to obtain access. Citizens and businesses

should know where they can find data and

services. The data and services shall at least be

discoverable through EU INSPIRE portal and might

also be discoverable through other portals in the

countries. Effective search mechanisms should

allow them to find out which data and services are

available and where they can be found. There

should also be a clear process for the public to

access data and services. Clear, complete and

user-friendly information should be provided on

how citizens can obtain access to data and

services and under which conditions and charges

they can do so.

The issue of ‘(commercial) re-use’ of spatial data

and services is not directly addressed in the

Directive and related regulation. However, the

Directive itself recognizes the importance of

stimulating the development of added-value

services by third parties. There is a need for

providing third parties access to data and services

with conditions that do not restrict the use. Public

authorities should decide whether data will be

available for commercial re-use, and under which

conditions. Licenses are good mechanisms to give

organizations and people the permission to use

spatial data sets and services. A license is legally

binding, and defines the conditions of use of the

related spatial data sets and services. All public

authorities providing spatial data sets and services

should make use of a limited number of standard

licenses, based on harmonized licensing terms. All

issues relevant for licensing should be clearly and

concisely described in the licenses. The terms used

in the licenses should be expressed in such a way

that everyone (producers and users) can

understand them. Licenses should be discussed

Use of model licences harmonises the licensing conditions

for different data

NGOs NGOs will be able to easily view the

spatial data sets and

to find information

on how they get access to data and services and under which conditions and

charges they can do so.


for different data

Consultants Consultants will be able to easily view the spatial data sets

and to find

information on how they get access to

data and services and under which conditions and charges they can do so.


for different data


September 2014 174










BACKGROUND END-USER

GROUP BENEFITS

and prepared internally before an actual request to

use data is made. Especially click-licenses and

license statements offer fast and efficient access

to data and services.

9.4 Improving online information: a possible SIIF?

When MS have reporting obligations to the EC description is provided as to how

information can be organized and presented to reach compliance. Similarly, where

there are requirements on information disclosure, for every key obligation in a

Directive, it could be defined how the relevant compliance and implementation

information can be organized and presented online by MS. Such descriptions have

been referred to as SIIFs - "Structured Implementation and Information Frameworks".

A SIIF could be:

A common understanding between EC and MS of what information should appear

online in relation to the specific duties of a Directive. It might take the form of an

EC check list, aide memoire, guidance or template – and be complemented by

similar MS documents to take account of each MS own internal specificities. At this

level, a SIIF is no different from other subject-areas of guidance.

Information systems at MS level which present the relevant information online in

accordance with the SIIF checklist. These information systems can be organized in

different ways. The main point is that they should allow easy access to the

information that counts, where INSPIRE likely involves upgrading of information

systems anyway.

Information systems at EU level which serve the information needs related to

specific duties - the database for Article 4 of the Habitats Directive is a good

example. Thanks to reporting and mandatory data-flows to the EC, the EC has

built information systems at EU level before it has involved itself in information

systems at national level. However, the two levels should be complementary.

The SIIF concept answers to four distinct types of information objectives in the EU

environmental policy: (1) to generate information and data, (2) to actively

disseminate environmental information, (3) to make spatial data more usable, and (4)

to assure the quality of environmental information.


September 2014 175

The SIIF core elements are:

National information portals or one-stop-shop on environmental legislation (to link

to regional or other portals where relevant);

Clear information on the EU legislation, i.e. its text, national transposition and any

relevant explanations;

Contact details for responsible authorities (who is responsible for what and

where?);

Complaint resolution mechanisms (where established);

Guide(s) for citizens and authorities to explain key aspects of implementation;

Online presentation of information that is key to understanding implementation

and compliance;

In case of non-compliance, additional information on what actions are being taken

to achieve compliance;

Appropriate links to, and inter-operability with, related EU level information

systems.

More information on http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/x_wise-reporting/library/further-

wise-development-brainstorming/siif-and-wise/point-4-siif-

overview/download/1/Point%204%20-%20SIIF%20overview.docx

As an expression of SEIS, SIIFs would reflect the 7 now widely-endorsed SEIS

principles, i.e. Information should be:

1 Managed as close as possible to its source.

2 Collected once, and shared with others for many purposes.

3 Readily available to easily fulfil reporting obligations.

4 Easily accessible to all users.

5 Accessible to enable comparisons at the appropriate geographical scale, and

citizen participation.

6 Fully available to the general public, and at the national level in the relevant

national language(s).

7 Supported through common, free open software standards.

Potential suggestions on how to develop the SIIF concept:

Thematic clustering of key articles of EC legislation provides a pragmatic

approach (see Chapter 2.2)

Development of a SIIF Guidance document with focus on 1°/ contents,

2°/ structuring information, 3°/ INSPIRE compliance

Preparation of case studies overview with regard to wider application of

online information with regard to specific EC legislation (e.g. commercial

use, more efficient e-government approaches for example in the field of

development consent and permit granting process).

http://forum.eionet.europa.eu/x_wise-reporting/library/further-wise-development-brainstorming/siif-and-wise/point-4-siif-overview/download/1/Point%204%20-%20SIIF%20overview.docx




l

10 References

Literature

Auer, S. R., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R.. & Ives, Z. (2007)

DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. The Semantic Web. Lecture Notes in

Computer Science 4825.

Reports

European Commission (2009) Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds. Official Journal

of the European Union 26.1.2010.

European Commission (2009) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the

conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. 1992L0043-EN-

01.01.2007-005.001-2.

UNECE (1998) Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-

making and access to justice in environmental matters. Aarthus, Denmark on 25 June

1998.

European Commission (2003) Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and

repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union

14.2.2003.

European Commission (1990) Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the

freedom of access to information on the environment. Official Journal of the European

Union 23.6.1990.

European Commission (2007) Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing and Infrastructure for Spatial Information in

the European Community (INSPIRE). Official Journal of the European Union

25.5.2007.

European Commission (2006) Nature and biodiversity cases ruling of the European

Court of Justice. Luxembourg ISBN 92-97-02561.

European Commission (2013) Commission Staff working document. EU Shared

Environmental Information System Implementation Outlook. Brussels 25.1.2013.

Websites:

[EEA] European Environmental Agency (2014) Natura2000 Network Viewer. Available

on the website: http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/. Visited on 02.2014.

European Commission (2014a) INSPIRE Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the

European Community. Available on the website: http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/. Visited

on 02.2014.

European Commission (2014b) INSPIRE GEOPORTAL Enhancing access to European

spatial data. Available on the website: http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/. Visisted

on 02.2014.

http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/

http://inspire-geoportal.ec.europa.eu/


September 2014 178

European Commission (2014c) Management of Natura 2000 sites. Available on the

website:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#

art6. Visited on 02.2014.

United Nations (2013) Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions,

geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings. Available on

the website: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm. Visited on

02.2014.

European Union (2014) List of countries, Member states of the EU. Available on the

website: http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/. Visisted on 02.2014.

Wikipedia (2014a) List of European Union member states by political system. Available

on the website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_political_sys

tem. Visited on 02.2014.

Wikipedia (2014b) Member states of the European Union. Available on the website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union. Visited on

02.2014.

European Commission (2014d) Natura 2000 Barometer. Available on the website:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/. Visited on 02.2014.

Kantor, P. L. (2003), Information Structures. Available on the website:

http://academ.hvcc.edu/∼kantopet/site_design/index.php?page=info+structures&pare

nt=organizing+info. Visited on 02.2014.

Books:

Janssen, K. (2010) The availability of spatial and environmental data in the EU. At the

crossroads between public and economic interests. Kluwer Law International ISBN:

9041132872.

Vu, K.P.L., Proctor, R.W., & Garcia, F.P. (2012) Website design and evaluation.

Chapter 48 from the Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, Fourth Edition.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/guidance_en.htm#art6

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm

http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_political_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_Union_member_states_by_political_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/barometer/

Active dissemination of environmental information in relation...

Documents

Transcript of Active dissemination of environmental information in relation...